# 2016-218 - Post Living Differential – Rosemere, Quebec, Post Living Differential (PLD)

Post Living Differential – Rosemere, Quebec, Post Living Differential (PLD)

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2017–03–22

The grievor was posted to Mirabel, Quebec, and bought a house in Rosemere, Quebec. His unit approved the Post Living Differential (PLD) benefit at the Montreal North Shore Region (MNSR) rate, which he received for a number of years. However, his unit then requested clarification from the Director Compensation and Benefits Administration (DCBA) with respect to the grievor's entitlement to PLD and was advised that, since the grievor's residence did not fall within a PLD area (PLDA), he had been overpaid the benefit, and all PLD funds would have to be repaid. The grievor argued that Rosemere did indeed fall within a PLDA and he was entitled to the PLD funds.

The Committee reviewed the relevant policy, Compensation and Benefits Instruction (CBI) 205.45, which states that, to be entitled to PLD, the grievor's principal residence must be within a PLDA.

In 2008, PLDAs in the Montreal area were grouped into one Duty Area, and divided into five PLDAs. There was no list of towns, and the map was of very poor quality. In order to obtain clarification with respect to PLDAs in the Montreal region, the Committee contacted DCBA staff to confirm the line between the MNSR and the Mirabel PLDAs. They confirmed that Highway 640 is the line between the two PLDAs. The Committee noted that Rosemere, which is just south of Highway 640, clearly fell within the MNSR PLDA.

As a result, the Committee found that the grievor was entitled to PLD at the MNSR rate for the entire period that he was posted to Mirabel and lived in Rosemere.

The Committee recommended that the recovery of PLD funds from the grievor related to his home in Rosemere be ceased as soon as practicable, and that he be reimbursed all funds that had been recovered.

In addition, the Committee recommended that a review of the grievor's file be conducted to determine whether the grievor had any additional entitlements to PLD while posted to Mirabel.

FA Decision Summary

The CDS agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendations, including the systemic recommendation. The CDS agreed with the Committee that there was no doubt that the grievor resided within the PLDA. He commented that the list of municipalities used by the 2 CA Div SG was inaccurate and unreliable, and that he used the map instead, a map being a reliable guide when accompanied by a textual description of boundaries and drawn in conformity with the CFAO 209-28 principles. He directed that the grievor be repaid the recovered money and paid PLD for the remainder of his posting. The CDS noted that PLD entitlement had been assessed based on the inaccurate list of municipalities since 2008. He directed that the list no longer be used and that a review be conducted of all files of active members to ensure the proper assessment of PLD since 2008.

Page details

Date modified: