# 2013-024 Pay and Benefits, Class C Reserve Service, Component Transfer, Incentive Pay Category (IPC)
Case Summary
F&R Date: 2013–05–30
At the time of his transfer from the Primary Reserve to the Supplementary Reserve (Supp Res), the grievor was at the incentive pay category (IPC) “7” for his rank. More than five years later, he transferred from the Supp Res to the Primary Reserve List to accept an offer of Class “B” Reserve Service at a lower rank, relinquishing his rank with the caveat that he would be promoted back to his substantive rank upon completion of the period of service. The grievor then accepted an offer of Class “C” Reserve Service, at his substantive rank with an IPC “7”, to serve on deployment in Afghanistan. Approximately six months into his deployment, the grievor was advised that his IPC “7” was being reverted to IPC “B” with a commensurate decrease in pay and recovery of overpayment in excess of $5,000. Given the fact that the grievor had been on the Supp Res for more than five years, he was advised that he should not have received credit for his IPC increments and should have been paid at the IPC “B” for the duration of his Class “C” service. The grievor requested a waiver of qualifying service for incentive pay during his Class “C” service but with no formal response over two months later, he submitted a grievance. The grievor argued that it was unfair of the Canadian Forces (CF) to unilaterally amend what he considered to be an “agreement of mutual commitment”. The grievor further submitted that while on the Supp Res, he had maintained and obtained relevant skills and qualifications of military value consistent with an officer of that rank with an IPC “7”.
Without the benefit of an Initial Authority decision on this file, the issue before the Canadian Forces Grievance Board (“the Board”), was whether the decision to unilaterally change the IPC level offered to the grievor was justified and in accordance with policy.
The Board found that, in accordance with Compensation and Benefits Instructions (CBI) 204.015(4), the grievor's service prior to his continuous interruption of service of more than five years was not included as qualifying service for the purpose of determining pay increments. Referring to a previous similar grievance (2011-073), the Board also found that while the civilian courses the grievor had completed might prove beneficial on his deployment, they should not play any role in the pay increment equation as the CF places emphasis on skills and qualifications that are of value in determining training required for a member's military occupation only, which was not the case herein.
The Board found the grievor was presented with an offer that he accepted and a reasonable member, in the position of the grievor would not necessarily have seen this offer as a mistake. Although the Board found that the CF had failed in its duty to correctly administer the grievor's Class “C” service, it was unable to find that the CF acted negligently or that the grievor suffered damages to his detriment. As a result, the Board recommended that the grievance be denied but recommended the Chief of the Defence Staff express his regrets to the grievor regarding the situation.
CDS Decision Summary
CDS Decision Date: 2013–09–26
The CDS did not agree with the Board's recommendation that the grievance be denied.
The CDS agreed with the Board's finding that the grievor's time in the Supplementary Reserve constituted a continuous break in service in excess of five years. Therefore, the CDS agreed that the amendment to the grievor's Cl “C” message made by the Director Reserve Support Management to reflect major IPC “B” was done in accordance with CBI 204. However, the CDS considered the grievor's work experience during this break and though not directly related to the Artillery Occupation, he was satisfied that, combined with previous military experience, impressive educational and CF credentials, the “Military Value” requirement of CBI 204.015 on was fulfilled. In light of this and the fact that the break in service was only six months in excess of the five-year limit, the CDS found that the grievor should have been granted major IPC 7 during his Class “C” reserve service.
Page details
- Date modified: