# 2012-080 Careers, Class B Reserve Service, Reserve Force, Termination Class B Reserve Service

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2012–09–26

The grievor, a member of the Reserve Force, had been continuously employed on various periods of Class (Cl) B service over several years. While carrying out a mission on Cl C service, however, he received a notice that, owing to budget cuts, his Cl B service would not be renewed on his return from mission. He therefore submitted a grievance contesting this decision, indicating that he would hope to receive, at the very least, a transition period to do a job search, especially since his Personal Evaluation Report indicated his unit’s intention to renew his Cl B service agreement on his return.

The Board therefore had to determine whether the decision not to renew the grievor’s Cl B period of service was reasonable and whether he should have been accorded a transition period.

The Initial Authority (IA), the Commander Land Force Quebec Area and Joint Task Force (East), denied the grievance, indicating that the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Cl B service, signed by the grievor, expired on the date when the grievor began his new period of service on Cl C. The IA explained that Cl B or C periods of service were not permanent and are granted to meet the needs of service for a specific duration. The IA also explained that the grievor would have received appropriate leave after his return from mission, sufficient time for his medical appointments, to do his personal administrative work and to apply for a new position that might become available in future.

The Board began by determining that Instruction 20/04 of the Chief Military Personnel – Administrative Policy of Class “A”, Class “B” and Class “C” Reserve Service, was the applicable policy in this case. The Board explained that the grievor could not serve simultaneously on Cl B and C service and that, consequently, his period of Cl B service had ended one day earlier than planned in order to allow him to start his period of service on Cl C. The Board accordingly concluded that under the circumstances it was not necessary to provide 30 days’ notice to announce a change to Cl B service since the grievor was no longer controlled by the MOU conditions governing his Cl B service.

The Board subsequently determined that the grievor’s period of service on Cl C had ended several weeks after his return to Canada and that, in accordance with paragraph 5.3 of Instruction 20/04, the grievor’s period of service on Cl C had been extended to permit him to use his leave and to complete the paperwork necessary following a tour in the theatre of operations.

The Board concluded that the grievor had received all the benefits and leave to which he was entitled under the applicable policy.

The Board noted that the needs of the grievor’s unit had changed while he was on mission and that, as a consequence, the grievor’s services were no longer required upon his return. The Board concluded that, although it was unfortunate that the grievor had suffered from budget cuts, the decision was reasonable given the circumstances.

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

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2013–08–16

The FA agreed with the Board's findings and recommendation that the grievance be denied