# 2012-055 Pay and Benefits, Relocation Benefits

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2012–08–13

The grievor transferred to the Regular Force and was posted to a new unit the very next day. Having no time to proceed on a house hunting trip (HHT), the grievor left his household goods and effects (HG&E) at his parents' residence where he had been residing. He moved into single quarters at his new unit while seeking more permanent accommodations. A month or so later, he secured rental accommodation and requested approval to move his HG&E, as well as a return to assist (RTA) with the move trip. Staff from the Director Compensation and Benefits Administration (DCBA) informed the grievor he was not entitled to RTA as there was no provision within the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP) to delay a move for a member unless the member moved unaccompanied and had dependants who were staying at the former place of duty, or the member had been prohibited from moving his HG&E during training. Notwithstanding, the grievor was also informed that ministerial authority had been granted for the delayed relocation of his HG&E.

Despite the response from DCBA, the grievor travelled to his former residence to assist with the move utilizing his leave travel assistance (LTA) benefits. He later submitted a grievance requesting reimbursement of the expenses related to his RTA trip.

Some 20 months subsequent to the referral of the grievance to the initial authority (IA), the Director General Compensation and Benefits (DGCB), and following numerous requests for extension to the time limit to render a decision, the grievor denied any further extensions and requested the grievance be forwarded to the final authority for adjudication.

After careful examination of the relevant sections of the CF IRP concerning RTA, the Board concluded that the applicable provisions are clear and unequivocal and there appear to be no exceptions or leeway of interpretation that would justify the position taken by the DCBA in its adjudication of the grievor's request for the benefits in question. As well, in the Board's opinion, it was unnecessary for the DCBA to invoke ministerial authority regarding the delay in shipping the grievor's HG&E; the grievor's enrolment transfer posting message indicated a restricted move of HG&E as the grievor had no time for a HHT and required time to secure rental accommodation. In the Board's view, the grievor's situation fit squarely within the provisions of section 11.1.04 of the CF IRP, which allows a delay of up to 12 months for the shipment of HG&E when the latter have not been placed in long term storage.

The Board found that the grievor was entitled to a delayed move of his HG&E under CF IRP 11.1.02 and 11.1.04, as well as to his transportation, travelling and interim lodgings, meals and miscellaneous expenses under CF IRP 11.2.13 for the RTA for up to five days.

As an aside, the Board commented once again on the ongoing excessive delays in the processing of grievances for which the DGCB is the IA. In the Board's view, these delays need to be addressed by the Canadian Forces leadership in a timely fashion.

The Board recommended to the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) that the grievance be upheld.

The Board recommended to the CDS that he direct that the grievor's entitlement to costs incurred by him on his return trip to assist in the move of his HG&E be calculated as if those expenses had been paid pursuant to the CF IRP (as they should have been) and he receive any excess of that amount over what he actually received as costs of using his LTA for that trip.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2013–09–27

Case withdrawn at Final Authority level.