# 2017-074 - Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP)

Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2017–12–27

The grievor, a Reserve Force (Res F) member, owned a house and accepted a Reserve Employment Offer. The Director Compensation and Benefits Administration authorized the grievor's relocation, and indicated that Res F members must relocate their household goods and effects (HG&E) within six months of the commencement date of the period of employment. He began his employment and put his house up for sale. Almost six months later, the grievor's house had not sold, so he moved to the new location, paid rent, and stored some of his HG&E. His house sold at a loss, almost 14 months after he began his employment.

The Committee reviewed Chapter 13 of the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP), which states that Res F members have one year from the commencement of their employment to claim relocation benefits related to the sale of a principle residence. The Committee noted that the grievor sold his house approximately 14 months after the start of his employment. The Committee therefore found that he was not entitled to compensation.

The grievor argued that Regular Force (Reg F) members have two years to claim benefits for the sale of their principle residence, and that this differing treatment in comparison to Res F, who have one year under the same circumstances, was discriminatory. The Committee noted that Reg F members can be ordered to move whether or not they wish to, and are often continually moved throughout their career. In the Committee's view, providing them with more time to sell their house when their move could not be refused was reasonable. However, Res F members can choose when and where to move, and one consideration for such a decision could be that the market is not right at that time. The Committee noted that although Reg F and Res F members may be entitled to differing benefits, this does not necessarily equate to discrimination. In this case, the Committee found that the grievor had been treated fairly and had not been discriminated against, because being a member of the Res F is not a prohibited ground of discrimination.

The Committee reviewed Chapter 9 of the CF IRP with respect to storage benefits. The fees incurred were for long-term storage, not for storage in transit. The latter is for moves without secured accommodation, and therefore storage in transit benefits do not apply to the grievor's situation. The Committee also determined that the grievor did not meet two of the specific conditions for long-term storage.

The Committee recommended that the grievance be denied.

FA Decision Summary

FA Decision Pending

Page details

Date modified: