# 2021-049 Pay and Benefits, Post Living Differential

Case summary

F&R Date: 2021-12-15

The grievor argued that he should be entitled to the Post Living Differential (PLD) allowance retroactively, after a new interpretation of the policy entitled members to PLD based on their place of enrolment. The grievor argued that he was provided inaccurate information by the Canadian Forces Recruiting Centre regarding the requirement to move his Household Goods and Effects (HG&E) out of his parents’ home and into storage while he attended the Royal Military College of Canada, as otherwise he would not be entitled to have them moved at public expense on his first posting. Even though the grievor was reimbursed for the cost of placing his HG&E in long term storage, he maintained that his parents’ home remained his permanent address. As redress, the grievor requested to be compensated in an amount equivalent to the difference between what he received in compensation for storing his HG&E and what he would have received had he been receiving PLD.

The Director General Compensation and Benefits, acting as the Initial Authority, rejected the grievance stating that it was submitted well beyond the prescribed time limit and that the grievor had not provided adequate substantiation for the delay.

Following a review of the available evidence and the applicable polices regarding PLD, the Committee found that the grievor was not entitled to PLD as he was reimbursed the cost of placing HG&E in long term storage. The Committee also found that while the residence of the grievor's parents was within a PLD Area, it was not his place of duty as defined by Compensation and Benefits Instructions 208.80. The Committee also noted that the new interpretation of the PLD policy referenced by the grievor had since been rescinded.

The Committee recommended to the Final Authority to deny the redress.

FA decision summary

The Chief of the Defence Staff, acting as Final Authority, agreed with the Committee's findings and recommendation.