# 2018-043 Careers, Reserve Employment Opportunity, Reserve Force
Reserve Employment Opportunity (REO), Reserve Force
Case summary
F&R Date: 2019-01-03
The grievor, an officer in the Reserve Force, complained that the Reserve Employment Opportunity (REO) hiring process was conducted improperly, resulting in his non-selection for the position. The grievor contended that he was the only suitable at rank applicant and that he would have been selected for the position if the REO process had not incorrectly accepted and considered several non-officer applicants. As redress, the grievor sought a review of the disputed REO process and to be offered the position in question.
The Initial Authority (IA), the Brigade Commander, denied redress, finding that the disputed REO process was conducted in accordance with higher Command policy. In particular, the IA explained that due to a shortage of qualified officers throughout the Army Reserve, allowances have been made for Senior Non Commissioned members to fill typical officer billets, and that the advertisement was written in such a way to attract the most qualified personnel available.
The Committee first obtained advice from Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) subject matter experts regarding CAF policy for the hiring of Reservists. This advice confirmed that the REO must respect the established rank for the position being competed and filled. The Committee then found that the position in question was established for the rank of Captain/Lieutenant (Capt/Lt) but the REO had also solicited and accepted applications from those holding ranks between Sergeant and Chief Warrant Officer. Although the grievor was found suitable for the position by the REO process, the winning applicant was not an officer. The Committee found the selected candidate to be ineligible for the position in accordance with the provisions of the Canadian Forces Military Personnel Instruction 20/04. As such, the Committee concluded that the grievor was in fact the only qualified applicant at the correct rank for the position and that he should have been selected.
The Committee recommended that the grievor be offered the position in question [or a similar position] for a three-year period, and that he be provided any relocation benefits to which he was entitled.
The Committee also observed that the incorrect REO hiring process employed by the Army Reserve in this case may not be an isolated incident, and that the Chief of Military Personnel may wish to investigate further.
FA decision summary
The Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) agreed with the Committee's recommendation that the grievance be upheld. The CDS found that the REO process was "fatally flawed and not compliant with the applicable policies". The CDS reiterated that section 4.7 of the CF Mil Pers Instr 20/04 provides that "a person in an established or temporary position shall only be under-ranked by one rank and under ranking shall only be used in those exceptional cases where no other candidate is available". He found that the range of "Sergeant to Captain used to advertise a Capt/Lt position in the REO is not permitted" and that the three non-commissioned members who had applied "were ineligible to apply for the position given that they were not one rank under the intended position requirements". The CDS found that giving priority to local candidates could not outweigh the rank requirement stipulated in the Chief Military Personnel policy. The CDS noted that the grievor was not alone in his situation and directed the Commander Canadian Army to ensure a review of Army reserve hiring processes is conducted to ensure compliance with the CF Mil Pers Instr 20/04, so that those found to be in contravention be re-staffed.
Page details
- Date modified: