# 2019-208 Pay and Benefits, Leave Travel Assistance – Indirect Travel

Case summary

F&R Date: 2020-05-25

Prior to proceeding on leave, the grievor was provided with an estimate stating that he would be entitled to claim almost $4,500 for Special Leave Transportation Assistance (SLTA) for his travel to and from his leave destination. However, upon return from leave, he was informed that he was only entitled to approximately $700 for SLTA. The grievor contended that he had relied upon the administrative staff to advise him of his entitlements and requested that he be granted the amount originally estimated for his SLTA.

The Initial Authority (IA) stated that while it was unfortunate that the grievor had been misinformed, this error did not create an entitlement for the grievor to be reimbursed more than is permitted by the policy. The IA found that the grievor was entitled to the lesser of the kilometric rate and the most economical means of travel, which in the grievor's case would have been by air. The IA noted that the grievor's unit had miscalculated his entitlement and directed that it be recalculated and the grievor be reimbursed the appropriate amount.

The Committee found that article 10.3.11 of the Compensation and Benefits Instructions for the Canadian Forces, along with articles 7.40 and 7.41 of the Canadian Forces Temporary Duty Travel Instructions were unambiguous in regard to the grievor's SLTA entitlements. In accordance with those instructions, the grievor was entitled to the lesser of the kilometric rate and the most economical means of travel. The Committee found that the grievor was entitled to be reimbursed the cost of round-trip airfare for his SLTA. The Committee recommended that the Final Authority (FA) ensure that the IA's direction that the grievor be reimbursed this amount had been implemented and the grievor had received the reimbursement to which he is entitled.

FA decision summary

The FA agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendation. She agreed that it was regrettable that the policy had been misinterpreted and the grievor had been given erroneous information about his entitlement, but noted that authorizing the amount cited to him in the pre-travel estimate would be contrary to policy and would exceed the cost of the most economical commercial air booking.