# 2014-020 - Administration of Operational Allowances, Risk Allowance (RA)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2014–05–30

The grievor, a pilot deployed with one of the Allied Forces, argued that he should have been entitled to a higher level of Hardship Allowance (HA) and Risk Allowance (RA) when flying combat missions over enemy airspace. He claimed that he flew missions similar to that of other Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) pilots who were deployed to a different post, in support of the same operation, and who received an increased level of HA and RA for each day that they flew combat missions. There was no Initial Authority decision on file since the grievor did not grant the requested extension.

The issue to be determined is whether the grievor was entitled to higher levels of HA and RA when flying combat missions.

The Committee explained that the grievor's situation had to be assessed on its own merit based on the facts and policies in effect at the time. The Committee further explained that whether other pilots had received different levels of HA and RA, correctly or in error, had no bearing on the grievor's case.

On the merit, the Committee reviewed the relevant Compensation and Benefit Instructions and found that the level of both the HA and RA are determined based on the assessment of the living conditions and risks associated with a specific post, as defined in the Military Foreign Service Instruction. The Committee concluded that by definition and design, both the HA and the RA were not designed to recognize or to take into account the danger associated with flying combat missions over enemy airspace.

Finding that the grievor had received the HA and RA to which he was entitled, the Committee recommended that the grievance be denied.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2015–07–03

The CDS agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendation that the grievance be denied. The CDS was not ready to assess the operational allowances issue as being systemic or CAF-wide, since it is predominantly related to aircrew, but he directed that the reviews that are currently underway by all organizations involved continue and that the issue be resolved for future operations. As per the Committee's observation, the CDS directed the CJOC review and amend the CDIO to meet the overall intent without contradicting the CBI 10.3.08(1).