# 2021-262 Pay and Benefits, Post Living Differential

Case summary

F&R Date: 2023-03-21

The grievor submitted that he should be retroactively entitled to the Post Living Differential (PLD) allowance. After his enrolment, he had left his household goods and effects (HG&E) at his place of residence located in a Post Living Differential Area (PLDA), as he was not authorized to move them at public expense. The grievor explained that a new interpretation of the policy gives entitlement to the PLD allowance based on the place of enrolment, if that place is in a PLDA. As redress, the grievor sought the PLD allowance retroactively for that period.

The Initial Authority (IA), namely, the Director General Compensation and Benefits, rejected the grievance. The IA stated that the grievance had been filed after the prescribed time limit and that the grievor had provided no explanations justifying the late filing.

The Committee found that the grievor was not entitled to the PLD. The section 205.45 of the Compensation and Benefits Instructions for the Canadian Forces defines a member's principal residence, among other things, as a dwelling where the member's household goods and effects were located on enrolment if this place is a place of duty and the member is not authorized to move at public expense. Even if the member's residence at the time of enrolment had been in a PLDA, the member was never assigned there, and his residence was not located in a place of duty. The Committee established that, immediately after his enrolment, the member was placed on leave without pay before beginning his training at the military college a few days later and remained there until his first assignment. Accordingly, although his HG&E remained in his principal residence in a PLDA during that period, it was not located in a place of duty.

The Committee recommended that the Final Authority deny the requested redress.