# 2016-222 - Cadet Organizations Administration and Training Service (COATS), Reserve Employment Opportunity (REO)
Cadet Organizations Administration and Training Service (COATS), Reserve Employment Opportunity (REO)
F&R Date: 2017–02–07
The grievor challenged the result of a reserve employment opportunity (REO) selection board. She argued that she was the only non-annuitant Cadet Organization Administration and Training Service (COATS) applicant for the position; and, as such, she should have been given preference for the position in accordance with the human resources directive (“the Directive”) issued by the Commander of the National Cadet and Junior Canadian Rangers Support Group (Comd Natl CJCR Sp Gp).
As the initial authority (IA), the Comd Natl CJCR Sp Gp offered the grievor an informal resolution (IR) of conducting a new selection board in accordance with the applicable policies. The new selection board examined the applications, but an annuitant applicant was once again selected. As the grievor had accepted the IR, the IA declared that she had forfeited her right to grieve the issue any further pursuant to article 7.26 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces.
The Committee found that both the Directive issued by the Comd Natl CJCR Sp Gp and the REO competition notice itself clearly established a prioritized staffing approach for filling full-time positions. Both documents were unambiguous in stating that suitably qualified non-annuitant COATS applicants were to be given preference over annuitants. In reviewing the grievor's personnal evaluation reports and other documents on the file, the Committee found that there was no doubt that the grievor was suitably qualified for the position and therefore should have been awarded it in accordance with the Directive.
The Committee recommended that the grievor be awarded the position as per the terms of the original REO.
FA Decision Summary
The FA agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendation. The FA found that the instructions promulgated to the Selection Board were incorrect and in contravention with the published REO and HR Implementation Directive. Given that during the IR process, the grievor was found suitable and an annuitant could not be employed under option 1, she was the only candidate that should have received an employment offer. As such, the FA granted the remedy sought, and that the grievor be offered a Cl B in the position in question.
Report a problem or mistake on this page
- Date modified: