# 2014-156 - Administration of Operational Allowances, Hardship Allowance, Risk Allowance (RA)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2014–11–27

The grievor, a pilot deployed on an operation, 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. He also claimed that at the time of his grievance, he had received no HA and RA.

The Initial Authority (IA) found that the grievor's operational allowances were determined based on his specific post, which didn't include his aircraft, and that there was no provision to pay him a higher rate for the days that he flew combat missions. The IA observed that the grievor had not been paid HA and RA; however, he was paid aircrew allowance even though his position was not a designated position as required by policy. The IA took action to correct these errors.

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 neither HA nor RA were designed to recognize or to take into account the danger associated with flying combat missions over enemy airspace. The grievor therefore had no entitlement to higher levels of HA and RA when flying combat missions.

The Committee recommended that the grievance be denied.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2015–07–07

The CDS agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendation that the grievance be denied. Following the Committee's observation that a contradiction exists between the policy for Land Duty Allowance and Casual Land Duty Allowance as stipulated in the CEFCOM Directives for International Operations (CDIO) 1000-section 3, paragraph 1.3-11.DD and the TB policy CBI 10.3.08(1), the CDS directed that CJOC review the CDIO to meet the overall intent without contradicting the CBI.