# 2010-055 - Dissemination of Final Authority Decisions

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2010–08–20

The grievor effected a component transfer (CT) from the Reserve Force (Res F) to the Regular Force (Reg F) under the Regular Officer Training Plan in 1997, at the rank of Officer Cadet, at a rate of pay lower than he was receiving as a reservist. An interim instruction was issued by the Canadian Forces (CF) in April 2001 which granted pay protection for non-commissioned members (NCMs) transferring from the Res F to the Reg F. In March 2009, the grievor became aware of the interim instruction and the fact that he may be entitled to previous time credit. He filed a grievance in May 2009, requesting a recalculation of his pay level at the time of his CT.

The initial authority (IA), the Acting Director General Compensation and Benefits (A/DGCB), rejected the grievance on the basis that it was submitted beyond the time limit with no proper explanation for the delay. The Board noted that the A/DGCB is not the IA in this matter.

According to Queen's Regulations and Orders article 7.02, a grievance must be submitted within six months after the day that the member knew or ought reasonably to have known of the decision, act or omission in respect of which the grievance is submitted. The grievor's explanation for the delay was that he had only become aware of the interim CT policy in March 2009 when his pay clerk brought it to his attention. The Board found that the grievance had been filed beyond the time limit.

The Board also observed that following the grievor's request for Final Authority (FA) adjudication, the Director General Canadian Forces Grievance Authority (DGCFGA) reviewed the grievance and recommended that it be reviewed in the interests of justice. The Board reiterated its view that the DGCFGA does not have the authority to determine whether it is in the interests of justice to consider a late grievance submission for grievances mandatorily referred to the Board.

However, the Board agreed with the DGCFGA that the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) should consider the merits of the grievance in the interests of justice, for the following reasons: the grievance constituted an arguable case based on previous decisions by the former CDS and the incumbent CDS, and, there was no prejudice to the CF caused by the delay in submitting the grievance.

On the merits of the grievance, the Board observed that two previous CDS and the current incumbent have agreed with previous recommendations from the Board that a member's previous Res F experience should be considered in determining rank and pay when transferring to a Reg F entry plan.

The Board noted that in several other grievances concerning NCM transfers from the Res F to the Reg F prior to the introduction of the April 2001 interim policy, it had found there was inequitable treatment and recommended that the rate of pay for those members be adjusted retroactively. In all of those cases, the FAs agreed with the Board's findings and recommendations.

The Board recommended that the CDS uphold the grievance and order that the grievor’s CT from the Res F to the Reg F and his rate of pay be reviewed and modified in accordance with the interim policy issued on 23 April 2001.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2011–04–04

The grievance was resolved informally