# 2017-010 - Cadet Organizations Administration and Training Service (COATS), Class B Reserve Service, Reserve Employment Process

Cadet Organizations Administration and Training Service (COATS), Class B Reserve Service, Reserve Employment Process

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2017–08–11

The grievor, a member of the Cadet Organizations and Administration Training Service (COATS), disputed the fact that he was not hired for any of eight key positions within a Regional Cadet Support Unit (RCSU).

The RCSU Commanding Officer (CO) used an internal competency based appointment (CBA) process to fill eight key positions from 12 interested candidates. During the CBA process, a merit list was established. The top eight candidates were then assigned to positions based on an assessment of their competencies. The grievor was not ranked within the top eight on the merit list and so was not assessed for a position.

The grievor argued that the CO failed to follow the Human Resources Directive (HR Directive) promulgated by the Commander (Comd) of the National Cadet and Junior Canadian Ranger Support Group (Comd Natl CJCR Sp Gp) by inappropriately using merit scores to exclude some candidates before proceeding with the CBA process.

The Initial Authority (IA), the Comd Natl CJCR Sp Gp, denied redress, finding that the top eight candidates on the merit list were selected based on having met the desired criteria for the positions. As there were no positions left for the remaining four individuals on the merit list, the IA concluded that there was no need for competency assessments for those candidates.

The Committee contacted the Director Military Careers Policy and Grievances (DMCPG) 2-4 as a subject matter expert (SME) for the CF Military Personnel Instruction 20/04 (CF Mil Pers Instr 20/04), for insight regarding the use of the CBA process and “bona fide career management decisions”. She stated that a bona fide career management decision (upon which the CBA process is premised) can be used instead of a competitive process when there are valid reasons for it. In a previous file the Committee had also been advised by DMCPG-2 that the bona-fide career management decision is used by management in lieu of competing the position when no other suitable candidate is available.

The Committee found, based on the provisions of the CF Mil Pers Instr 20/04 and the SME comments, that that the CBA process discussed in the HR Directive should be a non-competitive process available to management in the appropriate circumstances. As such, the Committee found that using a merit board to exclude four candidates from participating in the CBA process was neither fair nor a proper execution of the CBA concept as described in the HR Directive. Consequently the Committee found that the results of the CBA process could not stand.

The Committee took the position that the bona fide career management decision in the CF Mil Pers Instr 20/04 is to be used in exceptional circumstances – when someone has the skills and qualifications needed for a position. The appointment should be compliant with a specific individual career plan, and there should be no other suitable candidate. However, in this case, the CBA process was used to consider, and compete, 12 applicants for eight key positions within the RCSU. As a result, the Committee found that the construct of the CBA process in the HR Directive contravened the hiring provisions of the CF Mil Pers Instr 20/04. The Committee concluded that the eight positions in dispute should be properly competed using the competitive process.

The Committee also reiterated its recent systemic recommendation that until such time as the CF Mil Pers Instr 20/04 is amended, it should remain the authority for hiring practices.

The Committee recommended that the Final Authority direct that the eight key positions at the RCSU be re-staffed in accordance with the provisions of CF Mil Pers Instr 20/04.

FA Decision Summary

FA Decision Pending

Page details

Date modified: