# 2019-115 Pay and Benefits, Allowances and benefits

Case summary

F&R Date: 2021-03-16

The grievor was employed on an international operation outside of the geographical theatre of operations (TO). Mid-way through his term in the position, the grievor was informed that the position was not a “deployment” but an “assignment” to the operation, which changed the entitlements associated with the position. The grievor sought payment of Operational Foreign Service Premium and the granting of Special Leave (Mission). The grievor argued that other Canadian Armed Forces members who had occupied the position received different benefits despite the role remaining the same.

The Commander of the Canadian Joint Operations Command determined that he did not have the authority to grant the redress sought by the grievor As such, the grievor elected to have the grievance forwarded to the Final Authority (FA).

The Committee noted some ambiguity within the Compensation and Benefits Instructions between being on “deployment” to an operation and being on “assignment” to an operation. The Committee found that the grievor's position more closely aligned with being on a “deployment” and that the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) had not approved extending the TO to include the geographic location of the grievor's position. The Committee, having noted that the mismanagement of the grievor's leave request occurred to the detriment of the grievor, recommended that it would be appropriate for the FA to grant Special Leave under Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces article 16.20. The Committee observed the disparity in the benefits granted to various occupiers of the grievor's position and recommended that the FA direct a review to ensure the fair and consistent application of benefits.  

FA decision summary

The CDS accepted the Committee's finding that the grievor had been aggrieved and the recommendation that the grievor be granted special leave and additional relief. The Committee had found that operation allowances were not available because the CDS had never approved a request to include the grievor's position in a designated TO. The CDS declared that, notwithstanding any past direction or omission to the contrary, the grievor had been within a TO when he occupied that position and had therefore been deployed. The CDS determined that the grievor was entitled to the allowances that he had been denied. 

Furthermore, the CDS directed the Commander, Canadian Joint Operations Centre to take immediate steps to ensure that the deployed/assigned status of all positions be properly determined and that all personnel assigned to those positions are being properly compensated. The CDS also directed the Chief of Military Personnel to review the definitions of "assigned" and "deployed" with a view to either modifying them or creating a third definition that captures individuals in circumstances similar to those of the grievor.