# 2025-029 Pay and Benefits, Pilot's Pay and Promotion

Case summary

F&R Date: 2026-01-05

The grievor contested the implementation of the new Pilot pay table, asserting that, as a matter of fairness, he should have moved directly from Pay Increment (PI) level 7 to 9 effective May 2022, as was done for his colleagues, who were a year ahead of him, had the same anniversary date and similar overall situation. 

The Director General Compensation and Benefits, acting as the Initial Authority (IA), denied the grievance providing a comprehensive rationale for the direct allocation of certain Pilots to PI 9 level and why such allocation was not appropriate in the grievor's case. The IA explained that in the implementation of changes from the old pay table to the new one for the Pilot occupation a pay anomaly was detected. As a result, the Director Pay Policy and Development (DPPD) recommended that, a list of Pilots affected by this anomaly be authorized to proceed from PI 7 to PI 9 on their 2021 anniversary dates to avoid a drop in gross pay and prevent an overpayment and recovery situation. This recommendation was approved by the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS). Furthermore, the IA stated that DPPD had reviewed the grievor's specific circumstances and determined that he did not experience a drop in gross pay and his PI level did not require adjustment from PI 7 to PI 9. The IA concluded that the grievor was not entitled to a PI adjustment from PI 7 to PI 9.

The Committee determined that the grievor's pay conversion from the old Pilot pay table to the new had followed the applicable policy. The grievor was appropriately converted from Pilot Captain PI 1 in the previous pay table to PI 6 in the new pay table, in accordance with Compensation and Benefit Instructions for the Canadian Armed Forces 204.015(7) Pay Increments – General, which meant an increase in earnings and the opportunity to increase his pay over a longer period. The Committee noted that although the conversion was crafted with the members of the Pilot occupation in mind, it was reasonable for policy to occasionally result in different outcomes at the individual level. For this reason, the Committee remarked that comparisons should be made only with peers in equivalent pay circumstances. In the grievor's case, a pay-equivalent peer would have been a Pilot who on 31 March 2021 was at PI 1. The Committee found that the administration of the grievor's pay, including the PI allocated, upon conversion to the new Pilot pay table was done in accordance with the applicable policy. Therefore, the Committee found that the grievor was not aggrieved and recommended that the Final Authority not afford redress.