# 2015-202 - Posting Allowance (PA)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2015–09–15

The grievor was posted to a new position in the same European city, but the new position required that he occupy a Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade owned accommodation. Accordingly, he was provided with a local move for his Household Goods and Effects (HG&E) but was denied a Posting Allowance (PA). He argued that even though his move was only 30 km from his previous residence, he should have been entitled to the PA. The grievor noted that the PA is provided to compensate for the turbulence of a posting and that his move of 30 km was just as turbulent as the minimum of 40 km set out in the Canadian Forces Integrated Relocation Program (CF IRP). As redress, the grievor requested that he be provided with a PA.

The Committee noted that, in accordance with Compensation and Benefits Instructions (CBI) Chapter 208 sections 8 (non-CF IRP moves) and 9 (CF IRP moves) and Chapter 10 (Military Foreign Service Regulations (MFSI), a CAF member is only entitled to a cost move, which may include a PA, when, amongst other conditions, he or she is posted from one place of duty to another place of duty. Further, CBI 208.849 and CF IRP 3.4.03 explicitly state that a PA is not payable in respect of a move within the geographic area surrounding the CAF member's former place of duty. The geographical area for foreign postings is set by CBI/MFSI 10.1.01 to a radius of 50 kilometers from a CAF member's post (place of duty). Since the grievor's move was within the 50 km radius, the Committee found that the grievor was not entitled to the PA.

The Committee noted that CAF members posted within the same geographical area are not entitled to a cost move but may be authorized a local move under specific situations when they are required to move. Since this was the grievor's situation, the Committee found that he properly benefited from a local move and was neither better nor worse off than locally moved CAF members serving in Canada.

The Committee noted that the 40 km limit stemmed from the Income Tax Act and that the CF IRP uses the same formula to calculate the distance. The 40 limit is just one of the criteria to qualify for a CF IRP move. Therefore, since the grievor did not move at least 40 km, he was not entitled to the PA even if he had moved from one place of duty to another.

The Committee observed that it had recently made numerous key findings regarding the reason for the PA, its dollar value and its inclusion in the CF IRP personalized envelope funding. The Committee quoted extensively from its case number 2015-106 and noted that the stated purpose of the PA is to compensate for the turbulence of a posting move but yet it is included in the CF IPR funding to pay for actual expenses. The Committee observed that the grievor's case was another example of where the stated aim of the PA is not supported by the articulation and framework of the policy.

The Committee recommended that the grievance be denied.

The Committee noted that it stood by its previous recommendations on the PA.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2016–05–25

The CDS agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendation that the grievance be denied. The CDS also agreed with the Committee that, under the current funding model, the PA no longer meets its stated intent and that it is time for a comprehensive review to be conducted.