# 2022-320 Pay and Benefits, Specialist Pay

Case summary

F&R Date: 2024-04-18

The grievor disputed the fact that the vehicle technicians (Veh Techs) Military Occupation (MOC) to which he belongs is not eligible for specialist pay, despite increased demand for this occupation within the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF). According to the grievor, since at least 2016, the Veh Techs' salary scale is lower than that of federal public servants who have carried out the same occupation, giving the impression that the CAF does not value their work. As redress, the grievor requested that the Veh Techs MOC be granted specialist 1 pay retroactive to August 2016. 

The grievor also disputed the planned increases for the 2023 economic increase which, in his opinion, do not reflect the sacrifices and workload his service represents. He maintained that the Director General Compensation and Benefits (DGCB) and the Director Pay Policy and Development (DPPD) did not properly represent his interests in discussions with the Treasury Board (TB), resulting in an economic increase that is lower than that of his civilian counterparts, who are represented by a union. As redress, the grievor requested that the 2023 economic increase be raised.  

The DGCB, acting as the Initial Authority (IA), refused to grant the redress requested. First, the IA confirmed that the Veh Techs occupation was still assigned to a standard MOC and that the grievor had been compensated appropriately according to the existing salary range for this occupation. The IA specified that a full review of the MOCs of non-commissioned members was under way and that the outcome could potentially address the grievor's concerns. Second, the IA found that the member's salary had been negotiated in good faith by the CAF during the 2023 economic increase submissions to the TB. The IA denied the grievance, pointing out that salary negotiations were not part of the administration of the affairs of the CAF.  

First, the Committee found that the grievor could not receive specialist pay unless the TB designated his MOC as a specialist group. The Committee determined that, since the Veh Techs MOC has been assigned to a standard group since at least 2016, the grievor had been treated in accordance with the applicable policies. The Committee did, however, recommend that the Final Authority (FA) require the approval and publication of the project to review the MOCs of non-commissioned members as soon as possible and that the FA recommend to TB the assigned occupations that meet the criteria of specialist MOCs.  

As regards the 2023 economic increase, the Committee found that, although the details of salary negotiations are confidential, nothing suggests that the DGCB and the DPPD did not represent the grievor and other members of the CAF properly in discussions with the TB. The Committee recommended that the FA not grant redress.