# 2021-094 Careers, Class B Reserve Service

Case summary

F&R Date: 2022-08-09

The grievor disputed an Air Reserve decision to fill a Class A Air Reserve Force Master Warrant Officer position via career management (CM) rather than by use of the Reserve Employment Opportunity (REO) process. He alleged that the CM process lacked fairness and transparency and was not in accordance with Air Force Order (AFO) 1000-8 and AFO 5006-15.

There was no Initial Authority (IA) decision as the IA failed to render a decision within the prescribed time limit. The grievor requested that his file be forwarded to the Final Authority for consideration and determination, pursuant to article 7.15 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces.

The Committee first considered the direction provided by the Canadian Forces Military Personnel Instruction 20/04, noting that it makes no prescriptions regarding the process to fill any Class A positions, and that it allows exceptions to the REO process when filling Class B positions for less than 90 days and in cases of a bona fide career management decisions. The Committee further noted that AFO 5006-15 prioritizes CM over REO, extending the option of career management decisions to Class A service. The Committee found that the Air Reserve decision to use the CM process was reasonable and policy compliant but noted that the process itself should have been more transparent.

The Committee concluded that the grievor was not aggrieved and recommended that redress not be granted.

FA decision summary

The Commander of the Royal Canadian Air Force, acting as Final Authority (FA), agreed with the Committee's recommendation. He found that the position should have been considered a Developmental Position (DP). AFO 1000-8 therefore required that a selection management (SM) process to be used to fill it. However, the FA states that as the position was not designated until after the 2020 selection management process, he accepted as fact D Air Res 5's statement that there were no SM candidates available. Consequently, it was correct to use a CM process. The FA notes that the CM process was ad hoc and not transparent, and that unfortunately the D Air Res staff were not able to provide an explanation for the result that the grievor found reasonable, but he finds that there was nothing improper about the process. Since the position should have been treated as a DP, SM criteria were applied, and the other candidate had an overwhelming advantage due to having more than eight years left to serve, while the grievor had fewer than six years left to serve. The FA denies redress.