# 2013-052 Pay and Benefits, Overpayment, Remission, Transitional Post Living Differential (TPLD)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2013–08–22

In May 2010, upon being posted to a new location, the grievor began to receive transitional post living differential (TPLD) allowance. In August 2012, 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 disputed the determination of non-eligibility to the allowance in accordance with Compensation and Benefits Instructions (CBI) article 205.452. The grievor also submitted that, having relied on information provided by experts, members should not be financially responsible for this mistake, and therefore sought write-off of the debt if deemed not eligible to receive the allowance.

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 2009 in order to be eligible for TPLD, in accordance with CBI article 205.452. Since the grievor was not posted until 2010, there was no entitlement to TPLD. The IA noted that in accordance with the Financial Administration Act, overpayments of salary or allowances may be recovered from any sum of money due or payable by Her Majesty in right of Canada to the person to whom the overpayment was made. Therefore, it was clear that as long as a member was employed, overpayments of employment-related allowances should not be deemed uncollectible, and the write-off of the debt would not be considered until all other avenues to collect the funds had been exhausted. In conclusion, the IA denied the grievance.

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. However, 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. It was the Committee's view that the grievor's debt could be remitted as it was unreasonable and unjust to collect the overpayment. Thus, the Committee recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) direct the preparation of a submission to be forwarded to Treasury Board recommending the remission of the grievor's debt. The Committee referenced a systemic recommendation made in another similar grievance, recommending 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: 2015–04–20

The Chief of the Defence Staff recognized the extremely unfortunate clerical errors made by the unit staff, but he did not agree with the Committee's recommendation that a submission to Treasury Board be forwarded recommending the remission of the grievor's debt.