# 2012-028 Pay and Benefits, Relocation, Relocation Benefits

Relocation, Relocation Benefits

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2012–07–11

The grievor, a Regular Force member, was denied move benefits on his posting from one “place of duty” to a new and adjacent place of duty because his principal residence was already located within the geographical boundaries of his new place of duty while his actual worksite was in the former place of duty. The grievor argued that the commute to his new worksite was excessive and sought authority for a move at public expense citing paragraph 4 of Canadian Forces Administrative Order (CFAO) 209-28.

The Relocation Adjudication Section of the Director Compensation and Benefits Administration denied the grievor’s request, explaining that the definition of “place of duty” includes the surrounding geographical area. It found that since the grievor’s residence was already located within the geographical boundary of his new place of duty, the grievor was not actually relocating from one place of duty to another. The initial authority (IA), the Director General Compensation and Benefits, requested two extensions beyond the 60-day time limit set out in the regulation. The grievor did not grant the second request; therefore, there was no IA decision in this matter.

The Board first observed that the grievor’s situation did not fit within the parameters of paragraph 4 of CFAO 209-28 because the boundaries of the two places of duty did not overlap. The Board then considered whether the grievor was posted from one place of duty to another and found that, in accordance with the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP), section 1.4, both places of duty met the definition of being a distinct “place of duty” with respective geographical boundaries. The Board concluded that the grievor had been posted from one place of duty to another, notwithstanding that his residence was already located within the geographical boundary of his new place of duty.

Next, the Board considered the CF IRP article 1.1.03 which indicates that entitlement to a move at public expense only arises when the replacement residence is at least 40 kilometres (km) closer to the new place of duty than the current principal residence. In the case of the grievor, his principal residence was located within the outer edge of the defined geographical boundary of his new place of duty, making it physically impossible to relocate 40 km closer to his new place of duty.

The Board found that, in applying the formula for calculating the distance set at CF IRP article 1.1.03, the large size of the geographical areas established as the places of duty were problematic. The Board observed that both the Public Service and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police relocation policies used the term “worksite” as the definition of place of duty. The CF IRP 2010, Clarification Bulletin 5, introduced a definition for the term “worksite” in Section 1.4 and referred to article 1.1.03 and section 2.5. However, the term “worksite” is not found in article 1.1.03 nor in section 2.5 and the Board was unable to obtain additional clarification on the matter from the IA. The Board concluded that the only logical and reasonable purpose for adding the term would be to use it in the formula. In the grievor’s case, his new principal residence was more than 40 km closer to his new worksite, thus entitling the grievor to a move at public expense.

The Board noted that the term “place of duty” is being used to mean both a geographical boundary and a worksite in the CF IRP. The Board suggested that the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) consider modifying the definition of “place of duty” to avoid confusion and to insure that members receive the benefits to which they are entitled.

The Board recommended that the CDS uphold the grievance and direct the reimbursement of the grievor’s personally funded move.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2012–10–26

The CDS agreed with the Board's recommendation to uphold the grievance, and authorized the grievor's cost move in accordance with CF IRP 2009.

Page details

Date modified: