# 2017-132 Pay and Benefits, Annual Leave

Case summary

F&R Date: 2018–01–18

The grievor, a Reserve Force member on a three-year period of Class “B” Reserve Service, was placed under temporary medical employment limitations (MEL) that precluded her from fulfilling her usual duties. After less than two weeks, the Commanding Officer (CO) notified the grievor that she no longer met the requirements of her position and that her period of Class “B” Reserve Service would be terminated. She was subsequently directed by the unit adjutant (Adjt) to take leave until the end of her period of reserve service, which represented 15 days of annual leave.

The grievor disagrees with the order to take annual leave during a time when she was on restricted duties and under medical care.

The Canadian Forces Leave Policy Manual (CFLPM) provides that the CO may order a member on annual leave and that when doing so, the CO should consider “the wishes of the individual”. As the CFLPM does not specify that a CO can delegate the authority to order leave, the Committee found that the unit Adjt was not authorized to order the grievor to take annual leave. Furthermore, the Committee found no evidence in the grievance file that the grievor's wishes were considered. Therefore, even if the CO had been the one to issue the order, the Committee would have found that the decision to order the grievor to take leave was not made in accordance with the spirit of the CFLPM.

Finally, the Committee observed that the grievor was subject to MEL when her period of Class “B” Reserve Service was terminated. Although her period of service was later reinstated with appropriate accommodation of her medical condition, the Committee was concerned with the lack of support initially provided by her unit.

Having found that the grievor should not have been ordered to take annual leave, the Committee recommended that the 15 days of annual leave be cancelled and replaced with 15 days of special leave.

FA decision summary

The Commander Canadian Army partially agreed with the Committee's recommendation that the grievance be upheld. The Final Authority (FA) explained that the grievor accumulated annual leave from the previous fiscal year, which is not permitted under the CFLPM. While noting that it was an oversight on the Chain of Command's (CoC) part; the FA also stated that "by not using your allotted annual leave during the leave year, [the grievor] risked being ordered to take leave during a period you may not have chosen yourself". The FA did not accept the grievor's argument that he was unaware of the leave policy, given his experience and occupation. He also noted that the grievor did not submit a leave plan, contrary to what was asked by the CoC. He found that the grievor's CO had the authority to order him on annual leave while the grievor was on restricted duties. As such, the FA found that CF Leave Request Authorization (CF 100) was improperly administered when he was signed by an Adjt whereas the CFLPM provides that only the CO has the authority to order members on annual leave.  Noting that to order a member on leave is never desirable, the FA mentioned that it is necessary in some cases. Instead of crediting the grievor with 15 days of special leave, as recommended by the Committee; the FA directed the grievor's CO to amend his CF 100 form to show five days of Special Leave - CDS, as per Queen’s Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces 16.20 and 10 days of annual leave, to reflect their shared responsibility.