# 2015-110 - Compassionate Posting

Compassionate Posting

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2015–07–16

The grievor requested a compassionate posting to Toronto, Ontario, to resolve family-related matters. His request was supported by his Base Social Worker. In addition, his chain of command (CoC) had found a position in the grievor's military occupation (but not sub-occupation) in Toronto, and the latter unit was more than willing to employ him. However, the grievor's Career Manager (CM) did not support the grievor's request. Ultimately, the Director Military Careers (D Mil C) granted a two-year compassionate posting to the military unit closest to Toronto which had a vacant position in the grievor's occupation. The CM therefore posted the grievor to Petawawa.

The grievor contended that his CM refused to comply with the compassionate posting instruction. He submitted that instead of being posted to Toronto, he was posted to one of the furthest bases away from that location in Ontario. As redress, he requested a posting to a military unit closest to Toronto.

The Director General Military Careers, acting as Initial Authority (IA), stated that the grievor was not posted to Toronto given that the position available was a different sub-occupation from that of the grievor's. The IA indicated that the grievor's CM had confirmed there were no positions available in Toronto for the grievor sub-occupation, but that one existed in Pettawawa. The IA found that the decision to grant the grievor a compassionate posting was correct, and that the closest position for which the grievor was qualified was located in Petawawa. He denied the grievance.

The Committee reviewed Defense Administrative Order and Directive (DAOD) 5003-6 - Contingency Cost Moves for Personal Reasons, Compassionate Status and Compassionate Posting, and noted that nowhere in the policy was there a limitation that a CAF member must be posted to a position in his military occupation. Given the reasons for which the DAOD was adopted, it was the Committee's view that it was designed to be flexible in nature.

The Committee also reviewed the D Mil C Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) 012 - Contingency Cost Move and Compassionate Status/Posting, which also suggests a great deal of flexibility with respect to a CM's attempt to find a position in the specific location which is being sought by the CAF member.

The Committee found that the D Mil C's decision to limit the grievor's compassionate posting to his military occupation was overly restrictive and contrary to policy. Furthermore, the Committee found that the CM had limited the grievor's compassionate posting to positions of his sub-occupation only, which was contrary to policy, but also contrary to the D Mil C's decision.

The Committee noted that the fundamental reasons for which the compassionate posting had been granted could not be met from Petawawa, which is more than 4 ½ hour drive away from Toronto. Hence, for all intents and purposes, the grievor's posting to Petawawa could not be considered as a compassionate posting.

The Committee recommended to the Chief of the Defence Staff that the grievor's posting to Petawawa not be considered in his personnel files as a compassionate posting. In addition, the Committee recommended that, given the passage of time, the grievor's situation be reassessed in light of his current circumstances, with the view of determining whether he still meets the criteria to qualify for a compassionate posting to Toronto.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2015–11–05

The FA agreed with the Committees findings and recommendations that the grievor's posting from Gander to Petawawa not be considered or marked in his personnel files as a compassionate posting, and that the grievor be given a compassionate posting in the Toronto area.

Page details

Date modified: