# 2019-294 Pay and Benefits, Relocation - Reservists

Case summary

F&R Date: 2020-09-16

The grievor argued that she left the Regular Force to accept an offer of Reserve Force employment in another location and that she should be provided with a relocation, and associated benefits, to her new place of duty. She also contended that Reservists should be provided with a paid move when accepting a Class B position for a year or more.

The Initial Authority (IA) found that the hiring authority had not recommend a cost move, nor had the Director Compensation of Benefits Administration approved a cost move, both of which are required for reimbursement of relocation expenses. The IA also noted that the hiring authority had conducted a fair and transparent hiring process in which it was stated from the outset that no cost move would be authorized.

The Committee found that the grievor did not meet the three conditions stipulated by the Treasury Board in the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program (CFIRP) Directive to be entitled to a cost move at public expense. The Committee also found that it was reasonable for the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) to exercise discretion and offer cost moves on a case-by-case basis to meet service requirements. Consequently, the Committee recommended that the Final Authority (FA) not afford the grievor redress.

FA decision summary

The FA agreed with the Committee's finding that the CFIRP provided discretion, and that, in this case, given that the Canadian Joint Operations Command had not recommended relocation and the Director of Compensation and Benefits Administration had not approved a relocation, the grievor had no entitlement. The FA also agreed that the grievor had been aware of this before accepting the Reserve Employment Opportunities and the relocation. The Committee also reviewed the fairness of the situation and found that it was reasonable for the CAF to exercise the discretion provided by the Treasury Board (TB). The FA agreed that the discretion was reasonably exercised and stated that the TB policy itself was fair: "having carefully examined the TB approved policy in question, I find that it was sound " As recommended by the Committee, the FA did not grant redress.