Selection Boards

There are 2 issues related to topic "Selection Boards".

Topic

Selection Boards

Case number

• 2010-047 (F&R Date: 2011–08–31)

Description

The grievor claimed a lack of rigour and transparency in the selection process of applicants interested in the Canadian Forces Command and Staff (CFCS) course. According to the grievor, the selection of proposed applicants was left to the discretion of the regiment, without any consideration given to the promotion lists issued by the career managers. He alleged that several evaluation criteria for the selection of applicants were based on age, which is discriminatory.

Regarding the allegation about the lack of transparency in the selection process, the Board noted that the file contained very little information on the criteria considered by the Regimental Committee in order to determine the placement of the grievor on the list submitted to the Selection Committee. The Canadian Forces (CF) did not provide any documents that might explain the decision-making process of the Regimental Committee and of the career manager, how the criteria were rated, and the importance given to the remaining years of service before attaining 35 years of service. Furthermore, despite the steps taken by the Board staff, apparently there is no record of the discussions and decisions taken by the Regimental Committee and the career manager during the selection process of potential applicants for the CFCS course.

The Board believed that the process used to make a decision about a very important career phase for the grievor was, and may still be, a problem from a legal standpoint. For example, the grievor had not been informed of the criteria taken into consideration during the evaluation process of applicants, how those criteria were used, or the importance given to each criterion. Based on the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) decision in the Zimmerman case, the Board found that the selection process of applicants interested in the CFCS course for the year in question revealed an important lack of transparency that had an impact on its fairness and that the Regimental Committee’s recommendation stemmed from an unfair process, nullifying the grievor’s ranking.

Recommendation

In light of the FCA decision in the Zimmerman case, the Board recommended that, as part of the selection processes for courses, the Infantry implement an evaluation process that meets the legal requirements of fairness and transparency.

In order to ensure the transparency of the selection process at the regimental and career manager levels, the Board also recommended the implementation of the following practices, if they were not currently part of the procedure: that the applicants be informed of the criteria to be considered by the Regimental Committee and the career manager, that the applicants be informed of their weaknesses in connection with the criteria considered, and/or that records be kept on the criteria considered and the resolutions decided upon while selecting applicants for courses that can have an impact on their career, such as the Canadian Forces Command and Staff course.

Final Authority Decision

The CDS agrees with the Board’s systemic recommendation to make the candidate selection process more transparent. He has therefore requested that the Commander of the Canadian Army ensure that the greatest transparency possible be evidenced in the selection of candidates for the CFCS course and that the Regimental sponsors and the Infantry Career Manager give a full debriefing to each of the candidates.

Topic

Selection Boards

Case number

• 2011-024 (F&R Date: 2011–05–10)

Description

In the review of this grievance, the Board found that the scoring criteria used by the 2009 and 2010 Artillery Major selection boards were unfair and placed members who had not been ranked at the unit/formation/command level at a distinct disadvantage.  This finding was not limited to the grievor, but included all Artillery Majors who were reviewed by these selection boards.  In addition, there was evidence that all Army selection boards used these same faulty scoring criteria.  If this proves to be the case, the Board found that there was a requirement for a systemic review and reconvening of all of these selection boards to ensure that all members were correctly ranked using fair scoring criteria.

 

Recommendation

The Board recommended that the CDS direct a review of all Army 2009 and 2010 selection boards to determine the validity of the scoring criteria used, and if necessary, order that all these selection boards be redone using scoring criteria that do not assign specific scores, or scoring brackets to ranked PERs, thereby setting unfair, artificial limits to those that were not ranked.

Final Authority Decision

The Board's systemic recommendation was addressed since a review of the selection board scoring criteria was completed.  NDHQ has realized that the practice of providing points to ranked individuals at selection boards is inequitable. As a result, a review of the selection board scoring was completed and, commencing with the 2011 annual selection boards, the scores were not specifically assigned to the occupation, unit or formation ranking. Instead, the ranking simply enabled the boards to place the PER into perspective and permit flexibility to assign points based on the quality of the candidate rather than the vagaries of unit size and composition.