# 2011-126 Pay and Benefits, Maternity and Parental Allowance (MATA-PATA), Reserve Force, Termination Class B Reserve Service

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2012–01–24

The grievor was verbally advised that her Class B Reserve Service (Cl B svc ) position was being cut while she was on a period of maternity/parental leave (Mat/Par lve) and, as a consequence, she would no longer have Cl B svc employment with the unit; no 30-day written notice was provided. The grievor argued that she had been terminated because she was on Mat/Par lve and that the position was not in fact cut but occupied by another member. The grievor was successful in finding Cl B svc employment with another unit following her Mat/Par lve; however, it required her to cease her Mat/Par lve 13 days early and return to work.

As redress, the grievor requested reimbursement for nine days of daycare and 13 days of leave in lieu of the Mat/Par lve she argues she was forced to forfeit in order to start her new Cl B svc.

The grievor’s Commanding Officer served as the initial authority (IA) and explained that all unit Cl B svc in other than full-time established positions had been terminated in February 2010 but noted that the grievor’s Cl B svc would have ended on 31 March 2010, prior to the end of her Mat/Par lve. The IA further explained that he had decided that the grievor’s position was most needed in a remote sub-unit and pointed out that the grievor declined to apply for this position. The IA stated that he considered his decision letter to be a 30-day written notice to the grievor that he could not offer her Cl B svc employment in his unit on completion of her Mat/Par lve.

A synopsis, prepared by an analyst at the Director General Canadian Forces Grievance Authority (DGCFGA), concluded that, although the grievor had not received a written 30-day notice as she should have, the evidence on file substantiated the termination as being purely driven by fiscal restraint imposed on the unit. The synopsis suggested that the grievor’s unit had assisted in finding the grievor alternative Cl B svc employment and concluded that the grievor had been treated fairly despite the lack of the 30-day written notice. The synopsis concluded that the grievor was not entitled to compensation for child care expenses or to a credit for missed Mat/Pat/Par lve since she was not ordered to return to work from leave.

The Board found that the grievor’s period of Cl B svc had in fact ended as scheduled on 31 March 2010 while she remained on Mat/Par lve and that there was no automatic entitlement to further employment. Therefore, the Board concluded that grievor did not suffer any prejudice by the lack of the 30-day written notice of Cl B svc termination.

The Board agreed with the DGCFGA synopsis that the available evidence did not support the grievor’s claim that her employment had been terminated because she was on Mat/Par lve . Finally, the Board found that the grievor had refused to be interviewed for an available unit position and concluded that the grievor was not unfairly or otherwise denied an opportunity to apply and compete for continued employment with her unit.

The Board was satisfied that the grievor voluntarily left her Mat/Par lve early to accept her position in a new unit and found, therefore, that she has suffered no prejudice.

The Board recommended that the grievance be denied.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2012–03–05

The FA agreed with the Board's findings and its recommendation to deny the grievance.