# 2013-087 - Compassionate Posting, Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP), Relocation

Compassionate Posting, Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP), Relocation

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2014–04–30

The grievor returned from Afghanistan and within a few months was posted to a new unit. The following year he was again posted, this time to a busy project in Ottawa, requiring a considerable amount of Temporary Duty. Two years later, the grievor was again posted.

The grievor alleged that he was not afforded a proper post-deployment screening, that his subsequent postings were mismanaged and unfair, that the resulting operational tempo and serious financial hardship impaired his decision making ability and led to mental health issues, and that the possibility of a compassionate posting had been unfairly dismissed by his Career Manager (CM) and his Branch. As redress, the grievor sought reimbursement of certain posting related expenses as well as a compassionate posting back to Ottawa.

The Committee searched but could find no record of a completed post-deployment screening on the grievor's personnel and medical file and, therefore, found that the grievor was not provided with the appropriate post-deployment screening on his return from Afghanistan.

The Committee noted that the grievor had not received all of the special leave to which he was entitled. The Committee recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) direct an audit of the grievor's leave record and authorize an equivalent amount of special leave for any leave to which the grievor had been entitled but did not receive.

The Committee then examined the posting plot for the grievor's occupation and found that he could, and should, have been permitted to remain in the Ottawa area rather than have been posted out of the area.

Regarding the grievor's financial hardship issue, the Committee examined his Brookfield relocation files and noted several items that had not yet been claimed. Further, some of the items that the grievor insisted he did not receive were indicated as having been paid by Brookfield. In response to a query by Committee staff, the Director General Compensation and Benefits was unable to confirm that an indication by Brookfield of an amount in the “Expenses Claimed” column of their financial worksheets was reliable proof that the expense had in fact been paid. Therefore, the Committee recommended that the CDS direct an audit of the grievor's two most recent relocation claims to ensure that the grievor received or receives all benefits to which he was entitled.

Regarding the Grievor's allegation that he received no assistance from his CM and Branch when he made it known that he was suffering from a mental health issue, the Committee found that the CM should have supported the recommendation of the grievor's chain of command to post the grievor back to Ottawa, based on the unanimous opinions of medical professionals and the Joint Personnel Support Unit staff involved in the grievor's case.

Ultimately, the Commanding Officer of the Joint Personnel Support Unit was able to effect an attached posting to the Integrated Personnel Support Centre Ottawa for the grievor pending his potential medical release.

The Committee recommended that the CDS uphold the grievance, that he grant partial redress, and that he apologize to the grievor for the way his file, career and postings were mishandled since his return from deployment to Afghanistan.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2015–06–02

The FA found that the grievor was treated in accordance with the rules, regulations and policies. The FA found that the grievor beard the sole responsibility for his financial distress. Consequently, the FA did not agree with the Committee's recommendation that the grievance be partially upheld.

Page details

Date modified: