# 2021-157 Careers, Harassment, Selection Board, Succession Planning

Case summary

F&R Date: 2022-11-18

The grievor contended that they suffered from intentional discrimination by a commander based on gender, religion, language, military culture, and return to duty status, in order to give preference to another candidate for a command appointment. The grievor further argued that the remedial measure she received by the commander, which was later quashed through a separate grievance, further solidified the preference for the other candidate for this appointment. The grievor stated that the commander as well as the other candidate deliberately isolated and undermined her, eventually leading to her removal from her position so the other candidate could assume the role. The grievor also shared their concerns over the commander not following up on a verbal harassment complaint brought forward regarding the behavior of the other candidate. In regard to the 2021 command selection process, the grievor indicated it did not exhibit fairness and transparency, nor did it benefit from a promotion selection board, and that the decision was based solely on the recommendation of the commander. As redress, the grievor requested that the candidate's appointment be set aside, that a new command selection process in line with applicable policy take place and that the command selection process undergo a full review for the implementation of a fair and transparent process.

There is no Initial Authority analysis or decision on file.

The Committee conducted a review of the grievor's submissions and gathered additional information and evidence related to the 2021 command selection process. The Committee found that the decision to appoint the other candidate for the position was based solely off a discussion during an Armed Forces Council Executive meeting and that no formalized selection process was conducted until after the appointment was publicly announced and the grievor submitted their original grievance. The Committee also found that neither the original process, nor the post announcement command selection process were in accordance with policy. The Committee reviewed the files as they should have been prepared for candidates eligible for promotion and appointment to command position if a selection board had taken place in 2020. Following its review of the candidates' files against the approved scoring criteria, the Committee determined that if a promotion selection board had taken place as required, that the grievor likely would have received the highest score. Although this would not have guaranteed the grievor's selection for the command appointment, the Committee found that the grievor had been aggrieved by not receiving proper consideration for promotion and appointment to the command position, and that while the Chief of the Defense Staff does have discretion on who is chosen for senior appointments, that discretion is not unlimited and must be justified and exercised reasonably.

The Committee recommended to the Final Authority to afford the grievor an appropriate remedy and that the harassment complaint that was not followed up by the commander against the other candidate be addressed, and to allow the grievor to submit a written complaint to determine if an investigation is required.

FA decision summary

The Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) partially agreed with the Committee's recommendation to uphold the grievance. The CDS noted that harassment may include the abuse of authority including improper use of power or authority to interfere with or influence the career of an individual, and behaviour such as favouritism/dis-favouritism. He stated that allegation of harassment should always be taken seriously and that the chain of command should have allowed the grievor to submit a formal complaint. The CDS found that it would be inappropriate for him to make findings on these allegations without the benefit of a harassment investigation. He invited the grievor to pursue the option of submitting a formal complaint.

The CDS explained the selection board process for Col/Capt(N) to BGen/Cmdre, noting that he only makes recommendation to the Minister of National Defence. The CDS found that the composition of the supplemental selection board held in addressing the grievance was diverse and unbiased. He found that the Committee's analysis, while informative, was not determinative nor convincing since the Committee does not has the experience nor expertise in conducting merit boards. The CDS also noted that there was no specific findings of discrimination against the grievor in a workplace assessment. The CDS accepted the Committee's statements that the decision to select a member for promotion, while discretionary, must be reasonable and justified. He is not bound by the input of the selection board and it is his prerogative to accept or reject the advice he receives. Similarly, the Medical disposition note can also reject his recommendation. The CDS found that the selection of the Chaplain General was reasonable and justified, and that the grievor's file was properly considered.