Administration of Imposed Restriction and Separation Expense

Topic

Administration of Imposed Restriction and Separation Expense

Case numbers

Issue

The Board found that the SE and IR policies are not reconcilable since the SE benefit is governed by a TB regulation, while IR requirements are provided under a CANFORGEN. In terms of approval authorities, the IR policy gives the career manager the authority to approve IR status, while DCBA controls the payment of the SE, the benefit which flows from the IR designation. The Board has expressed the view that since both the IR status and SE benefits are so interrelated, there should only be one authority to approve them both. In a number of cases reviewed by the Board so far, the career manager has authorized an IR only to have DCBA revoke the SE in arrears. In some cases this caused significant amounts of money to be recovered. As well, CF members have been left with extra living and/or transportation expenses that they might not have incurred had the IR been properly authorized or denied in the first place.

Recommendation

The Board recommended that the CDS direct an IR policy review and representations be made to the TB if necessary in order to clearly address IR status and SE entitlements or ineligibilities through proper regulations. The Board further recommend that, in the interim, clear direction be issued to the IR approval authority regarding the circumstances under which IR may be approved so as to avoid the regrettable situation of having one authority approve a benefit while another cancels it.

Final Authority Decision

The Board has received the Final Authority decision on the 2009-011 case, in which the CDS did not specifically address, nor mention, the Board's systemic recommendation with respect to the administration of imposed restriction (IR) and separation expense (SE). However, the CDS noted that DCBA was currently conducting a review of the domestic IR policy including the possible application of the policy to out-of-country scenarios.

The CDS was of the opinion that the Board's conclusions and recommendation were derived from inaccurate facts in that Les Cèdres, where the grievor moved at his own expenses, is located outside the designated geographical area of Montreal. Therefore, when the grievor was posted from St-Hubert to St-Jean, he was not entitled to a relocation at public expense, nor to IR and SE benefits. Since the CDS concluded that the grievor has no entitlement to IR/SE, it could explain why he did not address the Board's systemic recommendations on this issue.