# 2015-301 - Costing Formula for the Movement of Household Goods and Effects beyond the weight limit of the Core Entitlement – Outside Canada Postings, Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP), Investigation of Weight Discrepancy on Return from an out of Canada Posting, Provision of Accurate and Timely Information on Return Move from a Posting Outside Canada

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2016–10–27

The grievor challenged the recovery from his pay account of the charges for the shipment of household goods and effect (HG&E) in excess of his entitlement upon return from an out of Canada posting. Arguing that it was impossible that his family had so significantly increased their HG&E during their three-year posting, he claimed there was an unexplained difference of 4,700 lbs between the loaded and unloaded weights of the various tractor-trailer-sea container combinations used during his move that the CAF failed or refused to investigate. As redress, he sought the reimbursement of the amount recovered from his pay account.

As the initial authority (IA), the Director General Compensation and Benefits found that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the weight of the grievor's HG&E was misrepresented by the shipping company. The IA concluded that the established procedures were followed and that the discrepancy noted in the dry weight could be explained by differences in tractor weight. The IA determined that recovery from the grievor's pay was in accordance with established policy and denied redress.

With respect to weight entitlement, article 9.1.03 of the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP) directive prescribes that the move of HG&E up to 20,000 lbs (shipped and stored) is funded through the core envelope. Furthermore, article 12.4.01, governing international moves, further restricts the amount of HG&E that can be shipped outside of Canada based on family size. The move of any weight in excess can be funded through the custom envelope and through the personalized envelope when all custom funds have been expended.

The Committee found it truly unfortunate that the CAF did not see fit to investigate the grievor's allegation of a significant error in the scaled weight of the HG&E. Following a thorough examination of the evidence, the Committee concluded that the local transporter grossly underestimated the weight of the grievor's HG&E as part of the pre-move consultation, such that an investigation would have been warranted in this case, if only to provide an adequate explanation to the grievor, but more importantly to ensure that public funds had not been misused. Nonetheless, the Committee concluded, on the balance of probabilities, that the grievor did in fact ship the amount of HG&E reported, exceeding his OUTCAN entitlement of 16,940 lbs by more than 5,000 lbs. It also found that his combined HG&E weight shipped from overseas, as well as from storage, exceeded the 20,000 lbs core entitlement by more than 6,000 lbs.

The Committee also noted an inconsistency in the costing formula used by Brookfield Global Relocation Services and the Director - Military Careers Support Services in charging CAF members for the shipment of HG&E in excess of the various weight entitlements. The Committee concluded that the CF IRP directive provides that the CAF must charge for every pound of HG&E shipped from overseas, above the appropriate limit prescribed in article 12.4.01, at the actual per pound cost for that shipment. This limit is distinct from the 20,000 lbs limit prescribed in article 9.1.03. Consequently, for the shipment of HG&E from storage, the CAF must charge the military member for each pound in excess of the difference between the 20,000 lbs and the appropriate limit prescribed in article 12.4.01, at the actual per pound cost for that shipment. Applying this formula to the grievor's case resulted in additional recovery action against him.

Notwithstanding the above adverse finding, upon review, the Committee was satisfied that the grievor would not be made to bear these additional moving costs out of his own pocket. The Committee noted that grievor had sufficient unused funds in his personalized envelope to cover this cost. However, because he had already cashed the money that remained in his personalized envelope, there was no other option for the CAF but to recover this amount. Consequently, the Committee found that the grievor was treated in accordance with the CF IRP directive.

The Committee recommended to the CDS that the grievance be denied.

FA Decision Summary

FA Decision Pending