PLD FOR LOCALLY HIRED RESERVISTS

[McG]

whiskey601,
Are you saying that filing a grievance, just for the CF grievance board to conclude it has no jurisdiction, would actually improve your file when proceeding through an alternate recourse later?

 

[SeaRoom]

Thanks Whiskey.

The whole argument of "choice" is a moot one. Reservists do get PLD for contracts they chose to take. A reservist moving to Toronto from Kingston chooses to move to a higher cost area, so shouldn't they incur the extra cost. But they don't. They receive PLD. If you are against local reservists getting PLD, then really you must also be against any reservist getting PLD.

I'm not a lawyer, but I think you would find that simply agreeing to a contract does not preclude your access to inherent rights. I realize that some of you will argue that PLD is not a inherent right for local class B res f, and that is where we disagree I suppose. But the fact that the CF believes that a standard QOL is an inherent right for some but not others is quite possibly illegal.

It's true that not all jobs pay better in high cost areas. I was speaking in general terms.

I realize that for some reservists, class A is their only employment (as it also was for me in university.) But class A is still part-time, and that is why they wouldn't get PLD. Yes, a university student might be full-time class B over the summer, but that is temporary, seasonal employment, often in another region of the country (in which case they receive incidental allowance, and free room and board.) You cannot compare a student reservist to one who is on class B for 2 and half years.

I'm not asking for equal pay! I understand the need to pay the reg F more than the reservist, and I am not some pain-in-the-ass, rock-the-boat, conspiracy believing freak who spends all day writting memos about who pissed me of today, and how the Man is keeping me down. Though the military seems to have more than their fair share of those. In fact I have never complained about anything I have experienced in the military. But it seems blatantly unfair that someone from 200 Km outside Toronto, who moved here by their own choice, is now getting free rent.

 

[Cloud Cover]

whiskey601,
Are you saying that filing a grievance, just for the CF grievance board to conclude it has no jurisdiction, would actually improve your file when proceeding through an alternate recourse later?

Yes, because the first thing a higher level tribunal or court would examine is whether there is another forum where the matter could be considered. If a low level tribunal or board looked at the issue, and properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the issues put before them, then the Federal court would determine that it alone has jurisdiction to decide the matter.

A member of the CAF can bring an issue before the Federal Court to challenge a decision of the TB or GIC - that does not mean the challenge will be succesful, as this former military judge discovered:   http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2003/2003fct764.html

Cheers.



   

 

[backinblack]

>

So...

If I am a civy living in Esquimalt, and I join the Reg force and get posted to Esquimalt, would I get PLD for Esquimalt?  Further, would it make a difference if I requested (via posting preference, or other forms of request) a posting there?  After all, I was living there without any PLD benefits before I made my choice and signed...

Just a scenario to think about.

 

[aesop081]

>

So...

If I am a civy living in Esquimalt, and I join the Reg force and get posted to Esquimalt, would I get PLD for Esquimalt?   Further, would it make a difference if I requested (via posting preference, or other forms of request) a posting there?   After all, I was living there without any PLD benefits before I made my choice and signed...

Just a scenario to think about.

The answer is YES.   If you live in esquimalt and join the CF, the day you are posted ( after BMQ and/or trades training)  to CFB esquimalt ( or patricia bay if you are an air force type) you become elligible for PLD regardless of your previous civilian situation. It doesnt matter if it was your posting preference or not.

 

[backinblack]

Ok, thanks Aesop.  8)

 

[TCBF]

"Also, on a related note, the process for transferring from the res force to the reg force needs an overhaul... it's almost easier to join the reg force as a civy than as a reservists. I know many people who have done it, or attempted to, and got bogged down in admin bs... but that's a different thread!"

Well, that's because the Regs have been 'burned' by inheriting 'trained' soldiers from the reserves who can't do basic foot drill - let alone arms drill - are grossly out of shape, have medical conditions that should have flagged their enrollment, and don't know their jobs.  Other than that, the program is a wonderful success. ;D

 

[RCA]

And you have just managed to insult the vast majority of Component Transfers and rub salt in the us vs them debate with your general and simplistic statement. Another example of the ignorance and arrogance of some towards the reserves. And as this is unsupported with any stats, can not be taken as fact. I think a lot of people would be surprised at the amount of CTs within the Reg F.

medical conditions that should have flagged their enrollment

. If you don't know, since the early 90's ,the enrollment standards have been the same, and just reading a sample of posts would disprove this statement.

As to the topic itself, the only comment I'll make, I fully understand the Reg F has certain benefits due to the different terms of service from reserves. But not all. As it is the 15% pay differential should cover the different terms of service, and therefore most  benefits be equal. I find it interesting that many advocate that the reserves should train and be promoted at the same standard, but when it comes to  benefits , tough, you want them, then join up. If not for Cl B filling many postions, the CF would be very hard pressed to fill its many roles and tasks.

 

[TCBF]

RCA,

As to the topic, I agree with your comments.  What is good for the Goose, should be good for the Gander.

Other issues:

"And you have just managed to insult the vast majority of Component Transfers and rub salt in the us vs them debate with your general and simplistic statement."

- Hopefully, only in the catagories I raised.  If the shoe fits, wear it.

"Another example of the ignorance and arrogance of some towards the reserves."

- Actually, I am fairly balanced is this regard.

