Case # 2012-126
Cadet Instructor Cadre (CIC), Class B Reserve Service
Case Summary
F&R Date: 2012–12–21
The grievor, a member of the Primary Reserve, was not the successful applicant for the position of Detachment Commander (Det Comd) within a Regional Cadet Support Unit (RCSU). As a result, the grievor asked the Commanding Officer (CO) to explain her non-selection. When she was not satisfied with the CO's response, she submitted her grievance.
The issues before the Board were whether the process used to select the Det Comd was conducted in accordance with policy and whether the criteria used by the SSB gave an unfair advantage to the incumbent.
The grievor argued that the process used to select the Det Comd was not conducted in the true spirit of determining the best candidate but rather was just a cursory exercise meant to appear to satisfy policy requirements. She asserts that the process was designed to favour the incumbent who initially filled the position via a lateral transfer. As redress, she requested proper answers to her previously asked questions regarding her non-selection and that the findings of the Staff Selection Board (SSB) be subjected to an external review to ensure fairness and impartiality.
The Initial Authority (IA) denied the grievance. The IA acknowledged that a lack of direct experience within the Canadian Cadet Movement (CCM) had served to remove the grievor's file from contention but the IA also found that the emphasis on CCM experience was justified given the nature of the position. The IA pointed out that this conclusion was supported by the Director Cadets and Junior Canadian Rangers 6 - Personnel Policy and Training. Finally, the IA reviewed the SSB procedures and scoring and found no evidence that the grievor's file was scored harshly in comparison to the other candidates.
Given that the grievor's redress request was for explanations rather than a specific action, the Board reviewed both the screening and the SSB processes.
The RCSU issued a Reserve Employment Opportunity Message (REOM) for the Det Comd position, indicating that the competition was open to members of all military occupations. It listed six minimum essential prerequisites, chief of which was extensive experience within the CCM. The REOM also indicated that failure to meet the minimum essential prerequisites would result in the applicant being screened out of the competition.
A preliminary screening determined that the grievor, along with a third candidate, should be eliminated because they did not meet all of the required prerequisites. The recommendation was to employ the one remaining candidate who happened to be the incumbent Det Comd. Notwithstanding this recommendation, the CO RCSU then convened a SSB to score the three candidates. The SSB also recommended the incumbent as the successful candidate, placing the grievor third.
The Board observed that both the REOM and the Cadet Administration and Training Order 23-10 – Reserve Service Opportunity Selection Process (CATO 23-10) provided that candidates not meeting all of the minimum required prerequisites were to be screened out. Based on this requirement, and noting that the grievor did not have the “minimum essential prerequisite” of extensive CCM experience, the Screening Report recommended that the grievor be eliminated. Therefore, the Board found that the Screening process was conducted in accordance with policy and that the CO should have adhered to the policy and eliminated the grievor from the competition at that point.
Although the grievor should have been screened out of the competition, she was scored by the subsequent SSB convened by CO RCSU. The Board found that the SSB process and its results met the minimum requirements of the applicable policy, the CATO 23-10. The Board found that the overall scoring of the grievor was not unreasonable but observed that scoring inconsistencies between SSB members should have been discussed and reconciled.
The Board found that the weighting of the employment scoring criteria in favour of extensive work experience with the CCM was justified and that the grievor's employment experience, although impressive, was simply not what was sought for the position.
The Board recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff grant partial redress by providing the grievor with an explanation of why she was not selected and by providing the results of the Board's external review.
CDS Decision Summary
CDS Decision Pending
- Date modified: