# 2014-192 Careers, Reserve Employment Opportunity (REO)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2015–03–30

The grievor, a reservist, believed that he should have been selected for a Reserve Employment Opportunity (REO) when it was determined that the successful candidate did not meet all of the essential criteria. He challenged the unit's decision to hold a second competition where the same candidate was appointed to the position as opposed to selecting the next available candidate from the first competition which, according to the grievor, was himself. The grievor also alleged that one document proving he met one of the essential criteria had deliberately been omitted in his personal file. He also alleged there was a conflict of interest involving one person working in the office that benefited the successful candidate.

The Initial Authority rejected the grievance as it was deemed out of time.The Final Authority, however, accepted the grievance in the interests of justice

The responsible Commanding Officer stated that the unit discovered errors in the first competition and therefore conducted a second competition to ensure a fair and transparent selection process.

The Committee reviewed the competition for the first REO and found that the Selection Board should have screened out the grievor and the successful candidate since none of them met all of the essential criteria. Further, the Committee noted that the Selection Board did not evaluate candidates in a consistent manner in that points were deducted from some candidates for lacking a qualification while others were given full points. Based on these errors, the Committee agreed with the unit's decision to run a second competition.

The Committee reviewed the structure and the role of the person working in the office vis-à-vis the competition process. It concluded there was no conflict of interest and no evidence that the person working in the office had provided the successful candidate with any benefit or advantage.

After reviewing the Selection Board for the second competition, the Committee found that the competition was fair and therefore recommended that the grievance be denied.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2015–06–03

The FA agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendation that the grievance be denied.