# 2008-064 - Allowances and Benefits, Jurisdiction Concerning out-of-time Grievances, Post Living Differential (PLD),...

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2010–05–06

The grievor enrolled in the Regular Force, and was immediately placed on leave without pay (LWOP) for approximately five months awaiting basic training. After being posted on a prohibited posting to St-Jean to complete basic training, the grievor was posted to Cold Lake on a restricted posting. He had stored some of his household goods and effects (HG&E) in long term storage (LTS) prior to going to basic training, however, due to a lengthy period of LWOP before basic training, he bought a principal residence during that five-month timeframe.

Due to some administrative errors, and the uniqueness of the grievor's situation, he was only reimbursed the cost of the HG&E he originally placed in LTS. However, he owned much more HG&E prior to enrolment and requested that he be reimbursed for the shipment of all his HG&E to Cold Lake, as well as other benefits resulting from the purchase and ownership of a principal residence, such as post living differential (PLD) and free single quarters (SQ).

The initial authority (IA) denied redress indicating that, upon enrolment, the grievor did not own a principal residence. The IA stated that the grievor was entitled to, and was reimbursed for the HG&E placed in storage, and there was no entitlement to further benefits.

The Board found that the grievor was indeed entitled to a full move under section 8 of Compensation and Benefits Instructions Chapter 209. The Board noted that the Canadian Forces recognized that the residence purchased by the grievor during his LWOP was indeed his principal residence and therefore should provide all benefits associated with owning a principal residence. This also included PLD and free SQ.

Recommendation

The Board recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) partially uphold the grievance.

The Board recommended that the amount recovered from the grievor in respect of PLD while in St-Jean be reimbursed to him and that he be paid PLD at the applicable rate from 15 January 2006 until the arrival of his HG&E at his new principal residence in Cold Lake.

The Board recommended that the CDS direct that the costs recovered by the Crown from the grievor in respect of the move of his HG&E from his place of enrolment to Cold Lake be reimbursed to him as well as such other expenses ancillary to that move as he should have received under section 8 of CBI 209.

Systemic recommendation

The Board noted that the Director General Canadian Forces Grievance Authority (DGCFGA) had reviewed and made a determination on the issue of time limits relating to some of the elements of this grievance. The Board's position is that the DGCFGA possesses no authority to adjudicate any aspect of a grievance which must, because of its subject matter, be referred to the Board.

The Board recommended that the grievances under the categories listed in article 7.12 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders that were denied by the current DGCFGA be referred to the Board for a new determination about the time limits and the interests of justice if required.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2010–10–26

The CDS partially agreed with the Board's findings and recommendations. The CDS agreed that the grievor's principal residence met the parameters set out in CBI 205.45 (2) and (4) and, therefore, he was entitled to PLD. The CDS agreed with the Board that a move audit be conducted to ensure that the grievor receives any other eligible expenses related to his move to Cold Lake. However, the CDS disagreed with the Board's finding that the grievor's entitlement to free SQ ended in January 2006, because until the grievor's move was approved in June 2006, his principal residence was still in BC. The CDS directed that the grievor be reimbursed for his SQ expenses between these two dates. The CDS agreed with the Board that the CF had to recover any LTS costs incurred once the grievor became a homeowner. On the preliminary issue, the CDS disagreed with the Board's systemic recommendation that the grievances under the categories listed in article 7.12 of the QR&O denied by the current DGCFGA be referred to the Board for a new determination about the time limits and the interests of justice if required.