# 2012-008 Pay and Benefits, Pension Benefits, Pension Entitlements, Reserve Force

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2012–03–19

The grievor became a contributor under the Reserve Force Pension Plan (RFPP), Part I.1 of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act (CFSA), when it came into force on 1 March 2007. He submitted his election to count his prior Reserve Force (Res F) service on 24 May 2007 and, on 1 September 2007, the grievor met the requirements to be a contributor under Part I of the CFSA (the Regular Force (Reg F)/full-time service plan).

The grievor contended that the Canadian Forces (CF) pension authorities incorrectly interpreted certain provisions of the RFPP Regulations (RFPPR), thereby failing to properly augment that portion of his former service that had been credited at one-quarter (1/4) time for periods where the CF could verify the rank and period of service but not the actual earnings. The grievor argued that there was no difference between authorized paid days as earnings and the deemed earnings calculated on the basis of 1/4 time.

The grievor also complained that it was unfair that the CFSA Regulations (CFSR) allowed augmentation on transfer to the Reg F but not under the RFPPR.

As redress, the grievor requested that augmentation be applied to his 1/4 time credit. Failing that, he asked that the cost of his election for that period value his earnings at 17.85% vice 25% and then augment them in order to reduce his buy-back cost.

The initial authority, the Director General Compensation and Benefits, refused to adjudicate the grievance, stating that it pertained to a matter prescribed by a Canadian Law and the related Governor in Council regulations and that there was no authority within the CF who could grant the redress sought.

The Board found that there exists no bar in the CFSA or the National Defence Act preventing the submission of a grievance regarding the CFSA or, by extension, the RFPP and the RFPPR. Therefore, the Board concluded that the grievor had a right to grieve in this case.

Regarding the merits of the case, the Board found that:

• the grievor was not entitled to have his 1/4 time credits augmented as earnings because the RFPPR augmentation provision that he cited applied only to days of CF service and not to earnings; the earning provisions did not include augmentation;
• the grievor was entitled to buy back his prior earnings under the RFPP and that the CFSA/CFSR do not apply; and
• the augmentation provisions of the CFSR and RFPPR are not unfair to reservists under either plan.

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

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2012–05–17

Case withdrawn at Final Authority Level.