# 2013-082 Pay and Benefits, Pay, Pay Protection, Pay upon Voluntary Occupational Transfer (VOT)
Case Summary
F&R Date: 2013–10–10
At the time of the grievor's transfer to the Legal Officer occupation, he was granted the highest Incentive Pay Category (IPC) for a Captain Legal Officer, which is IPC 3. The grievor's rate of pay before his transfer was that of a General Service Officer at IPC 9, which was slightly higher than the rate of pay of a Captain Legal Officer at IPC 3, thus resulting in a reduction to his monthly pay. The grievor argued that this was contrary to the applicable pay rate provisions set out in Compensation and Benefits Instructions (CBI) 204.218(4). As redress, he sought to be paid at the rate of pay of a Major Legal Officer at IPC Basic.
There is no Initial Authority (IA) decision on file as the IA was unable to render a decision within the applicable time limits and the grievor did not grant an extension.
The Committee recognized that at the time the grievor submitted his grievance, the pay structure and tables in effect would not permit the language contained in CBI 204.218(4) to be respected. However, several months later, Canadian Forces General Message 091/13 announced retroactive pay increases for Legal Officers, some of which took effect prior to the grievor's transfer. As a result of these retroactive pay increases, the grievor now found himself in a situation where on transfer to the Legal Officer occupation his rate of pay (IPC 3) was higher than his rate of pay (GSO Capt IPC 9) prior to his transfer. The Committee was of the opinion that the issue at the root of the grievance was rendered moot.
In the circumstances, the Committee found no reason for the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) to review the matter, recommending to the CDS that the grievance file be closed.
CDS Decision Summary
CDS Decision Date: 2014–03–21
The CDS partially agreed with the Committee as he concluded that the grievor's request for a pay increase had been resolved by the announcement of retroactive pay increases. Instead of considering the case moot, he simply addressed the merit of the grievor's claim and denied it on the same basis.