" And as this is unsupported with any stats, can not be taken as fact."

- I was staying in my own arcs and posting from personal experience.  I had actually, a year ago, voiced my opinion that my unit should send two direct entries to St.Jean for recruit trg, as they were so ill-trained, we could not possibly bring them along. 

" I think a lot of people would be surprised at the amount of CTs within the Reg F."

-Not me, I am one  (In 1976, I reverted from a Sgt(LR) to a Tpr and then did a Reg TQ3).  So are a whole bunch of people who outrank me in my trade, and are doing very well. The vast majority do very well.  We often lack the will to properly administer those who don't.  The delays in a component transfer may well be part of the process to sort this out.

 

[Gunner]

http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/annual_report_2004-e.php

Post Living Differential for Reservists
On June 8, 2000, under article 205.45 of the QR&O (now Compensation and Benefit Instructions for the Canadian Forces [CBI] 205.45), which took effect retroactively, to April 1, 2000, Treasury Board established a taxable benefit to stabilize the cost of living of CF members and their families when a posting required the member to move to a place of duty in Canada with above average living costs (Post Living Differential Area [PLDA]). The regulation was later revised to more accurately reflect the intentions of the CF. The first revision was authorized by Treasury Board on January 9, 2001, and took effect retroactively, on April 2, 2000.

As a general rule, the Post Living Differential (PLD) will be paid to a Regular Force (Reg F) member whose principal residence is located in a PLDA, regardless of whether the member's furniture and effects were moved to that location at public expense. For a member of the Reserve Force (Res F) (Classes B and C), the PLD is payable only if that member has been authorized to move furniture and effects to his or her place of duty at public expense.

Consequently, the Reservist serving on long-term Class B or C service already in a recognized PLDA in his or her home area and the one moved at public expense to a PLDA do not receive the same treatment. Whereas both have voluntarily chosen to serve in such an area, only the Reservist who chose to move to a PLDA for a period of Class B or C service is entitled to PLD, despite the fact it is not a service-imposed move. The result is that two Reservists can be working side by side on long-term callout but be treated differently. One will, and the other will not, receive PLD. This inequitable treatment has serious implications for morale.

The Board recently dealt with nine grievances about PLD for Reservists. In its findings and recommendations, the Board said that the current policy does not articulate why the two are treated differently in terms of PLD, nor is it self-evident why the Reservist serving on full-time duty in his or her home area should be disentitled to PLD. The Board found that this results in Reservists being treated unequally without cause.

The Board recommended that the regulation be amended to extend this benefit to all Reservists serving on a full-time basis in a PLDA. Furthermore, given the number of grievances before the Board on this issue, it recommended that immediate consideration be given to reviewing and revising CBI 205.45.

The CDS recently issued a series of decisions on this subject. As to the rationale behind the differential treatment, the CDS stated that a Reservist who accepts a voluntary callout in an area where they have already chosen to reside does not experience the cost-of-living increase that a Reservist posted to a PLDA must contend with. He concluded that the current system compensates Reservists for costs in cases where the CF has required them to be in a higher cost area (the Reservist has the choice to accept or refuse, unlike the Regular Force member). He disagreed with the Board's conclusion that the current PLD regime treats Reservists unequally without cause and stated he was not prepared to accept the Board's recommendation that CBI 205.45 be amended.

 

[Long in the tooth]

Funny Stufff

 

[54/102 CEF]

Subsections 29(1) and (2) of the National Defence Act provide:

Therefore, there is no right to grieve TB direction.   However the ombudsman may have scope to become involved.

My 2 cents

PLD has always sounded to me like a stealth payraise .............. just like performance pay for COls and up - some 90% (I understand) - it may be more - who get it

The throw away line of you want benefits - sign up full time sounds strangely similar to  can't afford to live outside of Pet? Get out and get a civvy job.

2nd point - TB is not a DND board nor a board per se - It is more like the Dept of the Treasury -

so fire in that redress and Dam the Torpedoes of Group Think

 

[Brad Sallows]

"As to the rationale behind the differential treatment, the CDS stated that a Reservist who accepts a voluntary callout in an area where they have already chosen to reside does not experience the cost-of-living increase that a Reservist posted to a PLDA must contend with."

The idea seems to be that if you were used to living in a detached bungalow with a nice yard in Saskatoon, an effort will be made to compensate you to enjoy something approximating a detached bungalow with a nice yard if you are posted to, say, Vancouver.  But, if you finished school and obtained a Class B position while living in your parents' basement in Vancouver, you get to stay in your parents' basement.

So much for QOL as a bedrock principle of HR policy.  "We'll cushion you against the beating, but only if you weren't receiving the beating in the first place."

Apparently this point is either difficult to understand or makes no policy impression at the policy making/defending level: those who start out adult life in high cost-of-living regions don't necessarily start out enjoying the same standard of accommodations as those who live in lower cost regions.  Is it in the CF's interest to perpetuate economic disadvantage?  If the CF wishes to promote behaviour which forces the CF to pay to move people across the country and then pay PLD, rather than simply hire locally and pay PLD, fair enough.  I suppose that must serve some sort of inscrutable Treasury Board purpose to get rid of excess funds.

NB: I understand the policy as written; I was present during discussions about the future of PMQs at Jericho Det which is not exactly in a low-cost area.  I just think the policy has one glaring flaw.