# 2021-279 Pay and Benefits, Post Living Differential

Case summary

F&R Date: 2022-04-12

The grievor enrolled in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) and was posted for Basic Military Qualification training with the movement of his household goods and effects (HG&E) at public expense prohibited. At that time, he owned a residence located at his place of enrolment and began to receive Post Living Differential (PLD) allowance. Subsequently, his posting message for further occupation training indicated that movement of HG&E at public expense was restricted for members with dependents and authorized for members without dependents. The grievor argued that he was not aware that this meant the CAF expected him to dispose of his residence because he did not have dependents. He further argued that he could not have done so as he was posted on 10 days' notice and did not receive sufficient administrative support with respect to his relocation entitlements. Shortly thereafter, the CAF notified him that his PLD allowance would cease six months after his posting date. The grievor contested the decision to cease his PLD allowance, and asserted that he should remain entitled to PLD allowance for the period he returned to and remained at his residence following a dispersal order due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Initial Authority found that the grievor had submitted his grievance outside of the prescribed time limits and refused to accept it for determination.

The Committee found that before it could determine whether the cessation of the grievor's PLD allowance was justified, it must review his entitlement to PLD allowance under the regulatory framework. The Committee noted that in order to be entitled to PLD allowance, a CAF member must have a principal residence as defined under article 205.45 of the Compensation and Benefits Instructions for the Canadian Forces. The Committee further noted that this would include the place where a member's HG&E were located on enrolment, but only if that place was the member's place of duty or former place of duty. The Committee found that as the grievor was never posted to his place of enrolment, nor had he ever performed his normal military duties there, it was never his place of duty. Consequently, the Committee found that the grievor was not entitled to PLD allowance and recommended that the Final Authority deny the grievance.