IE 25 Contract Re-dress ???

[GI JANE]

I joined the reg force in Feb, 2000.  I served a 3 year BE, then signed another 3 year BE.  While overseas in 2005, people in Canada were being offered "The last of the IE 20 contracts"  I returned home to be offered an IE 25, which I signed, as I was told it was that or nothing.  ( I have friends with less TI, who are on IE 20 )  Although I didn't really care too much about it at the time, current circumstances now make me wish I was on an IE 20.  My questions are :  Do I have any grounds to redress, and get my contract changed?  and if so, how do I go about it?  Any advice is GREATLY appreciated.

Trevor

 

[George Wallace]

When you were offered your IE, you should have been given the information and option to pick which plan you wanted.  I am sure that if you go and review your Pers File, that document should be there.  If not, find a knowledgeable clerk and have them explain your options.

 

[Pat in Halifax]

I was going to wait until I could dig up a bit of info but here is what I know. I recently had one of my guys redress exactly what you are talking about though the circumstances are not identical. The new CANFORGEN specifically addressed those who did not want to 'commit' to an IE25 by allowing them to sign a 5 yr CE. Unfortunately, it specified that those already under IE 25 had no recourse. My grounds were that the individual was misinformed about timelines and people (who should not have done this) speculating what would be incorporated into the CANFORGEN.
My confusion is that even if you were overseas/in the field/at sea, your divisional system would have had access to all this info you speak of. Having said that, I am NOT implying that someone over you neglected their duties at all. As mentioned above, talk to your favourite RMS clerk and if you do not have a favourite, ask to speak to the CClk.
Good luck and let us know what transpires - I know I am personally curious.

 

[gcclarke]

Grievances must be filed within 6 months of the date that you discovered whatever condition or incident that is prompting it, unless you can prove that the delay is due to measures beyond your control. Unfortunately for you, it does not appear that this is the case. The time to kick up a fuss about this issue was in 2005.

Obligatory reference: QR&O 7

7.02 – TIME LIMIT

(1) A grievance must be submitted within six months
after the day that the member knew or ought reasonably
to have known of the decision, act or omission in respect
of which the grievance is submitted.

(2) A member who submits a grievance after the
expiration of the period referred to in paragraph (1) must
submit reasons for the delay. 

(3) An initial authority may consider a grievance that is
submitted after the expiration of the period if the initial
authority is satisfied that to do so would be in the
interests of justice.  An initial authority who is not
satisfied shall provide reasons in writing to the member. 

(G) (P.C. 2000-863 of 8 June 2000 effective 15 June
2000)

NOTES 

(A) Where a member is deployed on an operation and the
six-month time limit expires during the operation, an
initial authority should normally be satisfied, where
preparation and submission of the grievance by the
member during the operation were not reasonably
possible, that the submission of the grievance within a
reasonable period of time after return from the operation
would be in the interests of justice.


(B) The former grievance regulations provided a time
limit of one year.  This same time limit applies if the date
that the most recent act or omission on which the
complaint is based occurred, or the date that the member
knew or ought reasonably to have known the facts upon
which the complaint is based took place, was prior to 15
June 2000. 


(C) (25 May 2000 effective 15 June 2000)

 

[GI JANE]

I guess in my opinion, I should have been offered an IE 20 while overseas.  It has only recently come to my attention that that others were offered the IE 20 prior to their BE's expiring, in order to avoid signing an IE 25 at a later time.  I know I should have done something then, but I can't change that now.

 

[Occam]

I guess in my opinion, I should have been offered an IE 20 while overseas.  It has only recently come to my attention that that others were offered the IE 20 prior to their BE's expiring, in order to avoid signing an IE 25 at a later time.  I know I should have done something then, but I can't change that now.

I can recall the time period in question, and to me, there seemed to be a lot of confusion about the issue.  Some pers who were proactive got the attention of their CoC and IE20 offers were generated much earlier than they normally would have been - in some cases, only one year into the second BE.  Other personnel, who had Chains of Command who were not receptive to a member "prodding" the CoC into making an early IE20 offer, were forced to wait while it was decided who could be offered what and when - and eventually, they had no option to sign anything but an IE25.  It was a mess, there were some upset personnel, and it sure didn't seem fair to the members.

IMHO, if you only recently became aware that others were offered IE20s while you were offered an IE25, then you're within your rights to grieve it and the six-month rule shouldn't be in play. 

 

[dapaterson]

IMHO, if you only recently became aware that others were offered IE20s while you were offered an IE25, then you're within your rights to grieve it and the six-month rule shouldn't be in play.

In this case, the discovery that others were offered IE20 at the same time as you were offered an IE25 would be the triggering event - a grievance should be within 6 months of that discovery.  Make sure that you spell out that issue in your grievance - "On February 14th I learned that Bloggins got an IE20 at the same time I got my IE 25, it was that discovery that made me realize that I should have been offered the same treatment".

As always, should you choose to grieve, make sure you are very clear in your submission - it's good to open with a short summary of what went wrong and what you want done to fix it, followed by the long, detailed explanation of the issue (including all the referneces you can find), ending with a summary that essentially re-states the opening summary.