# 2015-165 - Amendment to Compensation and Benefits Instruction 208.849 concerning posting allowance., Component...

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2015–09–02

The grievor contested the fact that he did not receive the Dependant Allowance Element (DAE) of his Posting Allowance (PA). He argued that his service spouse should be treated as a dependant because she was prohibited from receiving the Basic Allowance Element (BAE) herself since the posting was to her first place of duty after her component transfer (CT).

The Initial Authority, the Director General Compensation and Benefits (DGCB), denied the grievance explaining that neither service member can be considered a dependant of the other member.

Prior to considering this file, the Committee restated the comments made in several other files to the effect that PA as it is currently constructed is unfair and requires immediate attention. The Committee noted the following areas of concern with the PA policy: the purpose is not well-defined; PA is discriminatory; there are discrepancies between Treasury Board provisions; the scheme and structure of PA is unfair and creates an inequity amongst CAF; and the limitation of payment of PA to members on re-enrolment/CT was unfair.

Notwithstanding the above, in accordance with the existing policy, the Committee found that the grievor was entitled to a move under the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP) which states that “each member of the service couple is entitled to BAE at their applicable rate of pay.” Therefore, the grievor was not entitled to DAE in relation to his service spouse and the Committee recommended that the grievance be denied.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2016–01–12

Case withdrawn at Final Authority level.