# 2016-119 - Harmonization of Career and Compensation Policies, Occupational Transfer (OT), Pay upon Voluntary Occupational Transfer (VOT)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2016–10–17

The grievor was in a specialist occupation but due to his failure to attain a required certification, a Training Review Board was convened and recommended that he be given a Compulsory Occupational Transfer (COT) to a new occupation. When he was reassigned to the new occupation, which was not a specialist occupation, an administrative error caused him to continue to be paid at the specialist pay rate. The error was not discovered until 22 months later. Consequently, the grievor had been overpaid for that period and was subject to a recovery of the overpayment.

The grievor argued that all the paperwork he received regarding his transfer referred to it as a COT and therefore he concluded that his reassignment entitled him to maintain his specialist rate of pay in accordance with article 14 of the Canadian Forces Administrative Order (CFAO) 11-12.

The initial authority (IA) stated that the CFAO are not the regulations that govern compensation; rather, pay is governed by the Compensation and Benefits Instructions (CBI). Upon his review, the IA determined that the grievor's OT, for pay purposes, was a Voluntary Occupational Transfer (VOT) in accordance with CBI 204.03; and, consequently, the IA denied the grievor redress.

The Committee noted that while the CFAO refer to an OT as a result of a training failure as a COT, the CBI define the same situation as being a VOT. Nonetheless, for pay purposes, the Committee found that the grievor's situation fit squarely into the definition of a VOT as contemplated by CBI 204.03(1). Therefore, the Committee concluded that the grievor was not entitled to pay protection and that the overpayment had to be recovered.

The Committee also made a systemic recommendation that the career and compensation policies be harmonized such that the definitions of COT and VOT are consistent with one another (Because one definition is found in orders, while the other is found in instructions).

FA Decision Summary

The FA agreed with the Committee's recommendation that the grievance be denied, but disagreed with the systemic recommendation. He found that under CBI 204.04, an OT due to failure to achieve an occupation standard is considered to be a VOT, for which there is no vested pay entitlement. He stated that the grievor was fully aware that he was being reassigned to another MOC for inefficiency, having failed to progress in his training in the initial MOC. The FA commented that it was the grievor's obligation under QR&O 203.04(1) to be acquainted with his own pay, allowances, and financial benefits, and opined that relying on CAF subject matter experts was insufficient to satisfy this responsibility.

The FA acknowledged that CFAO 11-12 prescribes that when a member fails occupation training he will be COT and not VOT, contrary to the CBI. However, he rejected the recommendation that the two policies be harmonized, explaining that pay administration is not an administrative procedure but a different process, and therefore the CAF's terminology does not need to be harmonized.