# 2011-125 - Ambiguity in the Posting Allowance Policy, Posting Allowance (PA), Transfer from Reserve Force to...

Ambiguity in the Posting Allowance Policy, Posting Allowance (PA), Transfer from Reserve Force to Regular Force

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2011–12–29

The grievor received Enrolment/Transfer - Posting (ETP) instructions approving his component transfer from the Reserve Force (Res F) to the Regular Force (Reg F) and indicating that he was loaded on the Qualification Level three (QL3) in Gagetown. Upon completion of his QL3 course, the grievor was posted from Gagetown to Trenton. The grievor then requested the posting allowance (PA) for his relocation.

The Relocation Adjudication Section of the Director Compensation and Benefits Administration (DCBA) denied the grievor’s request based on article 3.4.03 of the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP) 2009, stating that the PA is not payable when the posting is to the first place of duty where CF members will be employed after re-enrollment or transfer to the Reg F.

The grievor submitted a grievance arguing that his situation met the intent of the PA policy, which is to compensate for the turbulence associated with a Reg F member’s relocation. He also argued that he met the career status conditions of article 3.4.03 of the CF IRP 2009 since he had completed his QL3 course in Gagetown and had completed three years of service during his Res F service.

There was no initial authority (IA) decision on file as the Director General Compensation and Benefits, the IA in this matter, was unable to respond within the time limit and the grievor did not agree to grant a second 180-day extension.

The Board found that the grievor met the two qualifying criteria as set out in section 3.4.03 of the CF IRP. Specifically, he was a Reg F member being posted from one place of duty to another and he had attained “career status”.

Concerning the reason provided by the DCBA for denying the PA to the grievor, although not fully stated as such, the Board assumed that the DCBA had concluded that the grievor was not “employed” at Gagetown because he was attending QL3 training. Based on that conclusion, the DCBA then determined that the grievor’s subsequent posting to Trenton was actually his first place of duty where he would be “employed”. The Board was of the view that the term “employed” is not used in the CF lexicon, nor in the National Defence Act when speaking of CF members. The Board further found that, while training in Gagetown, the grievor received wages for his efforts and was therefore considered to be “employed” on training.

Given that the Board found that the grievor was in fact employed and performing a duty while posted to Gagetown, the Board also found that the grievor’s subsequent posting to Trenton represented his second place of duty where he would be employed after having transferred to the Reg F. The Board concluded that the grievor was entitled to the PA for his relocation from Gagetown to Trenton.

The Board recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff uphold the grievance and that the grievor be paid the PA for his 2010 posting to Trenton.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2012–09–12

The CDS agreed with the Board's recommendation to grant the grievance. Since DGCB acknowledged the discrepancy between article 3.4.04 of the CF IRP and CBI 205.42 (now 208.849) and that it be will addressed as part of its review of remuneration and compensation benefits, the CDS was satisfied that the proper interpretation of the policy will be applied. The CDS did consider the Board's systemic recommendation that the CF IRP disposition be changed, but did not take specific action on it.

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: