# 2015-199 - Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP), Posting Allowance (PA), Relocation - Reservists

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2015–12–15

The grievor felt he was unfairly treated, in that he was not entitled to a Posting Allowance (PA) on a three year full-time posting outside Canada as a Reserve Force (Res F) member on Class C (Cl C) Service. He argued that because his Cl C service was equivalent to Regular Force (Reg F) service, the policies were discriminatory because Res F members were only paid the much lower Reserve Relocation Allowance (RRA) on posting. He also challenged the fact that neither RRA nor PA is paid to Res F members on their return move from a posting.

The Director General Compensation and Benefits, acting as the Initial Authority, denied the grievance because he found that the grievor had been treated in accordance with the Treasury Board prescriptions concerning CAF members allowances and benefits.

The Committee agreed with the grievor that the PA benefit unfairly segregates the CAF by component; and, through a reiteration of recent Committee findings on the inequities of the PA, re-emphasized to the CDS the need for revision of this policy.

The Committee recommended that the grievance be denied however, because it found that the grievor had been treated in accordance with the existing policy.

FA Decision Summary

The CDS agreed with the Committee in denying the grievance but disagreed with many of the Committee's findings and recommendations.

The CDS found that the grievor was aware of the benefits available when he accepted the posting. He noted that the CFIRP clearly states that the RRA is not payable upon a return move and that he has no authority to amend what Treasury Board has approved. He commented that PA is provided to Reg F members who are ordered to move to their new place of duty, but that Res F members are not ordered to move, and have the choice to accept or refuse any terms of service. He acknowledged that the purpose of the RRA is to compensate for turbulence, similarly to the PA for Reg F personnel. The CDS also noted that the RRA amount, which has remained unchanged since 1999, is potentially inadequate and he asked CMP to add this to the list of items to be renegotiated with Treasury Board for the CFIRP 2018, seeking as a minimum the amount available to Public Service members, who are also normally not obliged to move. He also acknowledged that 2012 changes in the CFIRP had transferred to the personalized benefit a number of items, which represented the majority of expenses claimed by the grievor on his outbound move. He agreed that the grievor cannot receive the RRA for his return move and that this reduces the personalized benefit available to him, but held that this benefit is provided for non-essential, discretionary expenses and hoped that the grievor had budgeted carefully. He explained that the distinction between CAF components in posting benefits does not constitute discrimination under the Charter. Finally, he commented that the difference in benefits available to Reg F personnel is reasonable in view of their greater liability.