# 2013-048 - Remission, Transitional Post Living Differential (TPLD), Transitional post living differential...

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2013–08–13

In March 2012, upon learning that other Canadian Forces (CF) members in the same unit were receiving transitional post living differential (TPLD) allowance, the grievor contacted the pay office staff who confirmed the grievor's eligibility. A monthly TPLD allowance was paid to the grievor backdated to 2009. Three months later, the Area Support Unit Commanding Officer (CO) issued an e-mail directing recovery from 110 personnel, including the grievor, who were never entitled but had been erroneously receiving the allowance. The grievor argued that the recovery was unjust given that personnel had relied on the expertise of the subject matter experts who approved the request and were misinformed as to their eligibility for TPLD. In the grievor's view, the large number of affected members was evidence of the lack of clarity in the applicable policy.

The Initial Authority (IA) decision emphasized that TPLD had been established at locations to assist those members subject to decreases in post living differential (PLD) rates as a result of a new methodology introduced effective 1 July 2007. Given the greivor's rank, the grievor would need to have been posted to the applicable PLD area prior to 1 April 2008 in order to be eligible for TPLD, in accordance with Compensation and Benefits Instructions (CBI) article 205.452. Since the grievor was not posted until 2009, there was no entitlement to TPLD. The IA found it unfortunate that the grievor had received advice that proved to be incorrect but pointed out that members have a duty to be acquainted with the conditions governing their pay and allowances. The IA was of the opinion that remission was not justified in this instance as the proposed repayment was neither unreasonable nor unjust.

The Committee sought to determine whether the decision to recover the transitional post living differential allowance from the grievor was justified and in accordance with applicable policy.

The Committee was in agreement with the IA decision that the grievor was plainly not eligible for TPLD in accordance with CBI 205.452. The grievor did not dispute this. The Committee was of the opinion that the grievor was entitled to rely on the expertise of pay office personnel and, in the circumstances, have recourse to the remedial provisions of remission set out in subsection 23(2.1) of the Financial Administration Act. Thus, the Committee recommended that the CDS direct the preparation of a submission to be forwarded to Treasury Board recommending the remission of the grievor's debt. By way of a systemic recommendation, the Committee also recommended the CDS seek the remission of the debt of all affected members.

The Committee was also concerned with the fairness of the TPLD policy itself, given that it was introduced as a transitional policy but continues to exist. This has resulted in an unfavourable situation which needs to be resolved as CF members, posted prior to a certain date, continue to receive an allowance while colleagues working with them, but posted later, are not entitled.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2015–04–23

The Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) did not agree with the Committee's recommendation that the grievance be upheld and that a submission be forwarded to Treasury Board recommending remission of the grievor's debt. The CDS stated that notwithstanding the extremely unfortunate clerical errors made by the unit, the Canadian Armed Forces must recover the overpayment of salary and allowances to members once an error is detected, and remission order does not apply in those situations.