# 2012-069 Pay and Benefits, Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP), Post Living Differential (PLD), Relocation - Reservists,...

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2012–11–30

The grievor, a Reserve member employed in Toronto, commenced working in another position for a subordinate unit with no change to the original Statement of Understanding (SOU) and Class B Route Letter, scheduled to end on 31 March 2009.

The subordinate unit relocated to Petawawa. Approval of relocation benefits was granted by the Directorate Compensation and Benefits Administration (DCBA) based on a request indicating that the grievor would be employed under a new three year contract commencing 1 June 2008. Although the grievor accepted the new position, she delayed her move to Petawawa for personal reasons. The grievor reported for duty on 1 September 2008 and listed her house at the same time. In early October 2008, after being informed that there were only two months left in which to complete her move under Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP) 2008, unless an official change of her employment date was confirmed, the grievor requested a change in reporting date.

In December 2008, six months after the original 1 June 2008 start date of the new position, the grievor signed a SOU and Route Letter for her position indicating an effective date of 1 June 2008. Four days later the grievor submitted another request for a change in reporting date.

In mid-January 2009, the grievor signed an agreement to sell her house in Toronto with a closing date of mid-February. One week later, the grievor accepted a position with her former unit in Toronto. A few days later, the grievor applied for a Private Married Quarter based on this new period of service starting on 1 February 2009. At the end of January 2009, the grievor signed a SOU for this position with a start date of 1 February 2009. On the same date, the grievor indicted her intention to terminate her employment in Petawawa. Subsequently her position in Petawawa was advertised a few days later.

Because the grievor did not move to Petawawa within the six month time period as required by CF IRP 2008 article 13.04, the grievor was required to reimburse all relocation benefits paid to date. Additionally, it was discovered that the grievor was still in receipt of the Post Living Differential (PLD) allowance in Toronto although her entitlement should have ceased upon commencement of her new SOU in Petawawa. Further complicating matters, the grievor also requested move benefits from Petawawa back to Toronto. Consequently, it was decided that the grievor would remain on strength at the subordinate unit (Petawawa) until her relocation issues were resolved; however, no additional paperwork was completed to cancel the SOU for the new position. At the end of February 2009, the grievor began working in Toronto, initially for the subordinate unit and, eventually, in the position at the headquarters for which she had signed the SOU commencing 1 February 2009. Her position in Petawawa was filled in May 2009. Finally, the grievor signed another SOU for the headquarters position with an effective date of 13 November 2009.

On 12 January 2011, DCBA Relocation Adjudication Section determined that the PLD received by the grievor for the period 1 June 2008 to 31 January 2009 should be recovered. Relocation benefits for the move to her new position were denied and it was confirmed that the relocation benefits previously paid to the grievor on her move to the subordinate unit should also recovered. Finally, DCBA used Ministerial Authority to provide the grievor with free single quarters during the period she remained in Petawawa. After seeking clarification, the grievor submitted a grievance.

The issue before the Board was whether the grievor was entitled to relocation benefits for her move to Petawawa and for her subsequent move back to Toronto as well as whether the grievor was entitled to the PLD allowance.

The grievor argued that factors beyond her control restricted her ability to complete her move within six months and that she would have been able to complete her move within the required six months if her unit had changed her reporting date from 1 June 2008 to 29 August 2008 as she had requested. She also believed that she should be entitled to move benefits since, according to her, she remained in the Petawawa position until 12 November 2009 even though she worked from Toronto.

The Commanding Officer did not support the grievance, alleging that the grievor was an expert in financial management and was familiar with the policies yet she chose to claim benefits for which there was no entitlement.

There was no decision from the Initial Authority (IA), the Director General Compensation and Benefits, as the grievor did not grant the IA a second time extension to adjudicate. However, a copy of the DCBA file on this case was provided.

The Board noted that the DCBA adjudication of the grievor's relocation file resulted in a decision to deny CF IRP and PLD benefits approximately three years after the fact. Further, the grievor's chain of command took an excessive amount of time to inform her of entitlements and to process her requests. The delays in obtaining an authoritative response from either the chain of command or DCBA impeded the grievor's ability to make informed decisions and resulted in the decisions having adverse effects.

The Board examined a number of policies concerning PLD, Relocation Benefits, Temporary Duty Benefits and Class B Reserve Service. In order for the Board to apply the policies governing these benefits, it was first necessary to confirm the terms of the grievor's service and her place of duty at all of the relevant times. There was a considerable amount of conflicting information and interpretations of entitlements and events on the file. Additionally, some relevant information was no longer available.

The Board found that the administration of the various periods of service was poorly managed. Given the discrepancies and the lack of proper authorizations for the grievor's positions, the Board examined all of the evidence in order to establish the most accurate dates for the various periods of service and the conditions corresponding to those periods. The Board used the SOUs as the starting point for the analysis, understanding that while it does not constitute authority to commence a period of service in accordance with Canadian Forces Military Personnel Instruction 20/04, it does constitute the offer of service and the member's acceptance. Therefore the Board found that they were relatively reliable.

There was substantial overlap between the various periods of Class B service established in the SOUs, however, there was no indication that any of the SOUs had been properly ceased in accordance with the relevant policies. Further, the Board noted that, contrary to policy, the SOU and Route Letter for the period of service commencing 1 June 2008 was signed retroactively on 8 December 2008. The Board found that the most reasonable approach would be to terminate one SOU upon the coming into effect of another SOU. In the case of the SOU signed retroactively, the Board found that this SOU could not come into effect until the date that it was signed since there was no agreement in place prior to that date. Ultimately, the Board concluded that the grievor's terms of service should be described as:

• Toronto period of service 1 April 2006 – 7 December 2008;

• Petawawa period of service 8 December 2008 – 31 January 2009; and

• Toronto period of service 1 February 2009 – 31 March 2011.

The Board recommended that the Chief of Defence Staff grant partial redress by directing that her entitlement to benefits be recalculated based on the revised periods of service indicated above.

The Board recommended that consideration should be given for Temporary Duty benefits each time the grievor was required to work in a place other than her Place of Duty. The Board also recommended that the grievor should not be entitled to any relocation benefits since she forfeited her entitlement for relocations benefits for the following two reasons: first, the grievor did not move within six months of the commencement of her employment as required by CF IRP 2008, and second, the grievor voluntarily terminated her employment with the unit for which she was authorized to relocate within one year of commencing employment, which according to policy forfeits her entitlement.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2013–06–24

The CDS partially agreed with the Board's findings and recommendations. The CDS agreed to partially uphold the grievance but for different reasons. The CDS agreed with the Board's finding that the grievor was not entitled to any relocation benefits to Petawawa, not because the grievor did not relocate within the 6-month period as per the CFIRP, but because the household, goods and effects were never relocated to Petawawa. With regard to the PLD, the CDS did not agree with the Board that the Reserve service in Petawawa officially start when the grievor signed the SOU in December 2008; on the contrary, the CDS was satisfied that the grievor's PLD for Toronto ceased in June 2008 when she started her new period of service in Petawawa. The CDS gave the grievor the benefit of the doubt when she was posted back to Toronto and he found that she was entitled to relocation benefits from Petawawa to Toronto and, once the grievor was deemed to have a principal residence in Toronto in March 2009, she was entitled to PLD until March 2011.