# 2009-079 - Allowances and Benefits, Hardship Allowance, Hierarchy of legislation, regulations and others, Sea Duty...

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2010–01–22

The grievor explained that while he had been deployed on Operation ALTAIR his Sea Duty Allowance (SDA) had been ceased while he was drawing the Hardship Allowance (HA) in accordance with a message issued by the Director General Compensation and Benefits (DGCB) on 2 September 2003. This message stated that there was an entitlement to both allowances but that the HA and SDA were not to be paid concurrently until a review directed by the Treasury Board (TB) had been carried out. The grievor contended that the DGCB messages clearly stated that both allowances would be paid once the overlap was identified and removed. The grievor took the position that the difference between the HA and SDA is that the SDA covers the regular hardship of daily life at sea whereas the HA covered the hardships of being on a major deployment, which are considerably different than normal sea going operations. He stated that, if there are overlaps between the two allowances, they need to be sorted out to allow for the payment of both SDA and HA. The grievor argued that, had the review taken place as directed by TB, he would have received the SDA in addition to the HA and RA, tax free.

As redress, the grievor requested that his SDA for the period of his time in the theatre of operations be reinstated along with the tax free status to which the allowance would have been subject at that time.

The initial authority denied redress because he considered that the policies in place did not permit the concurrent payment of the HA and SDA. The DGCB acknowledged that, until such time as the two regulations are brought into line, there may be some confusion with one another; however, a deployed member could not receive both allowances within the current policy framework. The DGCB subject matter expert stated that the Departmental Hardship and Risk Committee (DHRC) had determined that a substantial portion of the criteria outlined on the HA assessment did in fact represent similar criteria on the SDA assessment, thereby representing (potentially) compensation for similar or identical conditions.

The Board found that the grievor was eligible for the HA and also for the SDA.

The Board found that the HA and SDA are intended to serve different purposes and there is no bar to receiving both. Therefore, the Board found that the grievor was entitled to both HA and SDA for the period his ship was in the theatre of operations.

The Board recommended that the grievance be upheld and the grievor paid the SDA for the period his ship was in the theatre of operations.

Systemic Recommendation

The Board noted that the DGCB denial of the payment of both HA and SDA had been in effect since 2 September 2003 and as a result, there were a considerable number of CF members who had been deployed on maritime operations who had also been denied the benefit of both allowances. Therefore, the Board recommended that the service of all members who have deployed on maritime operations be reviewed and the HA or SDA, as applicable, be paid to these members.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2010–09–15

The CDS did not agree with the Board's findings and its recommendation that the grievance be upheld. The CDS agreed that the SDA and HA serve different purposes, but he stated that concurrent payment of the SDA and the HA would amount to double compensation. The CDS was of the view that the grievor was already granted the HA during the operational deployment and the SDA factors were already included in the calculation of the HA level at the onset of his deployment. The CDS was satisfied that the grievor has been treated appropriately under the interim DGCB policy governing the payment of allowances during operational deployments.