# 2011-130 - Mission Subsistence Allowance (MSA)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2012–02–07

The grievor filed a grievance concerning allowances paid while deployed abroad. He claimed to have been paid unfairly in that the allowance he received was less than the mission subsistence allowance (MSA) paid to members under direct mandate from the United Nations (UN). He sought review of monetary benefits granted to members in his situation and reimbursement of $9,000, representing, in his estimation, the spread in pay between those members who receive the UN’s MSA and those who do not.

The case was submitted to the Board without the benefit of a decision by the Initial Authority (IA) after the grievor had turned down a third request for an extension.

The Board acknowledged that the UN offers a more advantageous financial package than certain contingents, including Canada; however, the existence of a difference in financial benefits does not mean that the grievor suffered prejudice. The Board noted that the grievor had been housed at Crown expense and paid a meal allowance, benefits to which he was entitled under the applicable regulations of the Canadian Forces (CF) set out in chapter 10 of the Compensation and Benefits Instructions – Military Foreign Service Instruction. The Board noted that the grievor was not disputing this fact and made no claim that the allowances paid were insufficient or inadequate.

The Board further noted that there is no legal obligation for the CF to pay its members at the same rates as apply in other organizations, including the UN; moreover, the grievor was free to submit a change proposal to the appropriate authority, through his chain of command, for consideration.

The Board took note of the requests for extension made by IA staff, ie: the Director General, Compensation and Benefits (DGCB), and pointed out that this kind of situation appeared to be the norm in many of the cases recently referred to the Board. The Board acknowledged that exceptionally an extension requested may not suffice because of the complexity of the case and certain obstacles encountered in the course of the analysis. In this case, however, the three extension requests submitted to the grievor were vague and general and gave him no information relevant to his grievance.

The Board took the view that any request for extension should reflect the time actually needed to arrive at a decision. The Board added that it intended to submit a systematic recommendation on this matter shortly.

The Board recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff deny the grievance.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2013–03–20

The CDS agreed with the Board's findings and its recommendation that the grievance be denied.