# 2015-181 - Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP)

Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2015–11–05

The grievor was relocated from Halifax, Nova Scotia, to Ottawa, Ontario. The closing date on the sale of his residence in Halifax was a Monday, the closing date on the purchase of his replacement residence in Ottawa was the next day. Given the Monday closing, the packing and loading of the family's household goods and effects (HG&E) could not occur any later than the preceding Friday, as those services are not provided over a weekend. The grievor and his family travelled via commercial air on the Sunday in order to be in Ottawa when their HG&E arrived. The HG&E arrived in Ottawa on Monday, but could not be delivered until Wednesday, that is the day following the closing date of the purchase of his replacement residence. It was deemed that the grievor had not organized a door-to-door move, as defined in the Canadian Force Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP) Directive, such that two days of Interim Lodgings, Meals and Miscellaneous (ILM&M) expenses where paid from the grievor's personalized funding envelop. The grievor contested this decision, arguing that he had organized a door-to-door move within the terms of the policy and requested that the two days of ILM&M expenses be paid from the core funding envelop.

The Initial Authority denied the grievance on the basis that the grievor had not arranged his move such that the HG&E could be delivered upon arrival at destination, thus not meeting the definition of the CF IRP Directive for a door-to-door move.

The Committee found that the policy was silent on the issue of closing the sale on the Monday. It found that the grievor had not been advised until after the fact by the Brookfield Global relocation Services (BGRS) agent of the impact of this decision on the move of HG&E, an issue the BGRS office in Halifax was well aware of. The Committee noted that it was reasonable for the grievor to have arranged for the purchase of his replacement residence to occur the day following the sale of his disposal residence, avoiding dual residency. The Committee also noted that the Transit Planning Guide of the Household Goods Removal Services contract in place at the time allowed for a delivery window where the grievor's HG&E could have arrived in Ottawa as early as the Monday, but as late as the Wednesday. While the CF IRP Directive cannot cover all possibilities, the Committee found that the grievor had a right to rely on the advice of the BGRS agent, who had failed to provide the appropriate advice.

Given the situation and the fact that the CF IRP Directive provides for the exercise of discretion in determining when the circumstances preventing a door-to-door move are outside of the CAF member's control, the Committee recommended that the Final Authority grant the greivance and direct that the two days of ILM&M be paid out of the core funding envelop.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2016–01–28

The FA agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendation that the grievance be upheld and the grievor be reimbursed two days of ILM&M expenses from the core envelope.

Page details

Date modified: