# 2024-031 Pay and Benefits, Posting Allowance, Relocation - Reservists, Relocation Benefits, Relocation Expenses

Case summary

F&R Date: 2025-03-25

The grievor contended that there is an unfair and discriminatory discrepancy in relocation policies that entitle Regular Force (Reg F) members to the Posting Allowance (PA) and Reserve Force (Res F) members to the Reserve Relocation Allowance (RRA). The grievor sought alignment of the two allowances and to be granted PA for relocations conducted in 2019 and 2022.

The Initial Authority (IA) determined that the grievor was entitled to the RRA, but not the PA. The IA acknowledged that the RRA had been introduced as a benefit in 2005 at the amount of $1,000, but had not increased since. The IA stated that the grievor's concerns had been heard and would be considered in future reviews of the Canadian Armed Forces Relocation Directive (CAFRD).

The Committee noted that the grievor did not dispute that he is only entitled by policy to RRA. The Committee explored the difference in purpose and intent of the two allowances, finding that there was a valid distinction between Reg F and Res F relocations that justified providing separate allowances given that Res F members retain control over whether they accept relocation or not. The Committee also found that being either a Reg F or Res F member is not a prohibited ground of discrimination as set out by the Canadian Human Rights Act and that the distinction between allowances was not discriminatory.

The Committee noted that the latest version of the CAFRD, amended after the grievance was submitted, aligned the two allowances for the same purpose and that the RRA had increased to $2,000. The Committee observed that while the allowances do not have to be equal, there is still a large monetary difference between the two allowances that is meant to compensate Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) members for the same purpose. The Committee observed that the CAF may wish to reevaluate the monetary difference in light of the Strong, Secure, Engaged: Canada's Defence Policy which promised to align remeneration and benefits offered to Res F members to those of Reg F members when the demands of service are similar. 

However, as the grievor was treated in accordance with policy, the Committee recommended that the Final Authority not afford the grievor redress.