# 2013-079 - Component Transfer (CT), Entitlement to Posting Allowance - Update to 2011-052, Posting Allowance (PA)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2013–11–08

The grievor contested the fact that he did not receive the Posting Allowance (PA) after having completed a Component Transfer (CT) from the Reserve Force to the Regular Force (Reg F). The grievor was immediately posted to a new place of duty following his CT and was granted all benefits associated with his move with the exception of a PA. Having met the career status criteria being already qualified in his Reg F occupation, he believed that he should have been entitled to PA. The grievor stated that the restriction that prohibits the payment of PA on posting to the first place of duty after re-enrolment or CT is arbitrary and discriminatory. When compared to any other Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) member who was posted, the grievor states that he would not benefit more nor was the turbulence associated with his move any different. He cited two previous Committee Case Summaries, 2011-052 and 2010-074, and stated that the response provided by the Initial Authority in those previous grievances was equivalent to stating that: “discrimination can be justified by writing a discriminatory policy.”

The Initial Authority, the Director General Compensation and Benefits (DGCB) was unable to render a decision within the allotted time and the grievor asked that his file be sent to the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS). In the previous decisions cited by the grievor, the CDS had directed a review of the PA policy. The Committee sought an update on that policy review and DGCB indicated that the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP), which publishes Treasury Board (TB) approved restrictions and entitlements to the PA, was currently being re-written and that any changes would be effective upon publication.

The Committee found that the grievor's circumstances were expressly addressed by the Compensation and Benefits Instruction (CBIs) 208.849 (3)(f) and by CF IRP article 3.4.03. Given that the wording of the policies was clear, the Committee had no option but to find that the grievor was not entitled to receive a PA and, therefore, to recommend that the CDS deny the grievance.

The Committee did, however, agree with the grievor that the current policy was not equitable and noted that, in previous cases the CDS had agreed with the Committee. Although the CBIs are TB approved regulations and the CAF has no authority to make exceptions or offer relief of any kind, it is open to the CAF to request that TB approve any necessary policy changes. Therefore, the Committee made a systemic recommendation that the CDS direct DGCB to specifically request that TB remove the exclusion for payment of a PA to re-enrollees and transferees.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2014–09–11

The Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendation that the grievance be denied. The CDS agreed with the Committee's systemic recommendation and directed that the Director General Compensation and Benefits engage Treasury Board as soon as possible to review Compensation and Benefit Instructions 208.849, insisting that after three revisions following direction given in 2011, nothing was done to amend the former policy.