# 2011-124 Pay and Benefits, Allowances and Benefits, Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP), Personal Motor Vehicle (PMV), Storage Fees

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2012–01–27

The grievor disputed a Director Compensation and Benefits Administration decision denying him an incentive for not shipping or storing his private motor vehicle (PMV) (the “incentive benefit”) during his posting to the United States (US).

The initial authority (IA), the Director General Compensation and Benefits, denied the grievance concluding that, by electing to be compensated for driving his PMV to his new location on posting, the grievor had effectively shipped his PMV to his new location at public expense.

The grievor disputed the IA’s argument by pointing out that, according to article 9.3.02 of the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP), a member must ship his vehicle under the Household Goods Removal Service contract system. Since this was not done, he argued that he did not ship his vehicle and, therefore, he was entitled to the incentive benefit.

The approved policy for Canadian Forces (CF) members on relocation is found under articles 9.3.02 and 12.8.04 of the CF IRP. CF members who own a PMV and who are entitled to ship it may transfer 80% of the savings to their personalized funding formula when they do not ship or store their PMV.

The Board agreed with the IA decision to deny the grievance, but did not concur with the reason for the denial advanced by the IA that driving one's PMV to the new location is effectively the same as shipping it.

The Board found that, according to article 9.3.02 of the CF IRP, entitlement to ship a PMV requires that a member’s primary mode of travel to the new location be by commercial carrier. Primary mode of travel is defined in section 1.4 of the CF IRP as “the mode of travel by which the CF member and the majority of the family members travel”.

Because the grievor did not use a commercial carrier as his primary mode of travel to his new location, the Board found that the grievor was not entitled to ship his PMV. Since he had no entitlement to ship the PMV, the Board found that he was not entitled to the incentive benefit.

The Board recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff deny the grievance.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2012–04–17

The CDS agreed with the Board's findings and its recommendation to deny the grievance. As per article 9.03.2 of the CF IRP, the grievor was entitled to ship his primary PMV to his new post when the mode of travel to the new location is by commercial carrier. The grievor chose to drive his motor vehicle to his new location instead of using a commercial carrier, he was not entitled to the benefit associated with the shipping or storing of a PMV.