# 2018-055 Pay and Benefits, Specialist pay

Case summary

F&R Date: 2019-07-17

The grievor was a Land Communications and Information Systems Technician. In November 2010, he reached Qualification Level 3. In 2011, the grievor's military occupation (MOC) was reorganized and several occupations were grouped together, some of which were eligible for specialist pay. The Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) members who had been eligible prior to the restructuring continued to be eligible afterward. The grievor was not eligible but submitted a prior learning assessment and recognition (PLAR) request to have his Qualification Level 5 (QL5) recognized. In 2017, an orderly room clerk at the unit for which the grievor was working noticed that the grievor was on a list of members eligible for retroactive specialist pay, but the payments had been stopped because he did not meet the conditions for receiving it.

The grievor claimed that he had the skills and experience for the CAF to recognize his QL5 in his old MOC, and accordingly, his PLAR request should have been granted, which would have enabled him to receive specialist pay in his new MOC as of 1 October 2011. He also claimed that he was denied a course that would have enabled him to reach QL5 in his old MOC. The initial authority, after having completed a PLAR, concluded that the grievor had not reached the performance objectives required for QL5, and denied the grievance.

The Committee concluded that there had been no undue delay in the grievor's participation in the QL5 course, and that there had been no obligation to register the grievor sooner. The Committee also reviewed the PLAR request submitted by the grievor in 2011, and concluded that in his request, the grievor had not demonstrated that he had achieved the performance objectives required for QL5. The Committee recommended denying redress.

FA decision summary

The Final Authority (FA), the Director Canadian Forces Grievance Authority, agreed with the Committee's recommendation to deny redress. The FA found that the grievor did not show that he possessed the QL5 equivalencies prior to 1 October 2011 and, thus, was not entitled to specialist pay as of that date.