# 2013-076 Careers, Promotion, Promotion Criteria, Reserve Force

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2013–12–30

.The grievor disagreed with her Commanding Officer (CO)'s decision, on two occasions, not to promote her to the rank of Master-Corporal (Mcpl): once during her transfer to the unit and then during a period of Class B reserve service with another unit. In both cases, the grievor indicated that she had been placed in Mcpl positions and that she met all the conditions for promotion.

The grievor's CO served as Initial Authority (IA). Although he agreed with the grievor regarding her skills to be considered for a promotion, the CO indicated that he had determined, during a selection board, that the grievor did not meet one of the eligibility criteria from the Land Force Command Order (LFCO) 11-71, ie, that the applicant must have at least one personnel evaluation report recommending "immédiate" promotion. The IA accordingly denied the grievance.

The Committee first found that the CO should have withdrawn as IA since he was reviewing his own decision or, at the very least, a decision in which he had played an active and personal role. The Committeed also determined that the CO had not held a selection board as specified in LFCO 11-71 and was therefore prohibited from using the criteria of this order to justify his decision.

The Committee therefore reassessed the grievor's case based on the evaluation criteria contained in Canadian Forces Administrative Order 49-5 and found that the grievor met the eligibility criteria for promotion to the rank of MCpl. The Committee noted, however, that it was up to the chain of command to fill or not a vacant positions based on the operational requirement. Having confirmed With the unit that there had been no promotions to the rank of MCpl in the grievor's military occupation during the period covered by the grievance, the Committee concluded there was no need for a substantive promotion under the circumstances.

Having also confirmed that the grievor had not performed the tasks and functions of an MCpl, whether in her home unit or in her employing unit during her period of Class B reserve service, the Committee found that an acting promotion was not called for under the circumstances.

The Committee recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff deny the grievance.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2014–12–18

The CDS does not agree with the Committee that the grievor was not aggrieved. The CDS agrees with the Committee that the lack of transparency in the process of making the decision to not appoint the grievor Master Corporal leaves some question about whether the decision was fair and equitable. Like the Committee, the CDS concluded that the grievor met all the conditions under article 11.02 of the QR&O. However, unlike the Committee, the CDS concluded that there was an operational need. It took more than a year before the chain of command finally clarified its position on the grievor's transfer, and the CDS concluded that, in the circumstances surrounding the management of this transfer, it was reasonable for the grievor to expect to be appointed. The CDS therefore upheld the grievance and appointed the grievor Master Corporal as of October 2012.

Considering the context and given that the responses provided by the grievor's unit to the Committee appeared to it to be incomplete and inconsistent, the CDS concluded that it was probable that the selection process with respect to two of the three competitions for Class “B” positions was not fair and equitable. The CDS upheld the grievance and referred the grievor's file to the Director of Claims and Civil Litigation.