# 2016-202 Careers, Career Action, Career Progression

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2017–05–19

The grievor contested his non-selection for a Qualification Level (QL) 6A course. He claimed that he ought to have been course-loaded based on his personnel evaluation reports. He further noted that despite his career manager's insistence that the course-loading was merit-based, some of his peers and subordinates had been loaded on the course ahead of him. As redress, the grievor sought an examination of the course loading process, to be course loaded on a comparable civilian based course, and an investigation into his treatment by his occupational chain of command.

The Initial Authority (IA), the Director General Military Careers, advised that the QL 6A course-loading decisions were based on the annual merit list, and that the grievor was not merit listed for the year in question. However, the IA also noted that some non-merit listed candidates may be selected based on service requirements and availability. The IA further indicated that when a last minute vacancy for the course arose, the grievor was not available to attend the course. The IA found no evidence of any mistreatment of the grievor.

The Committee first compared the annual merit list results with the QL 6A course loading message to determine whether all members named for the course had in fact been merit-listed. This review identified four course loaded members who had not been merit listed for promotion that year.

The Committee then found that two of those four members could reasonably have been selected for the QL 6A course due to holding key positions. However, the Committee found that the grievor merited selection ahead of at least two other members who had been course-loaded for the QL 6A training.

Regarding the grievor's non-selection for a last minute vacancy on the course, the Committee found that the candidate selected over the grievor was equally deserving, and that the decision to select the other member over the grievor was not unreasonable.

The Committee did not find any evidence of reprisal or mistreatment by the grievor's occupational chain of command.

The Committee recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff uphold the grievance by acknowledging that the grievor ought to have been selected for the QL 6A course. The Committee did not support the grievor's request to be loaded on a comparable civilian course.

FA decision summary

The CDS disagreed with the Committee's recommendation that the grievance be upheld. The CDS agreed with the Committee's general finding that "it is legitimate to deviate from the merit principle of career course loading to fulfill the purpose of military personnel management". Like the Committee, the CDS examined if the grievor should have been selected over candidate F but determined that the grievor would not have been selected in F's place. He also agreed that the grievor ought not to have been course loaded for the late vacancy. The CDS found that the decision to not course load the grievor was, ultimately, reasonable despite some flaws over the priorities. The CDS agreed with the Committee that the grievor did not demonstrate that the decision to post him was made as a reprisal from filing a grievance or constituted harassment. The CDS found that the Committee's observation on the Selection Board Candidates List Process was not germane to the grievance and decided not to comment on it. The CDS made a comment with regard to the delay in the administration of the grievance, stating that it was unacceptable for the Commanding Officer to not register the grievance for eight months despite the chain of command's statements that they were trying to resolve the issue at the lowest level. The CDS then explained at length how the Canadian Armed Forces carefully assessed the grievor's medical condition before posting him and how this decision was not discriminatory in response to the grievor's human rights complaint before the Canadian Human Rights Commission (which was already rejected by the Commission). The CDS denied the grievor's request for a retroactive promotion to Sergent and an ex gratia payment.