# 2014-008 - Additional Car Rental Costs, Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP), Relocation Expenses

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2014–07–28

The grievor shipped his personal motor vehicle (PMV) at public expense upon posting to the United Kingdom (UK). Prior to the posting, the grievor attempted, without success, to have the PMV modified to meet the UK motor vehicle specifications. When his PMV arrived in the UK, he immediately proceeded to have it modified and continued to use a rental vehicle for the additional six days required to complete the modifications.

The Director Compensation and Benefits Administration (DCBA) subsequently denied his request for reimbursement of the additional six days of car rental on the basis that there was no provision within the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP) policy which would allow for reimbursement of additional car rental expenses after a PMV has been delivered to the posting destination.

There was no Initial Authority (IA) decision as the grievor refused to grant the IA additional time, requesting instead that his grievance proceed to the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) level for adjudication.

The Committee found that the DCBA decision was not reasonable, noting that the CF IRP policy recognizes that some countries impose an inspection on a PMV, followed by mandatory modifications. In such a case, the CF IRP allows for reimbursement of those modification costs. However, it does not specifically address the necessary additional rental costs incurred during the period for which the PMV is undergoing the modifications and, therefore, unavailable to the member.

The Committee concluded that the additional car rental expense was directly related to the grievor's relocation but was not specifically provided for in the policy, and therefore should be reimbursed from the Core envelope under the authority vested in DCBA under article 2.1.01 of the CF IRP. Accordingly, the Committee recommended that the CDS grant redress by reimbursing the grievor for his additional car rental costs from the Core envelope.

Lastly, the Committee observed that, although the DCBA appears to have recently begun to reimburse this expense from the Core envelope on a case-by-case basis, the current CF IRP policy still does not recognize the expense. The Committee therefore made a systemic recommendation that the CF IRP relocation policy be amended to include these additional car rental costs.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2015–03–03

Case withdrawn at Final Authority level.