# 2018-063 Careers, Promotion, Selection Board
Promotion, Selection Board
Case summary
F&R Date: 2019-12-19
The grievor was a naval warfare officer (NWO) in the Staff sub-occupation at the rank of Commander. Between 2014 and 2017, the grievor ranked amongst the top candidates for promotion in the Staff sub-occupation but was not promoted as all promotions to the rank of Captain (Navy) (Capt(N)) were, without exception, granted to candidates from the Surface and Sub-surface Command (SSC) sub-occupation. The grievor argued that the Royal Canadian Navy's (RCN) practices unjustly precluded promotion to the rank of Capt(N).
Six months after the grievance's submission, the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) had yet to identify the proper Initial Authority and the grievor requested its referral to the Final Authority (FA).
The Committee reviewed the evolution of the NWO occupational structure. It found that the RCN's practices precluded the promotion of officers from the Staff sub-occupation, contrary to NWO's occupation specifications that provided for promotion to the rank of Capt(N) from both the SSC and the Staff sub-occupations. The Committee reviewed the NWO selection boards from 2014 to 2016 and found that the grievor ranked amongst the top NWO, both sub-occupations combined, but was never promoted. The Committee therefore recommended that the grievor be retroactively promoted to the rank of Capt(N) from the 2014 selection board list.
FA decision summary
The Acting Chief of the Defence Staff (A/CDS) agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendation to afford redress to the grievor. On the grievor's previous grievance, the former Chief of the Defence Staff determined that her exclusion from the Selection Board Candidates List was unfair and in contravention of policy. As a result, he granted partial redress by ordering that a supplemental board be conducted. Although his decision was quickly implemented and that the grievor ranked in position 1A on the supplemental board, the grievor was not promoted. In this grievance, the Committee found that the RCN's promotion philosophy for the most senior ranks to be unfair and unjustified. The A/CDS agreed with the Committee's findings and found that when the two merit lists were created for promotion to the rank of Capt(N), the occupational review failed to attribute establishment positions to the “Staff” sub-occupation. As a result, the RCN's promotion practises lacked transparency and increased the level of subjectivity. Without specific positions attributed for “Staff” list at the Capt(N) rank, it would be impossible to identify the number of appropriate vacancies in the total establishment for the member's component as stipulated in the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces (QR&O) 11.02. Therefore, the A/CDS concluded that an equitable number of positions should have been allocated to both streams. The A/CDS found that the fact that the grievor was not promoted to be highly unusual especially given that there was a documented viable service requirement within the Chief of Military Personnel (CMP) organization for someone with proven leadership and potential who was post-command and experienced in human resources. As a result, the A/CDS exercised his authority under QR&O 11.02(2) and promote the grievor retroactively to Capt(N). The A/CDS will be looking to the Commander of the RCN (Cmdr RCN) to confirm to him that the unfair practice has been suspended indefinitely and that those who have not commanded a major warship yet boast strong leadership potential are still considered for the most senior positions to assist in leading the CAF into the future. The A/CDS directed Comd RCN - supported by CMP - to initiate a comprehensive review of the RCN's long-standing tradition of exclusive promotion practices and to renew the Navy's senior leader selection process.
Page details
- Date modified: