# 2024-113 Pay and Benefits, Pilot's Pay and Promotion

Case summary

F&R Date: 2026-06-04

The grievor disagreed with the Pay Increment (PI) she was granted on transition to the new Pilot pay tables. She explained that as she was already at the rank of Captain when she transferred to the Pilot occupation, she is unfairly being excluded from the conversion calculations found in Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) Order 030/21 – Pilot Pay Transition. In addition to this, the grievor contends that Pilot training delays outside of her control caused her to attain Wings after 1 April 2021 and was therefore slotted lower than her peers who began Pilot training at the same time. She submits that had the Royal Canadian Air Force considered her total pay including Aircrew Allowance for her conversion to the new Pilot pay tables, she would have been granted a higher PI. As redress, she requests an additional PI retroactive to the date she attained Wings.  

Director General Compensation and Benefits, acting as the Initial Authority (IA), denied redress. The IA found that as the grievor was neither a qualified Pilot nor at the rank of second lieutenant or lieutenant, her rate of pay on conversion had correctly been calculated in accordance with Compensation and Benefits Instructions for the Canadian Forces (CBI) 204.215(4) – Occupation transfer to the Pilot occupation. The IA found that differential treatment before and after an effective date of a change in policy entitlements does not constitute an inequality and found that she had not been aggrieved. 

The Committee found that the CBIs do not provide discretion so broad as to allow the CDS to direct additional pay rate adjustments upon implementation of a new pay structure and thus could not recommend that the grievor be awarded an additional PI. The Committee found that her rate of pay could only be calculated in accordance with CBI 204.215(4) and that she was correctly slotted into the Pilot pay tables applicable on the date she attained Wings status (i.e., became qualified in the flying of aircraft). The Committee therefore found that the grievor had not been aggrieved and recommended that the Final Authority not grant redress.