# 2015-080 Pay and Benefits, Class A Reserve Service, Class B Reserve Service, Overpayment, Recovery of overpayment

Case summary

F&R Date: 2015-11-06

The Committee had to determine whether the grievor was paid for unauthorized Class B Reserve Service, and if so, whether recovery of the grievor's pay was warranted. The grievor contended that she thought she was placed on Class B service to help her cope with her post-traumatic stress disorder and to address the problem of her exceeding the maximum number of authorized Class A days in a month. She argued that the Summary Investigation (SI) into the matter was not conducted appropriately and that recovery of her pay caused her serious financial and emotional hardship. The grievor requested that the Class B offer be reinstated, that she not be subjected to pay recovery, and that it be acknowledged that she was not to blame for working on an unauthorized period of Class B service.

Relying on the SI Report, the Initial Authority (IA) found that the Class B service was not authorized and that the grievor was not entitled to be paid for time she did not actually work. The IA concluded that there were no policies that would allow him to waive the debt owed by the grievor.

The Committee found that the SI, ordered to determine whether the Class B service was authorized, was flawed in several ways:

1. The grievor was not told the real reason for the SI;
2. She could not address the legitimacy of the Class B offer;
3. She could not suggest witnesses to interview; and
4. She did not receive a proper interview.

In addition, the Committee noted the failure to provide full disclosure to the grievor of the documents relied upon in the SI Report. Due to the serious flaws in the SI, the Committee found that the SI report was unreasonable and unfair to the grievor.

The Committee also found that although recovery of the over payment was warranted, the decision to initiate a 100% recovery of the grievor's pay, and the manner in which it was implemented, were most egregious. The Committee concluded that the Canadian Armed Forces failed to consider the grievor's financial hardship and personal circumstances (which she had brought to their attention) before initiating the recovery.

Finally, the Committee found that the grievor was in no way responsible for the error that occurred leading to the recovery action. The Committee recommended that the SI report be quashed and removed from the grievor's file, and that the Final Authority acknowledge that the grievor was not to blame for the improperly authorized Class B service offer.

FA decision summary

The Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) agreed with the Committee's recommendation that the SI report be quashed and removed from the grievor's file. Considering the particular circumstances of this file, the CDS went further by acknowledging the grievor's service injury and by retroactively approving Reserve Force Compensation (RFC) and a Return to Work Program. This included an immediate reversal of the recovery of funds and approximately two months of RFC.