# 2019-093 Pay and Benefits, Relocation benefits

Case summary

F&R Date: 2020-04-07

Upon the grievor's posting outside of Canada (OUTCAN) in 2017, he sought authorization from the Director Compensation and Benefits Administration to have his sailboat shipped to and stored at a third location within Canada instead of at his new place of duty. The grievor's request was denied and he proceeded with his relocation, leaving his sailboat stored in Canada. On 19 April 2018, a revised version of the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program (CFIRP) Directive was approved, which included the new entitlement to long term storage (LTS) at public expense for those posted OUTCAN. In his grievance, the grievor sought full payment for the shipment of his sailboat to a third location or, in the alternative, he would be satisfied if his LTS expenses were covered during his OUTCAN posting.

The Initial Authority (IA) denied the grievance finding that, as per the CFIRP, the grievor was entitled to move his sailboat to his new place of duty, not a third location. The IA also found that the grievor moved prior to the revised version of the CFIRP and, as the new provisions did not apply retroactively, he was not eligible for the new LTS entitlement.

The Committee found that, in accordance with CFIRP articles 9.01, 2.6.01, 9.3.04 and 12.4.01, the grievor was entitled to move his sailboat to his new place of duty. The Committee added that allowing him to move his sailboat to a third location would create a benefit where none existed. As for his request for LTS, the Committee found that the grievor was not entitled to LTS under the 2015 version of the CFIRP as his move was authorized without weight restrictions. The Committee also found that the grievor was not entitled to the new LTS provisions as he conducted his move well before the 19 April 2018 policy revision date.

The Committee recommended that the Final Authority not afford redress.

FA decision summary

The Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) agreed with the Committee's recommendation to deny the grievance. The CDS noted that there was no authority in the CFIRP allowing for the shipment of his sailboat to a third location. Regarding LTS, the CDS noted that there was no authority to allow for reimbursement of LTS at the time since the grievor was granted an authorized move without weight restrictions. The CDS also found that the grievor was not entitled to the revised LTS benefit given that the move of his household goods and effects took place prior to the new policy provisions. The CDS refused to consider the grievor's new request to reimburse the entire cost of shipping his sailboat through his Intended Place of Residence move for his recent retirement. The CDS stated that addressing the matter would be premature and outside the scope of the grievance.