# 2024-091 Pay and Benefits, Allowances and Benefits

Case summary

F&R Date: 2025-06-23

The grievor challenges the denial of Commuting Assistance, despite not meeting the eligibility criteria set out in Compensation and Benefits Instructions (CBI) 209.28, which requires employment at a remote worksite over 16 km from a suitable residential community. The grievor acknowledged that neither she nor her service spouse's worksite met this definition, as both were within suitable residential areas with public transit. However, though their worksites were inside the same geographical boundaries for their posting, their worksites were 51 km apart, which limited their options for a principal residence with convenient public transit schedules that met their personal circumstances. The grievor argued this met the intent of the policy.

The Director General Compensation and Benefits, acting as the Initial Authority (IA), found the grievor ineligible for Commuting Assistance under CBI 209.28, as neither her nor her service spouse's worksite are designated for the benefit. The IA emphasized that benefit eligibility is based on worksite location, not where the member resides.

The Committee determined that the grievor and her spouse were posted to the same geographical area with flexibility to choose a residence within those boundaries that met their needs. While the options may not have been ideal for the grievor's personal situation, the Committee found the expectation to live together and commute to separate worksites reasonable. Therefore, the Committee found that denial of Commuting Assistance reasonable and recommended that the Final Authority deny the grievance.