Case # 2012-041

Cadet Instructor Cadre (CIC), Respect of procedures/policies

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2012–06–29

The grievor, an officer in the Canadian Forces Cadet Organizations Administration and Training Service (COATS), alleged he was wrongly denied gainful employment after he had resigned from his position with one Air Cadet Squadron and transferred to the Cadet Instructor Supplementary Staff (CISS) List. As redress, the grievor requested to be paid for an equivalent position from 30 April 2010 until reaching compulsory retirement age (CRA) in October 2011.

The initial authority (IA) denied the grievance based on a lack of evidence in the file that the grievor personally requested employment. In the IA's opinion, it is incumbent on a COATS officer to monitor and seek employment opportunities.

Based on the review of the information available, the Board found that the grievor, through his former Commanding Officer, did request employment. The Board also found that there were several indications that the grievor's chain of command was not willing to consider the grievor for employment.

The Board was also of the view that it was unreasonable to have the grievor wait for the outcome of a summary investigation (SI) into hiring practices since the SI's initial focus was on the change of command at the grievor's former Air Cadet Squadron, not on the grievor's performance and especially since the SI was launched in February 2011 and that the grievor would reach CRA later that same year.

The Board concluded that the Canadian Forces denied the opportunity for potential employment to the grievor.

The Board recommended to the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) that the grievance be partially upheld.

The Board recommended that the CDS acknowledge that the grievor was denied the opportunity for potential employment while he was on the CISS List.

The Board recommended that the CDS forward the grievor's request, with his support, to the Director Claims and Civil Litigations for review.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2013–01–30

The FA partially agreed to uphold the grievance in part and found that the grievor's chain of command did not provide him with a list of available positions which obstructed his ability to be employed elsewhere. The FA found that the grievor held some responsability for the climate at his unit at that time. The FA did not forward the grievance to DCCL with its support, stating that the CDS is not the competent jurisdiction for granting financial compensation and if the grievor wished to pursue this avenue, he may submit a claim to DCCL.