# 2012-024 Pay and Benefits, Pay, Re-Enrollment

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2012–05–29

The grievor served in the Canadian Forces (CF) from 1982 to 1990. In July 2009, on completion of re-enrolment procedures, the grievor received a verbal enrolment offer indicating he would be paid at the rank of Corporal (Cpl) with pay increment (PI) level 4 owing to his previous service. However, several days before the grievor reported for training, the enrolment instruction was changed to indicate that the grievor would instead be paid at the rank of Private (Pte) recruit.

The grievor filed a grievance seeking the initially promised rate of pay.

The Initial Authority (IA) turned down the grievor’s request, indicating that the CF was not authorized to pay the grievor at the rank of Cpl with PI 4 because current policy did not permit recognition of previous service dating back more than five years in calculating pay, since the grievor had not maintained his qualifications during his absence from the CF.

At the outset, the Board determined that, based on his previous military experience, the grievor should in fact have been re-enrolled at the rank of Pte with PI level 1. But since, according to the grievor, the CF had made a commitment to pay him at a higher rate, the Board looked into the issue of whether the CF was actually bound by this promise. The Board acknowledged that the relationship between the CF and its members is not a contractual one; still, the Board stressed that when the grievor accepted the offer and trusted the information given by the recruiting centre, he was a civilian and not an active CF member. The Board held that it would be unacceptable to allow the CF to shirk its obligations stemming from the agreement entered into with the grievor since the CF regularly demands the observance of obligations made by potential recruits under similar agreements.

In the view of the Board, the CF has a moral, if not legal, obligation to provide redress to the grievor, and financial compensation should be offered as redress.

The Board also observed that members in similar circumstances, having already quit their civilian employment and moved with their families, have just one option, which is to accept the new rate of pay and fulfill their new conditions of service until they have been lawfully released. On this point, the Board held that a CF member in such a situation should be able to choose between agreeing to continue to serve with financial compensation for the harm caused by the CF error or being released without penalty and also receiving financial compensation to cover all the expenses needed to place him back in the situation where he was prior to enrolment.

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

The Board recommended that the CDS acknowledge the error committed by the CF leading to the breach of the commitment initially made to the grievor.

The Board recommended that the CDS take the necessary steps to refer the case to the Director Claims and Civil Litigation for review as a potential claim against the Crown for breach of promise.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2013–11–18

The CDS did not agree with the Board's recommendations that the grievance be upheld and forwarded to the Director Claims and Civil Litigation. According to the CDS, corrective measures were initiated the minute that the error was discovered. The CDS disagreed with the Board's conclusion that the grievor was not a CAF member, stating that the grievor had accepted new terms of service after previously accepting an initial enrolment offer. The CDS also concluded that the grievor, if he had wanted, could have requested his release from the CAF when he learned of his new terms of service. The CDS was of the opinion that the correction to the grievor's enrolment offer was reasonable and in accordance with the directives.