# 2020-029 Careers, Promotion, Career progression

Promotion, Career progression

Case summary

F&R Date: 2021-08-27

The grievor did not agree with the fact that the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) offered him the “Basic Electronic Warfare" (BEW) course in English only. He alleged that he had the right to instruction in the official language of his choice and to be both supervised and evaluated in that language, regardless of the language of the unit. Furthermore, the grievor explained that he had to leave the course because he was not sufficiently proficient in his second language. Furthermore, he stated that the CAF did not offer him second language training despite the fact that his proficiency in English was essential to his career progression. According to the grievor, the CAF's failures unduly delayed his promotion. As redress, he requested a retroactive promotion, on an acting basis, to the rank of Sergeant.

The Initial Authority (IA) denied the grievance, concluding that the decision not to promote the grievor was justified, as he did not meet the applicable promotion criteria. Furthermore, the IA noted that the grievor's personnel evaluation reports (PER) were not sufficiently competitive to reach the selection boards.   

The Committee found that there were several failures to respect the grievor's language rights in the training and supervision provided by the CAF. However, it noted that the CAF had provided the grievor with second language training, that the grievor was successful in his  learning and that he was progressing well in his career. The Committee stated that if the grievor was unable to understand his PERs because they were written in English, or if he believed that they did not represent his performance and potential, the grievor was entitled to file a grievance within the prescribed period.  

The Committee concluded that the grievor having to leave the BEW course did not impact his right to equal opportunities for success, employment and advancement. Specifically, after leaving the course, the grievor continued to occupy the same position and the tasks assigned were not associated with electronic warfare.

Finally, the Committee concluded that the decision not to promote the grievor was justified because the grievor's PER had been deemed unsatisfactory compared to those of his peers.

The Committee recommended the Final Authority not grant the grievor redress. 

Report a problem or mistake on this page
Please select all that apply:

Thank you for your help!

You will not receive a reply. For enquiries, contact us.

Date modified: