Allowances - Post Living Differential (PLD) [MERGED]

[Tibbson]

There is no liability on the part of your Admin Staff, QR&O 203.04 summed up (every Offr and NCM will acquaint themselves with their rates of pay and allowances,,,,,,,etc etc).  Which pushes the onus back on YOU.

I always found it rather ironic that the average service member was supposed to just know the system and be ultimately responsible for the smooth administration of their own pay matters when many RMS clerks cannot figure it out .  And that is intended to be a comment about the complexity of various aspects of the system, not a slam on RMS clerks who should be the SMEs.

 

[Tibbson]

FAA should come into play.  Clerks, every month, certified that things were kosher.  When, it is alleged, they were not.

So why are we not holding the clerks from 2001 accountable for not doing their job properly?

Hold them responsible how?  For making a mistake or interpreting a policy that perhaps was different then what it is today?  Oops, mistakes happen.  It sucks but this would be no where near a Sec 124 "neglegent performance of a military duty" matter.

 

[DAA]

FAA should come into play.  Clerks, every month, certified that things were kosher.  When, it is alleged, they were not.

So why are we not holding the clerks from 2001 accountable for not doing their job properly?

Give me a bit, to look at the FAA closer before commenting further on this point.  Processing payroll, is a rather simplified task which does not involve drilling down to the nuts and bolts, and is all about numbers.  If your bi-monthly pay entitlement is either above or below a pre-determined "threshold", then it is looked at closer to determine "why", with the sole intent of preventing both over/under payments.

So once the payroll review is completed and approved for processing, that's it.  It's a done deal.

Someone does have to sign off on this and in some cases, the person signing.....doesn't even have access to CCPS.  But yet, the checks are in the boxes and they are satisfied with the review that has taken place.  So the "intent" of the FAA has been followed.  Checks and balances.  You really can't expect "Capt White" to review each and every pay account of every member within their AOR, prior to approving the payroll, especially when said approval doesn't reach them until the very last day.

I always found it rather ironic that the average service member was supposed to just know the system and be ultimately responsible for the smooth administration of their own pay matters when many RMS clerks cannot figure it out .  And that is intended to be a comment about the complexity of various aspects of the system, not a slam on RMS clerks who should be the SMEs.

That should be a SLAM and I would push it to that level.  It's their job, to figure it out!!!  Yes, the occupation is complex and depending on the job they are in, it is there responsiblity and duty to learn it.....

PS - which leads me directly back to the original post and makes me think to myself....."Receiving PLD since 2001,  It was never challenged in 13 years.  Must have met the checks and balances for payroll reviews over all this time.  And best of all "Why did someone, suddenly decide to have a much CLOSER look, at just exactly where this person was living?"  Things like this, just don't hapen by accident.....

 

[Tibbson]

Any JAG will agree that next to meeting the elements of the offence for a 129 charge, meeting them for a 124 charge is just as difficult.  It couldn't be proved in R v Semrao and took years of investigation and trial to prove in R v Watts, both of which should have been "slam dunks".  The legal differences between what constitutes neglegence vice an error are huge .

 

[garb811]

...
There is no liability on the part of your Admin Staff, QR&O 203.04 summed up (every Offr and NCM will acquaint themselves with their rates of pay and allowances,,,,,,,etc etc).  Which pushes the onus back on YOU.
...

But of course, when the member does identify a problem, takes it to the pay office and is told all is fine and nothing is corrected, the member is still held accountable when someone actually does "discover" the problem.  Of course, it is simple to say that the member should have been smart and simply banked the money they thought they were being overpaid for the day it comes, but when the pay clerk tells you all is good despite what you think, the SME's word is the one you go with.

 

[dapaterson]

But of course, when the member does identify a problem, takes it to the pay office and is told all is fine and nothing is corrected, the member is still held accountable when someone actually does "discover" the problem.  Of course, it is simple to say that the member should have been smart and simply banked the money they thought they were being overpaid for the day it comes, but when the pay clerk tells you all is good despite what you think, the SME's word is the one you go with.

My current pay problem is on hold; seems the folks in DMPAP don't know what to do, and they're awaiting the CRA instructions.  Which highlights the absurdity that can arise in this sort of situation: I'm expected to know more than the "experts".  (And did, and flagged it, and explained it, and it's now nearly three months and I'm still waiting for their corrective action...)

 

[Strike]

My current pay problem is on hold; seems the folks in DMPAP don't know what to do, and they're awaiting the CRA instructions.  Which highlights the absurdity that can arise in this sort of situation: I'm expected to know more than the "experts".  (And did, and flagged it, and explained it, and it's now nearly three months and I'm still waiting for their corrective action...)

No surprise. They still haven't sorted out the MATA/PATA pay issue yet.

 

[jollyjacktar]

From today's Halifax Chronicle Herald.

Bruce MacKinnon Cartoon

 

[DAA]

No surprise. They still haven't sorted out the MATA/PATA pay issue yet.

Actually, I believe they have resolved this.  Instructions were issued around 8 May indicating that recovery action will most likely not take place and given the circumstances surrounding this, the CF is pursuing a "remission order".

If anyone wants a copy of the direction, PM me......

 

[CountDC]

Yes mata/pata resolved and I save some money.

Usually these get picked up when someone living near them brings it up.  The old "how come I don't get it but my neighbour Bloggins is".  Of course there is always the possibilty that someone had mentioned it the member before and they were quite happy to stay quite as long as the money was coming in.  Not too often that members come in complaining about getting money although they are real quick when missing money. 

I can't recall any changes to the boundaries so believe those were the ones in effect at the time.  We used to have a copy posted in the counter area when I was there.  Regardless the article says there is nothing in writing when there is and has been for a long time so that is a false statement.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

if you are forced to return money earned in previous years, then the department is required to issue you updated T4's to reflect the changes to your incomes and taxes. This used to trigger a report to the auditor General, something our compensation branch tried to avoid. Not sure if it still does. I also know in the PS someone having a wage clawback is entitled to notice and options for the payback, also not sure if this applies to the Forces.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Hold them responsible how?  For making a mistake or interpreting a policy that perhaps was different then what it is today?  Oops, mistakes happen.  It sucks but this would be no where near a Sec 124 "neglegent performance of a military duty" matter.

Who was the approving signature on the original PLD paperwork?  He/she and everyone else involved could be placed on RMs then.

Most of us in the CF have to face ramifications if we are not up to snuff in our performance...why would RMS be any different?

 

[Navy_Pete]

I guess I just find it generally annoying that "overpayment" spans everything in the spectrum from claiming something you weren't entitled to (ie fraud) to situations like this, where SMEs said you were entitled to it, then a different SME says you aren't, and goes back to reclaim it all.  I would call a situation like this an honest mistake vice an overpayment, as the member was taking the payment in good faith, based on the fact that the SMEs said he was supposed to get it.

Personally, I would think that the fair thing to do in cases like this is for the pay system to accept some responsibility and either simply stop the benefits and write off most or all of it (from the six year mark forward) or recover some of the recent benefit only.  It's not like they said he was supposed to get 100 dollars but deposited 200; they told him he was supposed to get PLD then changed their minds 13 years later.  I don't think the taxpayers would have a problem with this either; I'm sure that DND writes off far stupider stuff in much larger amounts annually without batting an eye.

Just venting really; can't do anything to change the system.  Also have a lot of sympathy for the pay clerks, as the regulations are pretty labyrinthine, and they are typically just the bearers of bad news. 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Someone does have to sign off on this and in some cases, the person signing.....doesn't even have access to CCPS.  But yet, the checks are in the boxes and they are satisfied with the review that has taken place.  So the "intent" of the FAA has been followed.  Checks and balances.  You really can't expect "Capt White" to review each and every pay account of every member within their AOR, prior to approving the payroll, especially when said approval doesn't reach them until the very last day.

As QR & Os were brought up, IMO these ones should be brought into the fold as well then:

QR & O, Vol I, Ch 4, Art 4.02  as it pertains to Capt White...who may delegate his/her authority, but not his/her responsibility.

4.02 - GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF OFFICERS

An officer shall:
a.become acquainted with, observe and enforce:

i.the National Defence Act,
ii.the Security of Information Act,  (5 June 2008),
iii.QR&O, and
iv.all other regulations, rules, orders and instructions that pertain to the performance of the officer's duties;

And for the NCM folks under him/her...

QR & O, Vol 1, Ch 5, Art 5.01

5.01- GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF NON-COMMISSIONED MEMBERS

A non-commissioned member shall:
a. become acquainted with, observe and enforce i. the National Defence Act,
ii.the Security of Information Act, (5 June 2008)
iii.QR&O, and
iv.all other regulations, rules, orders and instructions that pertain to the performance of the member's duties;

I've had to deal with the 3 main BORs (12 Wing, Dckyard and Stad) in the past and I got into the habit of going in with references printed, pertinent section highlighted and most times, I knew the policy better than the people I spoke to and would have to say "no, you are wrong".  Then spend time showing them, not that I was right, but the POLICY was "right".  I also found most people thin-skinned and overly sensitive to what was really their lack of knowledge in their own field. 

IMO, the people who are screwing up and causing hardship and/or stress should be accountable for their lack of performance IAW CAF and trade standards.

 

[PMedMoe]

Regardless the article says there is nothing in writing when there is and has been for a long time so that is a false statement.

And the article also states this:

Rissesco was being garnisheed the $400 a month he had been receiving for the benefit, plus he no longer gets the payment, which meant an $800 reduction in his monthly pay

Which is also false.  He's being garnisheed $400 to repay the PLD, but not getting the benefit does not equal an $800 reduction in his monthly pay.  There's only a $400 reduction in his pay and he is no longer receiving a benefit to which (it seems) he's not entitled.

Of course, that may be the way it was described to the person who wrote the article, but it is still not accurate.

And yes, I agree that he shouldn't be on the hook for a 13 year old mistake.  They should have just stopped paying the benefit and be done with it.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I think something that has gotten missed in the thread to date is the involvement of the MEGRC, which has completed the file and presented it's Findings and Recommendations to the FA. 

Here is a summary of the Finding and Recommendations from the MEGRC.

Not sure how many people have had a grievance go to the (former CFGB) MEGRC, but I can attest to the unbiased, complete and thorough nature in which they process a file, and that there are several levels of review it goes thru just in that organization, including JAG, etc.

In short, they have all the details to analyze, and saying that, here is a quote from the F & Summary:

The Committee observed that the Boundary description indicated that it proceeded from one community to another without any indication as to whether the community was included within the Boundary in whole or in part. In the area of the grievor's residence, the Highway formed the Boundary and included both sides of the road at certain points which were not well defined. The Committee observed that the Boundary description failed to describe what and how much on the outside portion of the Highway was considered to be included inside the Boundary in those areas where both sides were included.

The Committee considered that there was a fundamental lack of logic in the manner in which the CF authorities defined the Boundary and found that the current manner of administering the Boundary in the area where it bisects the grievor's Township was highly subjective and unfair.

Accordingly, the Committee found that the grievor's residence should be considered to be within the Boundary as it was described in the amended version issued in May 2002, and that the grievor has been entitled to receive the PLD benefit since 2002 and continues to be so entitled.

Of course, the CDS as FA is not bound to the F & R, but this is certainly a point in the grievors corner.  If the CDS denies, it will be interesting to see the argument against from the FA.

 

[PMedMoe]

And this point from the same link:

"The Committee noted that the CF is statute barred from recovering the PLD benefits paid in 2001–2002 since that is beyond the six-year time limit."

 

[cupper]

He's being garnisheed $400 to repay the PLD, but not getting the benefit does not equal an $800 reduction in his monthly pay.  There's only a $400 reduction in his pay and he is no longer receiving a benefit to which (it seems) he's not entitled.

Regardless of how you want to put it, He has $800 less per pay coming in than before the error was found, which could well be a hardship for he and his family. That is the point that was trying to be made.

If they only stopped paying the benefit, the reduction would only be $400 per pay.

 

[PMedMoe]

I understand that.  But it's still not a pay reduction.  It's a loss of a benefit.

Yeah, I know....semantics.  But whatever outrages the public and sells newspapers right?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I understand that.  But it's still not a pay reduction.  It's a loss of a benefit.

Yeah, I know....semantics.  But whatever outrages the public and sells newspapers right?

Bullseye!