# 2012-096 Pay and Benefits, Recruitment Allowance

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2012–10–17

On 2 June 2009, the grievor inquired as to the availability of a recruitment allowance (RA) prior to proceeding to re-enrolment and was informed that there was no RA for his occupation "at present or anticipated for the future". The grievor re-enrolled in the Canadian Forces (CF) on 18 June 2009. On 26 June 2009, a letter signed by the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) listed the occupations that would be eligible for a RA effective 1 July 2009; the grievor's occupation was on that list.

In his grievance, the grievor argued that he took steps to inform himself and expected the CF to exercise due diligence in responding to him; he added that, had he known his occupation would be added to the list as of 1 July 2009, he would have delayed his re-enrolment by 13 days. He requested that he be given the RA in the interests of justice.

The Board found that, since his occupation was not on the list of understrength occupations at the time he re-enrolled, the grievor did not meet the criteria for eligibility to the RA. However, given the proximity between the time the grievor requested confirmation of an incentive, his re-enrolment and the CDS letter of 26 June 2009, the Board requested information on the process that preceded the CDS letter. The response outlined a process that takes several months starting with the Annual Military Occupation Review (AMOR) conducted annually during the October to February timeframe in which the participants include the Occupation Authorities (Environment Chiefs from all three Services), the Director General Military Personnel and the Director General Compensation and Benefits. Once the AMOR report is completed (mid to end March), recommendations are forwarded to the Director Pay Policy Development for review following which the CDS approval is sought and the list of understrength occupations is released.

The Board noted that this process is internal to the CF and is not covered by any privilege; consequently, in the Board's opinion, knowledge of the content of the CDS letter would have been readily available in the circumstances of this grievance. Furthermore, in the Board's view, not only this information was not given to the grievor, but he was given erroneous information.

The Board opined that while there may not be any legal obligation to act on this case, there was certainly a fairness and moral obligation to resolve the matter. Given the circumstances, the Board concluded that the CDS should use his authority to direct that the grievor's enrolment date be changed to eliminate the period of leave without pay, thus addressing the grievor's eligibility for a RA.

The Board recommended that the CDS uphold the grievance.

The Board recommended to the CDS that the grievor's enrolment date be changed from 18 June 2009 to 5 July 2009 and that his record and enrolment paperwork be amended to reflect the new enrolment date.

The Board recommended that the CDS grant the grievor a RA in the amount of $20,000.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2013–03–20

The CDS disagreed with the Board's recommendation that the grievance be upheld. The CDS agreed with the Board that there was no recruitment allowance for the grievor's occupation until it was added to the list, effective 1 July 2009. However, the CDS did not agree with the Board that when the grievor enrolled on 18 June 2009, the CMP staff should have informed him that his occupation was to be designated as eligible for RA. The CDS did not agree that based on that, and on the fact that the grievor was on leave without pay from that date until 5 July 2009, the grievor's enrolment date be amended.

The Board was of the view that the CMP staff, who knew that the grievor's occupation was about to be put on the list of under-strengh occupation, should have informed the grievor since the process for considering and releasing the CDS decision to designate occupations was not covered by privilege. The CDS did not agree as section 18 of the Access to information Act prohibits such disclosure.