# 2014-048 - Joint Personnel Support Unit (JPSU)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2014–07–30

The grievor suffered an injury as a result of a work-related activity for which he required surgery. During his convalescence, complications arose and led to the need for a second surgery. While he was awaiting that surgery and as it appeared he would be medically released, the grievor, with the support of his chain of command, requested a posting to a different location to be closer to his family and to a support system to assist him during his convalescence and transition to civilian life. The request was denied by the Director of Military Careers (D Mil C) who followed the Deputy Base Surgeon's recommendation to deny the move as per Canadian Forces General (CANFORGEN) Message 114/11 – Posting to Joint Personnel Support Unit (JPSU)/Service Personnel Holding List, which required “compelling reasons” to justify a cost move.

The Initial Authority (IA), the Director General Military Careers, denied the grievance. The IA stated that the Deputy Base Surgeon confirmed that there was no medical imperative for the move, and that there were no compelling reasons to authorize it. He found that the decision to deny the grievor's request complied with CANFORGEN 114/11.

The Committee had to determine whether the decision to deny the grievor's requested posting was reasonable and justified in the circumstances.

The Committee determined that the grievance rested on the words “compelling reasons” found in CANFORGEN 114/11. The Committee found that the reasons required to support a request were vague and ambiguous and that there were no standardized guidelines or directives on how to apply the condition. As a result, the words “compelling reasons” could be interpreted and treated differently by Base Surgeons leading to differential treatment of members depending on their region or base.

In the grievor's case, the Committee found that the reasons later provided by the Base Surgeon, the Social Worker and the grievor's chain of command were compelling reasons and that his request should have been granted. The grievor's lengthy career in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), the importance of his mental well-being, his release and transition to civilian life all could be interpreted as “compelling reasons”.

The Committee recommended to the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) that he uphold the grievance. However, given the grievor's imminent release date, the redress sought was no longer available and should be denied.

As an observation, the Committee suggested to the CDS that he request the D Mil C to amend CANFORGEN 114/11 by providing examples and clarity to the approval process and to ensure a consistent application across the CAF.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2015–06–30

The FA agreed with the Committee's finding and its recommendation to uphold the grievance, although the redress sought is not available given the grievor's release. The FA agreed with the Committee's suggestion that CANFORGEN 114/11 be amended to provide some clarity to the process. The FA asked the Director General Military Careers to consider the observations made by the Committee and ensure a more holistic approach in the future to situation like the grievor's.