# 2018-134 Pay and Benefits, Foreign Service Directives, Military Foreign Service Instruction

Case summary

F&R Date: 2019-11-15

The grievor complained that the utility share deducted from his pay while in posting outside Canada was greater than the actual cost of the utilities used. He alleged that the provisions regarding the utility shares found in the Military Foreign Service Instruction (MFSI), which applies to Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) members serving abroad, are unfair in comparison to the Foreign Service Directives (FSD). Therefore, he is requesting a reimbursement in the amount overpaid through the utility share deductions.

The Initial Authority (IA), the Director General Compensation and Benefits, rejected the grievance as being out of time, but then went on to say that all policies were adhered to. However, after a jurisdictional review, the Director Canadian Forces Grievance Authority concluded that the issue submitted by the grievor affects a number of CAF members serving outside Canada and accepted the grievance in the interests of justice.

The Committee agreed with the IA on the application of the policies. The Committee explained that the purpose of the MFSI is not to provide every single CAF member with the most advantageous arrangement possible but to ensure a level of fairness compared to CAF members serving in Canada. The Committee found that the MFSI is not only fair, but also provides more favourable and flexible treatment to CAF members than the FSD do to Public Service employees.

Finally, the Committee concluded that it would not be appropriate to recommend the use of ministerial discretion in this case, nor to seek an amendment to the MFSI as suggested by the grievor. The Committee recommended that the Final Authority not afford redress.

FA decision summary

The Director Canadian Forces Grievance Authority, acting as the Final Authority (FA), agreed with the Committee's recommendation to deny the grievance. The FA agreed with the Committee's interpretation of the policy. In response to the grievor's argument that the Military Foreign Service Directive is unfair compared to the FSD, the FA agreed with the Committee's interpretation that the FSD did not have the effect that the grievor understood that it had.