# 2024-154 Pay and Benefits, Acting While So Employed, Pay

Case summary

F&R Date: 2025-08-18

The grievor contended that they should have been granted Acting While So Employed (AWSE) status when they were fully employed in a civilian position while continuing to serve as a Lieutenant-Commander (LCdr). They explained that the civilian position had a base salary approximately 10% higher than LCdr pay. They believed that their grievance reflected a broader systemic inequity between military members and their public servant equivalents. As redress, the grievor sought financial compensation for the 16-month period during which they were fully employed in the civilian position.

The Initial Authority (IA), the Director General Compensation and Benefits, determined that the grievor had been treated in accordance with the applicable policies and regulations, and therefore did not grant redress. The IA explained that numerous factors are considered when determining the pay of Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) members, which differ significantly from those used to establish civilian compensation. The Director General Military Careers, also acting as the IA, acknowledged the additional workload carried by the grievor but stated that no remedy was available; therefore, the grievance could not be accepted.

After reviewing Article 3.05 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces and Canadian Forces General Message 060/00, effective 1 April 2000, which outlined the criteria for granting AWSE within the CAF during the time in question, the Committee found that the grievor was not entitled to financial compensation. Acting rank may only be granted when holding the higher rank is essential to performing the duties of the position. The grievor was not occupying a position for which they lacked the appropriate rank. Furthermore, there is no mechanism that allows a CAF member to be assigned to a civilian position while in uniform, nor is it possible for a civilian to hold a uniformed CAF position. The Committee recommended that the Final Authority deny the grievor redress.

The Committee observed that it may have been tempting to assign additional duties to CAF members who were liable for duty 24/7. But while this may be an “easy” solution, the approach is not necessarily supportive of health and wellness of military personnel and is something that the chain of command should be mindful of.