# 2021-040 Pay and Benefits, Incentive Pay Category, Pay upon Voluntary Occupational Transfer, Specialist Pay

Incentive Pay Category (IPC), Pay upon Voluntary Occupational Transfer (VOT), Specialist Pay

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2021-03-29

At the time the grievor underwent a Voluntary Ocupational Transfer (VOT) to a specialist occupation, article 204.03 of the Compensation and Benefits Instructions for the Canadian Forces (CBI) provided that, upon completion of his occupational training, the grievor's pay increment (PI) in his new occupation would be calculated using all of his time in rank. However, while the grievor was undergoing training, the Treasury Board of Canada (TB) approved an amendment to the CBI such that only the grievor's time in rank in his specialist occupation would be counted in determining his PI level. The result was that, upon graduation from his occupation training, the grievor received PI 1 instead of the expected PI 4, which represented a significant difference in pay. The grievor contended that this change was unfair and that he should be protected under the previous policy, which is what he agreed to at the time of his VOT.

The Initial Authority found that the TB had approved the new CBI without any “grandfather clause” and it became effective on the date stipulated by the TB. As the new CBI was in effect at the time the grievor completed his occupational training, the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) was obligated to apply it accordingly.

The Committee found that, while it would have been better if the TB had included a transition period or “grandfather clause” in the amended CBI, it had chosen not to do so. As the CAF can only authorize payments as prescribed by the TB, the Committee found that the grievor's PI level had been calculated correctly in accordance with the CBI in effect at the time he completed his occupational training. Consequently, the Committee recommended that the Final Authority (FA) not afford the grievor redress.

FA Decision Summary

The Director Canadian Forces Grievance Authority, acting as FA, agreed with the Committee's finding that the conditions of the grievor's PI changed after he underwent a VOT. He was therefore only eligible for level PI 1 in his new occupation once qualified, instead of PI 4. The FA noted that the TB had not provided a transition clause and there was no provision to waive the Statement of Understanding the grievor had signed when agreeing to the VOT. As such, the FA adopted the Committee's recommendation to provide no redress.

Report a problem or mistake on this page
Please select all that apply:

Thank you for your help!

You will not receive a reply. For enquiries, contact us.

Date modified: