# 2011-103 Careers, Personnel Evaluation Report (PER), Promotion, Reserve Force
Case Summary
F&R Date: 2011–12–19
The grievor, a Sergeant in the Primary Reserve (P Res) on Class A Reserve Service, complained that he had been unfairly denied a promotion to Warrant Officer (WO). He alleged that his Commanding Officer (CO) was biased against him, had been untruthful regarding his qualifications for promotion and had interfered in the performance ratings awarded on several of his personnel evaluation reports (PER). The grievor explained that he had been serving in a WO’s position for several years and had performed well.
As redress, the grievor requested that he be promoted to WO backdated to the date he was occupation qualified as a WO, that his PERs be re-written, and that he be loaded as a priority on the Advanced Leadership Qualification (ALQ) course.
The initial authority (IA), the Brigade Commander, denied the grievance. The IA found that the issue of the PERs was closed because the CO had directed that they be re-written and the grievor had signed them. The IA also found no evidence of bias on the part of the CO. The IA acknowledged that the grievor appeared to meet all prerequisites for promotion except that he lacked the support and recommendation of his CO. The IA indicated that he would meet with the CO following the grievor’s next PER to discuss the grievor’s future promotion potential.
An analyst at the Director General Canadian Forces Grievance Authority completed a synopsis and concluded that, on a balance of probabilities, it was not clear that the CO’s actions were fair and reasonable. The analyst further concluded that it would be fair and reasonable for the final authority to promote the grievor to the rank of WO because he was qualified and had been employed in a WO position for several years now and had reportedly performed well.
The Board was unable to find evidence that the grievor’s CO was biased or prejudiced against him, or that the CO’s refusal to recommend the grievor’s promotion was unreasonable. The Board observed that the grievor’s PERs had not yet reached the “Immediate” promotion recommendation level that would cause the CO to recommend his promotion. Further, the Board noted that the grievor had not disputed the potential assessments or narrative comments found in the relevant PERs.
The Board also considered that, in light of the realities of part-time service in the P Res, it is not unusual for Class A Reservists to be employed in overranked positions and that such employment did not necessarily require or justify promotion. The Board therefore concluded that it would not be an appropriate use of the Chief of the Defence Staff’s discretion to over-rule the judgement of the grievor’s CO by directing the grievor’s promotion.
The Board recommended that the grievance be denied.
CDS Decision Summary
CDS Decision Date: 2012–11–28
The Final Authority did not agree with the Board's recommendation to deny the grievance. Based on article 11.02 of the QR&O on promotions, the FA granted partial redress by waiving the criteria of the CO's recommendation for promotion, and giving retroactive promotion, but to a date different from what was requested by the grievor.