# 2016-052 - Hardship Allowance, Risk Allowance (RA)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2016–05–04

The grievor claimed that it was fundamentally unfair that CAF members attached to one operation could be working side by side with CAF members attached to another operation but receive different levels of Hardship Allowance (HA) and Risk Allowance (RA). Although the grievor acknowledged that the policy for determining HA and RA had been followed by the Departmental Hardship and Risk Committee (DHRC), he argued that the policy failed to address those circumstances in which two separately named operations worked side by side and were subject to virtually the same risks and hardships but received unequal allowances, thereby creating an inequitable situation.

The Initial Authority (IA) found that the authority to establish HA and RA levels had been delegated by Treasury Board (TB) to the DHRC Chair. As the DHRC Chair was exercising a TB authority and TB decisions could not be grieved as they were prescribed by the Governor in Council in Regulations, the IA determined that the grievor had no right to grieve the matter.

The Committee found that the determination of whether the grievor was entitled to higher hardship and risk allowances, in relation to operational missions, was a decision made in the administration of the affairs of the CAF and was therefore grievable.

The Committee found that although both of the operations in question had been rated at the same HA/RA levels, the implementation date of these HA/RA levels was not the same for both operations. In accordance with Compensation and Benefits Instructions 10.3.05 and 10.3.07, the effective date of approved HA and RA levels for a new operation, such as the grievor's, was the date the operation was designated by the CDS. However, in the case of an existing operation, the policy provided for a six-month transition period before implementing a reduction in HA/RA levels. The Committee concluded that a transition measure was reasonable in the circumstances, noting that inequity must be looked at from both perspectives.

The Committee recommended that the grievance be denied.

FA Decision Summary

The FA agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendation that the grievance be denied.