The Posting Allowance Policy Discriminates Single Members


The Posting Allowance Policy Discriminates Single Members

Case number


The Committee noted that in order to determine whether there is discrimination under the CHRA, a prima facie case of discrimination must be made by the complainant, and the employer may defend against the claim by showing that the policy or practice is a bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR). The Committee found that, by providing one month’s pay for a member who was moving dependents as opposed to one half months for a member who is not, the posting allowance policy is prima facie discriminatory based on the family or marital status.

The Committee found that the CAF has shown no evidence to demonstrate that paying a different allowance to members with or without dependants is connected to the performance of the job or that paying a different allowance to members with dependants is necessary to the fulfillment of the work. Furthermore, the Committee found that if the posting allowance’s purpose is to compensate for turbulence, it is difficult to rationally connect the turbulence to the amount of the posting allowance (an amount based on the member’s rank and salary). Therefore, the Committee found that there was no BFOR to justify a different financial treatment between a member who has dependants and one who does not when there is a move.


The Committee recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff direct the Director General Compensation and Benefits to work with Treasury Board with the view of amending the posting allowance policy to remove the distinction based on marital and family status, and provide an equivalent allowance to all members, regardless of whether they have dependents who move with them.

Final Authority Decision


Page details

Date modified: