# 2016-117 - Canadian Forces Severance Pay (CFSP), Pay and Benefits

Canadian Forces Severance Pay (CFSP), Pay and Benefits

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2016–10–20

Six years of prior service were excluded from the calculation of the grievor's Payment in Lieu (PiL) of Canadian Forces Severance Pay on the basis that the date on her Enrolment/Transfer form (CF 444) indicated a break in service and a re-enrolment. The grievor argued that the CF 444 date was a clerical error made during her component transfer (CT) from the Supplementary Reserve to the Primary Reserve and that no break in service occurred.

The Initial Authority (IA), the Director General Compensation and Benefits, refused to accept the grievance on the basis that it was submitted in excess of 15 months beyond the three month time limit provided in paragraph 7.06(1) of the Queen's Regulations and Orders applicable to the Canadian Forces (QR&O). The file was accepted for adjudication at the Final Authority (FA) level in the interests of justice.

The Committee found that, although the CF 444 date did imply a break in service, the grievor's Enrolment/Transfer/Posting (ETP) message indicated that the CT was completed with no break in service as claimed by the grievor and as confirmed by her Commanding Officer and the Unit Recruiting Officer.

The Committee noted that once the discrepancy in dates was identified by the PiL team, further investigation ought to have been undertaken. Given that both documents were considered source documents for PiL calculations, and that the ETP message date was verified by multiple sources, the Committee found that there was no break in the grievor's service, and that a clerical error had occurred with the CF 444 form. The Committee recommended that the grievor's PiL be re-calculated to include her prior period of service.

The Committee observed that the IA should not have rejected the grievance solely on the basis of timeliness, without considering whether the grievance should be accepted in the interests of justice. The Committee noted several factors that should be examined on a case-by-case basis when considering the interests of justice.

The Committee suggested that the FA may find value in reiterating those principles to ensure that IAs do not reject grievances on the basis of a restrictive and erroneous interpretation of the Note to QR&O 7.06.

FA Decision Summary

There is no Final Authority decision as the grievor withdrew the grievance.

Page details

Date modified: