# 2022-244 Pay and Benefits, Recovery of overpayment, Recovery action

Case summary

F&R Date: 2023-08-30

The grievor disputed a pay recovery for overpayment, arguing that a pay policy message from the Director of Pay Policy Development (DPPD) [006/2020], changed the Flight Engineer (FE) Specialist 2 Incentive Pay Category calculation on occupation progression. The grievor contended that he was paid correctly prior to the DPPD message. As redress, he requested that his debt be remitted or, in the alternative, that he be granted an ex gratia payment.

The Initial Authority (IA) denied redress, finding that the initial calculation of the grievor's rate of pay on career progression in the FE specialist occupation was not in accordance with the Treasury Board (TB) approved instruction. The IA found that the correct pay provision was paragraph 204.03(5) of the Compensation and Benefits Instruction (CBI). The IA acknowledged that the grievor was not responsible for the overpayment error but nonetheless found that article 201.05 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces obliged the grievor to return all monies paid in excess of entitlement under the CBI.

The Committee found that the National Defence Act empowers the TB to set military pay policy, which it does through the CBI. The Committee noted that paragraph 204.03(5) of the CBI was modified by the TB in 2017, before the grievor met his FE progression criteria. Therefore, he was overpaid from the date he met those criteria. Finally, the Committee agreed with the IA that the Canadian Armed Forces was responsible for the pay error. However, after reviewing the grievor's circumstances, the Committee concluded that the grievor could repay the debt without incurring undue financial hardship. Therefore, the case did not merit a submission to TB for remission of the debt nor the granting of an ex gratia payment. The Committee recommended that no redress be granted.