# 2017-079 - Career Progression, Specialist Pay

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2018–02–26

As part of an occupational transfer, the grievor chose to undertake his training at a college through the Non-Commissioned Member Subsidized Training and Education Plan – Regular Force. He was contesting the amount of time it took between his transfer and attendance at his Qualification Level (QL) 5 course, which he maintains was much longer than what the Canadian Armed Forces told him it would be. He maintains that he expected to participate in an abridged version of the QL3 course and an on-the-job (OTJ) training period that was shorter and that also could have taken place during the school break. The grievor also maintains that it is unfair that CAF members who are training entirely within the military system reach the QL5 level in less time than those who are trained through a subsidized education program.

The Initial Authority denied the grievance on the grounds that it had not been submitted within the required timeframe. The Director General Canadian Forces Grievance Authority accepted the grievance at the Final Authority level in the interests of justice.

The school that was responsible for the QL3 course explained to the Committee that the benefits that had been expected from the abridged version of the course never materialized, which had led to the course's cancellation. Nevertheless, the Committee found that the grievor's participation in the QL3 course did not delay his completion of the QL5 course. With respect to the OJT, the Committee noted that the normal duration of the OJT for the occupation in question was 12 to 18 months, while the grievor's OJT took 24 months. The Committee nevertheless noted that, in the grievor's case, that period was interspersed with five weeks of parental leave. The Committee also found that it would have been unreasonable for the grievor to start his OJT before completing his educational training. Therefore, the length of the OJT was justified. At the time that he changed occupation, the grievor was offered the choice between strictly military training and college training. The Committee found that the grievor knowingly elected college training in order to obtain a college diploma, a benefit that the other option would not have conferred. For those reasons, the Committee recommended that the grievance be denied.

FA Decision Summary

FA Decision Pending