# 2013-080 Pay and Benefits, Canadian Forces Severance Pay (CFSP), Reserve Force Retirement Gratuity

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2013–10–25

The grievor complained that the Payment in Lieu of Severance Pay to which he was entitled was unfairly and negatively affected by the Reserve Force Retirement Gratuity (RFRG) benefit he received at the half rate when he transferred to the Regular Force (Reg F).

The grievor considered it unjust that he was forced to take his RFRG at the half rate on transfer to the Reg F and then have that time deducted from his Payment in Lieu of Severance Pay. In this regard, the grievor indicated that other Primary Reserve (P Res) members who had transferred without having a RFRG payment benefited from the fact that their P Res service counted, at the full rate, towards their Payment in Lieu of Severance Pay. As redress, the grievor sought the difference between the two rates.

The Initial Authority, the Acting Director General Compensation and Benefits, returned the grievance without any further action, on the basis that the policy in dispute is the sole purview of the Treasury Board (TB) and that no member of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) could grant the redress sought.

The Committee agreed that the grievor's Payment in Lieu of Severance Pay would have been greater had he not received the RFRG. However, the Committee considered the grievor's line of reasoning to be flawed because it was a purely hypothetical speculation based, in hindsight, on an event that could not possibly have been foreseen at the time of transfer. The Committee found that the RFRG squarely addressed the grievor's situation at the time of his transfer and that there was no indication that Severance Pay for voluntary releases would be cancelled and would cease to accrue and be paid-out.

The Committee noted that pay, benefits, and allowances are constantly under review by the TB and are subject to cancellation or amendment to better reflect government and CAF priorities. In this case, the new TB policy considered situations such as the grievor's and made specific provision in the new policy for such conditions.

The Committee considered that the evidence did not support the grievor's position that the new policy was unjust, finding that the policy simply ensures that P Res service is not compensated for twice.

The Committee recommended that the grievance be denied.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2014–06–27

The Chief of the Defence Staff agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendation that the grievance be denied.