# 2014-165 - Reserve Force Retirement Gratuity

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2014–11–28

The grievor complained that he was unfairly denied the Reserve Force Retirement Gratuity (RFRG), arguing that even if not entitled under the applicable policy, Compensation and Benefits Instruction (CBI) 204.54 Reserve Force Retirement Gratuity (RFRG), he should receive the benefit in the spirit of fairness and equity, and in recognition of his long and dedicated service.

The Initial Authority, the Director General Compensation and Benefits, denied the grievance, finding that the grievor was not serving on a period of continuous full-time paid service following his transfer to the Supplementary Reserves (Supp Res) in September 1995 and therefore did not meet the eligibility criteria to qualify for the RFRG benefit.

The Committee had to determine whether the grievor was entitled to the RFRG on his retirement from the Cadet Organizations Administration and Training Service.

The Committee first considered the grievor's contention that the CBI 204.54 policy was silent regarding whether his Primary Reserve (P Res) service prior to 1 March 2007 qualified him to receive the RFRG benefit. The Committee found that the language in CBI 204.54(2) was clear. Since the grievor was not a member of the P Res on 1 March 2007, or afterwards, CBI 204.54(2) did not apply to him.

The Committee also considered whether the grievor's service as a member of the Supp Res could be treated as “deemed service” in the P Res under CBI 204.54(18). The Committee found that CBI 204.54(18) did not apply to the grievor's situation because he had not been serving on a period of continuous Class “B” or “C” Reserve Service of not less than 180 days on the requisite date of 1 April 1997.

Accordingly, the Committee found that the grievor had no entitlement to receive the RFRG benefit at the time of his retirement from the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF).

Finally, the Committee considered whether the grievor had been treated unfairly by the policy, pointing out that benefits such as the RFRG are developed to address the specific requirements of the CAF and are therefore always limited in scope. The Committee noted that the RFRG benefit was put in place by the CAF to encourage and reward longer service specifically within the P Res in order to enhance the level of military skills, knowledge and expertise in the P Res, thereby increasing the level of skills and knowledge available to augment the Regular Force. The Committee found that the grievor had been treated fairly and recommended that the grievance be denied.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2015–03–25

The CDS agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendation that the grievance be denied.