# 2018-026 Pay and Benefits, Maintenance allowance

Case summary

F&R Date: 2019-03-22

While he was posted to Comox, British Columbia, the grievor was sent on temporary duty to Greenwood, Nova Scotia, to take a six-month training course. He had no dependents and owned a residence. Given his extended absence, he had to use home maintenance services to meet the requirements of his home insurance company. He submitted a claim for the custodial expenses (CE), which was denied. The grievor asserted that it is unfair for a CAF member attach posted abroad to be eligible for CE while he, on temporary duty in Canada, is not. He also asserted that he satisfied all of the conditions set out in the applicable policies and requested reimbursement of his CE.

The Initial Authority (IA) refused to grant redress. The IA found that a CAF member must be permanently transferred to a new place of duty and be prohibited from moving their Household Goods & Effects (HG&E) in order to be eligible for CE reimbursement, which was not the grievor's case. The IA noted that the grievor received an incidental expense allowance, which served to cover the various expenses resulting from a period of temporary duty far from the member's place of duty.

The Committee found that a CAF member without dependents must be transferred to a new place of duty and be prohibited from moving their Household Goods & Effects (HG&E) in order to be eligible for CE reimbursement. The Committee also found that the incidental expense allowance served to cover various expenses incurred for a period of duty travel outside of the place of residence, including expenses associated with maintenance and security of a residence. However, the Committee noted that some benefits, such as incidental expenses, are based on policies applicable to personnel in the public service, while the conditions of military service are very different. In particular, while a public service employee cannot be forced to go, it is rather frequent that a CAF member must take long-duration training far from their place of residence. In this regard, the Committee suggested that the Canadian Armed Forces take this situation into consideration when developing policies applicable to CAF members.

The Committee therefore recommended that the Final Authority not grant the grievor redress.

FA decision summary

The Director Canadian Forces Grievance Authority, acting as FA, agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendation and denied redress. However, he noted that he supported the intention of Director General Compensation and Benefits, the IA, to consider whether military members were adequately supported in this respect during future policy review discussions with Treasury Board.