# 2012-082 Careers, Class B Reserve Service, Termination Class B Reserve Service, Terms of Employment for Reservists
Case Summary
F&R Date: 2012–10–02
The grievor, a member of the Reserve Force, while employed on a period of Class (Cl) B service scheduled to end on 31 March 2010, obtained a task for another period of Cl B service starting on 1 April 2010. Less than 24 hours before the employment was to start, however, the grievor was advised that, because of an administrative error, the task would be delayed and would not begin until 24 May 2010. The grievor therefore submitted a grievance arguing that Instruction 20/04 of the Chief Military Personnel – Administrative Policy of Class “A”, Class “B” and Class “C” Reserve Service – required advance notice of 30 days for any changes to a period of Cl B or C service and that he had been given less than 24 hours advance notice. The grievor accordingly sought financial compensation equivalent to 30 days’ pay.
The Board therefore had to determine whether the grievor was entitled to compensation when the start date of his period of Cl B service was changed with advance notice of less than 24 hours.
The Initial Authority (IA) in this case, the Commander 35 Canadian Brigade Group, denied the grievance, indicating that Instruction 20/04 did not apply to the grievor’s situation since he was doing a task. The IA pointed out that a task is generally temporary and of short duration and may undergo regular changes to maintain operational equilibrium between the requirements and the available resources. He noted that, for a variety of reasons, tasks may be modified or cancelled at the last minute.
The Board first of all determined that article 4.14 of Instruction 20/04, which lists the different circumstances under which a period of Cl B Reserve service can end, is based on the existence and the coming into effect of Cl B service. In other words, article 4.14 may be invoked only if a member is actively in service on Cl B. In the case before us, since the grievor’s period of service had not begun, the Board concluded that article 4.14 of Instruction 20/04 could not apply and that, as a consequence, there had been no requirement to grant the grievor 30 days’ notice in order to change his period of Cl B service. The Board also noted that although it understood the grievor’s concerns regarding the short notice, the decision of the grievor’s unit to correct the error that surfaced was warranted.
The Board explained, however, that although the Canadian Forces had acted within the dictates of the existing policies, their actions had not been those expected of an employer of choice and affirmed that, from an ethical standpoint, the grievor had not been treated fairly.
The Board confirmed that it had been informed that the authority to make ex gratia payments had been delegated to the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS). The exercise of this authority necessarily had to comply with Treasury Board (TB) policy governing ex gratia payments, defined in the Directive and Guideline on Claims and Ex Gratia Payments.
The Board subsequently determined that this case met the criteria established by the TB Directive and Guideline and that an ex gratia payment equivalent to 30 days of Cl B service would be appropriate under the circumstances.
The Board therefore recommended that the CDS uphold the grievance and make an ex gratia payment to the grievor of an amount equivalent to 30 days of Cl B service.
CDS Decision Summary
CDS Decision Date: 2016–04–07
The FA did not agree with the Committee's finding that the hasty delay of the grievor's Cl B service, even if it did not required the 30-day notice, was unfair. The FA did not agree with the Committee's recommendation that the grievor be given an ex gratia payment.
Page details
- Date modified: