# 2019-180 Careers, Selection board candidates list process

Case summary

F&R Date: 2021-05-27

The grievor alleged there were flaws in the process to select a candidate for the position to which she had applied. For example, an interview board was used as opposed to a selection board and several factors were not taken into consideration.

As redress, the grievor asked that the decision to hire the other candidate be set aside and that there be a re-evaluation. In the event that the decision to hire the other candidate remained, she asked for a position at the superior rank.

The Initial authority (IA) found that the grievor had been treated fairly. He stated that while the selection process should include a comprehensive review of personnel evaluation reports and other information, it is at the hiring authority's discretion to determine the criteria and as such, it can involve a selection interview. The IA further specified that acting experience does not automatically place a member ahead of other candidates to obtain a position.

The Committee found that a selection board, similar to a promotion selection board, was not required in this case and that there was no evidence that the interview Board was deficient. He also found that the questions and competencies assessed were appropriate for the position. As a result, the Committee found that the process used to fill the position was fair, transparent and compliant with applicable policies.

The Committee recommended that the Final Authority (FA) not afford the grievor redress, but observed that the FA may review the grievor's situation and allow for an acting while so employed (AWSE) rank for the identified periods. 

FA decision summary

The Director Canadian Forces Grievance Authority, acting as FA, agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendation not to afford the grievor redress. The FA also reviewed the grievor's situation and agreed that she should be awarded an AWSE rank for the periods in question.