# 2024-012 Pay and Benefits, Pay

Case summary

F&R Date: 2025-12-05

The grievor alleged that he was aggrieved by the omissions of Canadian Armed Forces recruitment officers during his enrolment process. Specifically, he contended that he was not adequately informed of the available enrolment options, nor of the distinct financial and career implications associated with each. As a result, he enrolled under the Continuing Education Officer Training Plan (CEOTP) without full awareness of the implications, leading to a lower rate of pay compared to colleagues of the same rank and equivalent qualifications enrolled under the Direct Entry Officer (DEO) plan. As redress, the grievor requested that his pay rate be adjusted to match those of DEO and retroactive compensation for the differential earnings. 

The Commander, Canadian Forces Recruiting Group, acting as the Initial Authority (IA), denied the grievance asserting that the rationale behind the differences in pay rates between CEOTP and DEO rested on the fact that candidates enrolling under the former receive subsidized education and time away from duties to complete their education. The IA determined that, at the time of enrolment, the grievor did not hold the required degree to be enrolled under the DEO plan and therefore, the CEOTP, as advised, was the best plan for enrolment under his specific circumstances. 

The Committee determined that recruitment staff had correctly informed the grievor of the two options, either enrolling under the CEOTP with subsidized education or under the DEO plan after completion of his degree. The grievor chose and was enrolled under CEOTP because he met the conditions for CEOTP, not DEO. The Committee determined that at the time of the grievor's enrolment, CEOTP was the only option for which the grievor was qualified, and therefore the information given by recruitment staff was correct. The Committee, therefore, found that the grievor was not aggrieved. Nevertheless, as the grievor only required one course to complete his university degree, which is unusual for CEOTP, the Committee recommended that the Final Authority used her discretionary power to retroactively amend the grievor's entry pay level under CEOTP to level 1, vice basic, as recognition and credit for the grievor's academic qualifications upon enrolment.