# 2024-215 Pay and Benefits, Military Occupation, Pay, Specialist Pay

Case summary

F&R Date: 2025-10-07

The grievor contested the implementation of the Land Equipment Engineering Technologist (LEET) occupation and the resultant disentitlement to Specialist (Spec) pay when progressing from a Sergeant Electro-Optical Technician (EO Tech) to a Warrant Officer (WO) LEET. The grievor argued that their future earnings and pension will be impacted and believed the Royal Canadian Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (RCEME) Corps leadership acted unethically.

The Initial Authority (IA) found that the grievor became disentitled to Spec pay upon occupational transfer to the LEET occupation coincident with a promotion to WO. The IA acknowledged that the LEET occupation was undergoing a pay evaluation with respect to Spec pay, but that the outcome was awaiting approval.

The Committee noted that the implementation of the LEET occupation came after a well-considered analysis and health review of four RCEME occupations, with input from all affected trades. The Committee also highlighted that amalgamating four trades at the WO level reflected the more common managerial and supervisory tasks of RCEME trades at that rank level. The Committee found that it was not reasonable to have created a sub-occupation in the LEET occupation for former EO Tech members as only six percent of the positions in the LEET occupation required specific EO Tech training and background. The Committee found no evidence of malice on the part of RCEME leadership in the creation of the LEET occupation.

The Committee acknowledged that although the grievor will experience a reduction in future expected earnings, they will not experience a pay reduction and will be paid as a WO at a higher rate than their LEET peers who did not come from the EO Tech occupation. The Committee highlighted that while uncommon, promotion leading to disentitlement to Spec pay is permitted within policy. The Committee noted that the LEET occupation was undergoing a pay evaluation that could grant Spec pay, but found that regardless of the outcome, the grievor had not been aggrieved. 

The Committee recommended that the Final Authority not afford the grievor redress.