# 2024-256 Pay and Benefits, Incentive Pay Category

Case summary

F&R Date: 2025-07-21

Numerous grievors, all Search and Rescue (SAR) Technicians (Tech), contended that they were aggrieved by the amendments to the SAR Tech pay structure and the Chief of Defence Staff Order (CDSO) 034/23. Their central argument was that peers and subordinates with similar or less experience in the occupation should not be paid more than them. The grievors argued that the CDSO and the amended Compensation and Benefit Instruction (CBI) did not fix the financial disparity that exists. These policies aimed to compensate for experience, but these grievors felt that they were not adequately compensated for increased duties and responsibilities when compared to their higher paid peers and higher paid subordinates. 

The Director General Compensation and Benefits, as the Initial Authority (IA), denied these grievances. The IA explained that in accordance with CBI 204.31(8), SAR members who were either a corporal (Cpl) or master corporal (MCpl) on 31 March 2021, were entitled to include all qualifying service from the time they were promoted to Cpl into the calculation of pay increment (PI) as a SAR Tech when slotted into the new pay table. Moreover, the IA stated that SAR members who were at the rank of Sergeant (Sgt) on 31 March 2021, were unable to benefit from their qualifying service as a Cpl/MCpl to increase the PI they were entitled to on promotion to Sgt. They were limited to qualifying service achieved in the rank of Sgt to determine their PI. CDSO 034/23 was approved to fix this specific issue, and additional PIs were granted to Sgts in compensation for not being able to carry over PI from their time as a Cpl/MCpl. CDSO 034/23 only applied to SAR Tech members serving on 31 March 2021, ranked Sgt and above, as anyone who was a Cpl/MCpl SAR Tech on 31 March 2021 received PI for all qualifying service in those ranks and will carry the PI forward with them on promotion to the rank of Sgt. 

On the issue of progression within the trade, the IA explained that there was no intent to grant PIs on qualification in the SAR Tech occupation based on time in a former occupation. To clarify, CDSO 034/23 was not intended to fix policy, but rather to ensure that all SAR members serving on 31 March 2021 benefit from the inclusion of all time in rank in the same way. 

The IA concluded that these grievors had been treated in accordance with policy and that CDSO 034/23 is considered equitable.

The Committee found that although these grievors were paid as per the CBI, they were aggrieved by a pay scheme that permitted subordinates with less experience in a specialist occupation to earn more. This was not the intent of the new, more generous, pay structure. 

The Committee also questioned the authority used to grant multiple PI increases. While the CBIs allow the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) to direct progression to the next PI after a member completes the authorized period of qualifying service, the policy does not provide discretion so broad as to allow the CDS to direct multiple PI increases to palliate perceived issues with the implementation of a new pay structure established by Treasury Board (TB).

The Committee also found that the changes made to SAR Tech pay over the last six years have created an unsustainable situation. Oversights, implementation choices and the use of CDSO to direct significant changes in pay levels for the few have compounded pay disparity within the occupation. Those who have fallen through the cracks continue to be made to feel that their service is less valuable. This situation will exist for the foreseeable future. While the Committee found that the new pay scale is sound, it is the gaps in pay created when Cpls were slotted into the new pay table using time in rank and the CDSO that granted unjustified increases in pay for senior noncommissioned members to PI 14 that created the inequity. 

The Committee reasoned that changes in PI should only be driven by experience in this most unique occupation, and that the need exists to smooth out the gaps in SAR Tech pay in a fair and transparent manner.

The Committee concluded that even though these grievors were treated in accordance with the TB instructions, they were aggrieved by the systemic maladministration of the SAR Tech pay by the Canadian Armed Forces from 2021 to 2023. The Committee was not keen to recommend that the Final Authority (FA) grant the desired redresses in isolation from the systemic issues identified. The Committee recommended that the FA direct a systemic evaluation of SAR Tech Pay to identify pressure points and work with TB to implement a solution.