# 2012-060 Pay and Benefits, Pay

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2012–08–29

The grievor contended that the rate of pay he received upon enrolment was not the rate he had been offered verbally by recruiting staff and that his extensive experience was not properly taken into consideration by the Canadian Forces (CF) in terms of determining an equitable rate of pay. He requested that his rate of pay be reassessed and amended retroactively to reflect a pay level which recognizes his education level and pre-enrolment experience.

The initial authority (IA) denied the grievance. The IA informed the grievor that his occupation did not require a master's degree or experience and noted that he had received the proper recruitment allowance which was the only authorized additional benefit that the Canadian Forces Recruiting Group was authorized to offer. On the issue of pay, the IA indicated that while recruiting staff may have discussed pay issues with the grievor, there was no evidence he was told he would receive additional pay increments (PI) based on his experience/qualifications; the IA explained that the grievor had been paid according to the rate of pay that was correctly indicated in his enrolment, transfer and posting message.

The Board found that, as a Direct Entry Officer with no former non-commissioned member service, the grievor was entitled to the pay level "C" of Table "B" or "C" to Compensation and Benefits Instructions (CBI) paragraph 204.211(9), depending on his rank, and that he was paid accordingly. The Board noted the only area in which there was potential for flexibility was the grievor's PI within his pay level; on this issue, the Board agreed with the IA that there was insufficient evidence on file to establish the grievor was offered a particular PI or additional PIs on enrolment at the recruiting centre. In any event, it was the Board's opinion that the decision to award additional PIs is usually made by central authorities, not by individual recruiting centres.

The Board noted that, in reviewing the matter, a staff member of the Director General Canadian Forces Grievance Authority indicated it might seem appropriate in this instance that a Prior Learning Assessment and Recognition (PLAR) be conducted. As well, Defence Administrative Order and Directive 5031-1, Canadian Forces Military Equivalencies Program, states that a PLAR is normally conducted if the prior learning of a CF member could result in a reduction or elimination of future training and education time for progression with the CF member's military occupation. In the case at hand, a staff member of the Board verified with the CF whether a PLAR had been conducted and it was confirmed that "the [grievor's] enrolment was correct and that no PLAR would have been required prior to enrolment". In the Board's opinion, although the IA pointed out there was no requirement for officers in the grievor's military occupation to hold a master's degree or have prior work experience, a PLAR should have been conducted to determine the value of the grievor's advanced degree and experience to the CF.

The Board recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff partially uphold the grievance.

The Board recommended that a full PLAR be conducted to properly assess the value of the grievor's previous experience and qualifications to determine whether he was entitled to additional PIs. In the event it is determined that the grievor was entitled to additional PIs, the Board recommended these be awarded as appropriate, retroactive to the date of the grievor's enrolment.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2013–05–23

The CDS did not agree with the Board's recommendation that the grievance be partially upheld. The CDS found that a prior learning assessment and recognition (PLAR) could not have allocated the grievor additional credit since he had to complete all phases of Basic Military Officer Qualification and Electrical Mechanical Engineer (EME) training. Since the grievor's post-graduate education and experience was not required at the entry level by the EME branch, a PLAR would not have assigned additional pay credit.