# 2024-233 Pay and Benefits, Incentive Pay Category, Pay and Benefits

Case summary

F&R Date: 2025-07-21

The grievor, a Search and Rescue Technician (SAR Tech), contended that the repeal of Compensation and Benefits Instructions for the Canadian Forces (CBI) article 204.31(8) (Transfer to 204.31 – Pay – Special Forces and Search and Rescue Specialists) and the pay policy implementation of CBI 204.31(9) (Rate of Pay on Qualification) on 9 March 2023, egregiously affects his current pay, future earnings on promotion, and his annual income in retirement. The grievor requested that his pay scale reflect the pay incentive method and policy that all SAR Techs that graduated prior to April 2023 are receiving, and that he is not disadvantaged financially by promotion to the next rank.

The Director General Compensation and Benefits, as the Initial Authority (IA), denied the grievance. The IA stated that the terms and conditions set in the Voluntary Occupation Transfer (VOT) instruction identified the grievor's rate of pay on VOT to the junior sub-division of the SAR Tech occupation and does not guarantee conditions with respect to future calculation of pay. The IA then explained that an error was made with the rollout of the new CBI in 2021 and that there was no intent to grant pay increment (PI) on qualification in the SAR Tech occupation based on time in a former occupation. The IA concluded that as CBI 204.31(8) was rescinded on 23 March 2023, it cannot be applied to the grievor or his peers who qualified after that date. As such, the IA found that the grievor was treated fairly and did not provide redress.

The Committee found that under the CBI 204.31(9), in effect on the date the grievor obtained his qualification, only the grievor's service as a Corporal in the SAR Tech occupation could be counted in determining his PI level. His service in his previous occupation could no longer be counted. Therefore, in accordance with CBI 204.03(5), the grievor was entitled to be paid as a Master Corporal (MCpl) spec 2 PI 0 upon obtaining his SAR Tech qualification.

The Committee concluded that the grievor was treated in accordance with policy and that the change in qualifying service calculation was not an error – it was intentional and appropriate, as it returned to the intent established post 1 September 2017.

The Committee recommended that the Final Authority not provide redress.

The Committee also included a critical observation in response to the several important issues raised that were beyond the scope of this grievance. Specifically, the Committee observed that over the last 10 years, changes to the SAR Tech pay scheme have created an environment where colleagues who share the same high professional standards and environmental risks have different levels of compensation. As a result, one could theoretically find four MCpl SAR Techs in the back of a Hercules aircraft, some with the same years of service in the occupation, earning very different pay. The Committee opined that this must be demoralizing for some of these aviators. The pension implications, as pointed out by the grievor, are also significant. The pay incentive to accept a promotion is also not obvious. The Committee observed that the SAR Tech occupation would benefit from a pay evaluation to identify and correct significant issues that will continue to challenge morale and thus, retention for the next 10 years.