# 2009-038 - Class C Reserve Service, Entitlement to the Daily Rate of Class C Pay on Short-term Class C, Operational...

Class C Reserve Service, Entitlement to the Daily Rate of Class C Pay on Short-term Class C, Operational Status of Sea Training Units, Pay and Benefits

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2009–09–11

The grievor was employed on a period of Class “B” Reserve Service (Cl B svc) that had started on 15 December 2006. His duties required that he periodically conduct work-ups in ships and other operational units for which he was placed on Class “C” (Cl C) svc. He was placed on Cl C svc for the five-day period 28 July to 1 August 2008. The grievor noticed that he had been paid less than if he had been on Cl B svc for the same period. He stated that he had received the full daily rate for 1 August 2008 but that deductions from his daily rate of pay for the other four days amounted to a full day’s pay; in effect he was only paid for four days rather than the five he had worked.

The grievor explained that the Revised Pay System for the Reserves (RPSR) uses a 30-day pay rate to calculate the daily rate of pay for short periods of Cl C svc and there is no pay entitlement for the 31st day of a 31-day month. The grievor suggested that for periods of Cl C svc of less than a full month, the daily rate should be pro-rated over the number of days in that month.

As redress, the grievor requested that his pay for the period of Cl C svc 28 July to 1 August 2008 be adjusted to reflect the shortfall of one-day’s pay and that his pay records be audited from 15 December 2006 and that the RPSR be modified to prevent similar occurrences in the future.

The initial authority (IA), the Director General Compensation and Benefits (DGCB), denied redress. The DGCB explained that, in accordance with Queen’s Regulations and Orders (QR&O) 203.06, all months are deemed to have 30 days for the purpose of administering the entitlement to pay and allowances. He added that while it is accepted that anomalies will always exist when administering a pay system based on a monthly entitlement, the model treats members in a similar manner and minimizes these anomalies. In the case of a month with 31 days where the Cl C svc begins after the mid-month pay is disbursed, the member is paid for the next period to the 30th day and there is no payment for the 31st day. The IA mentioned that this principle has been confirmed by the Department of National Defence’s legal review services on three separate occasions throughout the years and is consistently applied within government. He also added, however, that the regulation will be reviewed with the future introduction of modifications to the pay system.

The Board disagreed with the DGCB that all months are deemed to have 30 days for the purpose of administering the entitlement to pay and allowances. The Board opined that the pay authorities and the DGCB had confused the entitlement to pay with the computation of its value. The Board’s plain reading of QR&O 203.06 was that the regulation formed only the basis for computing the value of the daily rate but did not establish the entitlement, which falls under Compensation and Benefits Instruction 203.01.

The Board found that the grievor was entitled to be paid the full daily Cl C rate for all five days service, including 31 July 2008.

The Board observed that in a previous case before it, the Board had found that this particular unit was an operational unit and its mandate and positions fall under “routine naval operations” as per the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) directive approving Cl C operations. In that case, the Board found that the member’s period of service with that unit should have been designated Cl C svc in accordance with CF regulations and the CDS directive. The Board also found in that case that the member was entitled to the Cl C rate of pay for his period of service in that unit.

The Board recommended that the grievance be upheld, the grievor be paid for 31 July 2008 and that his pay records for the period from 15 December 2006 be audited for similar underpayments.

The Board recommended that the CDS direct that steps be taken to identify those members who may have been underpaid in similar circumstances and that corrective pay action be taken.

The Board recommended that the Reserve positions in the unit in question be examined with a view to designating them to be operational.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2010–04–22

The CDS agreed with the Board's findings and its recommendation to grant the grievance; the grievor has to be paid for each day of service rendered. For the period of Class B service directly preceding and following the Class C service in question, the grievor will be paid the prescribed daily rate in accordance with CBI Chapter 204. For the period of Class C service of five days, the grievor will be paid a daily rate for each day, calculated on 1/30th of the montly rate of pay as prescribed by QR&O 203.06. The CDS also directed the Chief of Military Personnel, in cooperation with the Chief of the Maritime Staff, to address this potential systemic issue and take the necessary steps to identify those members in similar circumstances who may have been underpaid and to take corrective pay action as required, as well as to find a solution to prevent these situations from occurring.

Report a problem or mistake on this page
Please select all that apply:

Thank you for your help!

You will not receive a reply. For enquiries, contact us.

Date modified: