# 2015-213 Pay and Benefits, Imposed Restriction

Case Summary

F & R date: 2015-10-26

While on Imposed Restriction (IR) status, the grievor signed a one year lease that contained a lease-breaking penalty clause. His IR was extended once, however a subsequent extension was denied, leaving the grievor with the need to break his lease. It was the grievor's contention that he should not have had to pay the lease-breaking penalty. He maintained that breaking his lease was service-related, necessitated by the lifting of his IR status, and therefore not his choice.

The Initial Authority (IA) denied the grievance, having found that the termination of the lease was not service-related and stated that, had the grievor given 30 to 60 days notice to the landlord, he would not have had to pay the penalty.

The Committee found that ‘giving notice' was not an option for the grievor as his lease clearly stipulated a lease-breaking penalty and it did not provide for a notice-in-lieu of payment option. The Committee also found that grievor was fully informed of the need to have a penalty-free or month-to-month lease, as he had attended a Separation Expense briefing and had signed the IR checklist, which cautioned members who chose to enter into a lease agreement.

The Committee found that the grievor was responsible for the lease-breaking penalty and recommended that the grievance be denied. 

FA Decision Summary

The Final Authority (FA) agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendation that the grievance be denied.