# 2012-157 Pay and Benefits, Reserve Force, Special Commuting Assistance (SCA), Transportation Assistance

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2013–03–28

A Class “B” Reservist was authorized to receive the transportation assistance allowance (TAA), because he lived more than 16 kilometres from his place of employment and had not been moved at public expense. A few years later, the grievor was offered and accepted the special commuting assistance allowance (SCA) in lieu of a paid move.

In 2003, the Director Compensation and Benefits Administration (DCBA) issued a message limiting the TAA for Class “B” Reservists. Although the grievor was no longer receiving the TAA, his SCA was erroneously ceased. In 2007, the TAA was reinstated by the DCBA retroactive to 2003 and all affected Reservists were instructed to submit retroactive monthly claims. The grievor submitted his claims but received no payment. Several years later, he was informed that he had no further entitlement to the SCA. A few days before retiring in 2011, the grievor filed a grievance seeking retroactive SCA.

There is no Initial Authority decision; however, the DCBA adjudication on the file stated that entitlement to SCA must be cost effective in comparison to the estimated cost of moving a Canadian Forces (CF) member to his new place of duty. The grievor was informed that, based on a calculation using the cost factor manual, the amount of SCA benefits he had received to date surpassed the cost move average and, therefore, he had no further entitlement to receive SCA benefits.

The Board first noted that the entire matter was poorly handled by the grievor's chain of command and that it was unreasonable to leave the grievor wondering about his entitlement to the allowance for so many years. The Board then observed that the CF's offer to move the grievor at public expense should not, in any way, have limited his future entitlement to one or the other of the two assistance allowances, both of which pay the same rate of reimbursement.

The Board agreed with DCBA that the applicable direction required that cost effectiveness be considered when approving the SCA. However, once approved, the same direction also stated that the SCA allowance is authorized for the duration of a member's posting to the place of duty which gave rise to the entitlement. The Board noted that the present day relocation policy guiding SCA benefits continues to state the same thing. Since the grievor remained in the same place of duty from the time of the offer to move until his retirement, the Board found that the grievor was entitled to claim the SCA benefits for the period between 2003 and the end of his Class “B” service in 2011.

The Board also pointed out that had his allowance not been changed from the TAA to the SCA by the CF, the grievor would have remained eligible to receive the TAA like any other Reservist who lived more than 16 kilometres from his place of employment.

The Board recommended the Chief of the Defence Staff grant the grievance by directing the payment of the SCA from April 2003 to February 2011, and that he express his regret regarding the manner in which the grievor's file was handled by his chain of command.

FA decision summary

The Final Authority (FA) found that the grievor was treated fairly and in accordance with relevant policies and denied the grievance, contrary to the Board's recommendation.

The FA found that the grievor's entitlement to the special commuting assistance allowance (SCA) had been dependent on cost effectiveness in comparison to a move, resulting in an authorization for "a period of 3-4 years." He did not agree with the Board's interpretation of the statement in the approval that "SCA was authorized for the duration of the posting to the place of duty". The FA rejected the grievor's argument that he was not aware there was a condition on his SCA entitlement.

The FA also made a finding that the original approval of the SCA (several years before it was stopped in 2003) had been in error in any event. The FA found that one of the references listed in support of the approval was a policy that was not applicable to the grievor.

The FA found that the grievor was not alternatively entitled to the transportation assistance allowance for the period in question.