# 2017-072 - Intended Place of Residence (IPR), Release - Benefits

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2017–07–07

The grievor contends that he was unfairly disadvantaged by the policy amendment introduced by Canadian Forces General Message (CANFORGEN) 160/14, CHANGES TO THE INTENDED PLACE OF RESIDENCE POLICY AND ASSOCIATED RELOCATION BENEFITS, which announced that effective 16 September 2014, relocation benefits would no longer be payable for local Intended Place of Residence (IPR) moves of 40 kilometres of less from door to door. The grievor sought a change in the IPR policy to include a grandfather clause such that he would receive the benefits he have normally would have been entitled to if the IPR policy had not been changed.

The Director General Compensation and Benefits acting as the Initial Authority acknowledged that the changes in the IPR policy for those who were relocating within their local geographical area on release may lead members to feel disadvantaged. Nonetheless, it was only those members whose effective date of release was prior to the change in policy were “grandfathered” and neither he nor the Chief of the Defence Staff had the authority to extend benefits beyond the prescribed framework approved by Treasury Board.

The Committee found that the grievor did not meet the criteria for any of the four exceptions provided for in the Canadian Forces Intregrated Relocation Program 14.3.10. and that it was properly applied to the grievor's situation. Consequently the grievor was not entitled to relocation expenses for a local IPR move of 40 kilometres or less from door to door.

The Committee commented that though a benefit is not a right, it suggested that a policy change which results in the reduction or removal of a benefit, should be implemented with a considered measure of protection or transition.

FA Decision Summary

FA Decision Pending