Temporary Duty ( TD ) merged

[Sub_Guy]

Print off the reference and bring it in to the School's OR. 

 

[Pusser]

The CURRENT CFTDI (revised Jan 2012) as quoted above is correct; however, perhaps poorly formatted.  It should look like this:

8.16 - INCIDENTAL EXPENSE ALLOWANCE - ADMINISTRATION

(3) (No Entitlement) There is no entitlement to an incidental expense allowance if any of the following conditions are satisfied:

  (a) the member is on adventure training authorized by or under the authority of the Chief of the Defence Staff;

  (b) with the exception of sick leave granted under QR&O article 16.16 (Sick Leave), the member is on leave under QR&O chapter 16 (Leave);

  (c) the member is in hospital;

  (d) the member is in receipt of an allowance under Section 2 (Environmental Allowances) of CBI 205 (Allowances For Officers And Non-Commissioned Members) and is,

          (i) deployed — in the field — on operations or training exercises of 24 hours or longer duration, or
          (ii) aboard a ship — or submarine — that is out of port for more than 24 hours;

  (e) the member is on leave because the member requested to use a PMV rather than a more economical and practical mode of transportation and the member uses that PMV for duty travel.

The situation described by the OP does not satisfy any of these conditions.  The condition that prohibits receiving TD (incidentals) applies only if the member is deployed on board a ship.  With his ship on one coast and him on the other (attending a shore-based school no less), this is clearly not the case.

The purpose of this regulation is to prevent Staff personnel (e.g. Sea Training Staff who also receive SDA, although not actually posted to a ship) who travel on TD to meet ships and who often stay in hotels en route (and are thus entitled to TD allowances) from drawing TD while living on board  the ship they are visiting.  The reasoning is simple - when living on board a deployed ship, they have no meal, accommodation or incidental expenses.  The same cannot be said of a sailor on TD for a course and living ashore away from home (sailors home-ported on the same coast as the course don't get anything).

The staff who are telling you that you are not entitled to TD (incidentals) while on course on the other coast are simply wrong and are not interpreting the CFTDI correctly.

Whether someone is or is not entitled to a particular allowance is irrelevant to whether they can draw an advance on the claim.  If there is a value to the claim (and there would be, even if it's for lunch in the airport in Toronto), the member can draw an advance if required.

 

[DAA]

Your Claims Clerk is NOT reading the "ENTIRE" regulation... :

7.16 (3) (d) contains two parts!!!  Yes you are in receipt of an "Environmental Allowance", however, you do NOT meet one of the other two conditions (ie; deployed in the field or onboard a ship out of port).

Hence, you are entitled to FULL TD benefits while outside your geographical area...it's as simple as that!!

 

[bridges]

The purpose of this regulation is to prevent Staff personnel (e.g. Sea Training Staff who also receive SDA, although not actually posted to a ship) who travel on TD to meet ships and who often stay in hotels en route (and are thus entitled to TD allowances) from drawing TD while living on board  the ship they are visiting.  The reasoning is simple - when living on board a deployed ship, they have no meal, accommodation or incidental expenses.  The same cannot be said of a sailor on TD for a course and living ashore away from home (sailors home-ported on the same coast as the course don't get anything).

The staff who are telling you that you are not entitled to TD (incidentals) while on course on the other coast are simply wrong and are not interpreting the CFTDI correctly.

:nod:  A perfect example of why regulations should perhaps include a non-binding explanatory section, laying out the rationale & purpose for the regulation.  Otherwise they're much more likely to be misinterpreted and/or slavishly adhered to, long after their original purpose has been overtaken by events - if anyone who knew what it was is even still available to explain it.

In the meantime, fortunately there's Army.ca.

 

[DAA]

DND/CF are a subscribing Federal Department to the NJC Directives  ( http://www.njc-cnm.gc.ca/directive/travel-voyage/index-eng.php ) which can also be referred to as the Treasury Board Directives (TBS).  Which basically means that we adopt (along with many other Federal Departments) our travel policy based on what the NJC publishes.  The content of the NJC Directives forms the backbone for the CFTDI's.  So in my opinion, the NJC directives are the guiding principle to our travel benefits (TD).

Yet, when a group of CF members travels on TD to the same location and are put into transient quarters, why are these people assigned accomodations based on their "rank" (think about Cpl, MCpl, Sgt, WO, Lt, Capt and NOT Snr Offrs)?  Cpl and MCpl get a room with 4-5 bunk beds, Sgt and WO get doubled up and the offrs get a single room.

NJC Directive 3.3.1 states "3.3.1 Accommodation - The standard for accommodation is a single room, in a safe environment, conveniently located and comfortably equipped."

Case in point  -  visit to our unit (Cpl, MCpl, Sgt and Civilian)

Cpl and MCpl were put in a transient room which consisted of 5 bunks beds and nothing more.  The Sgt was put in a room with 4 separate beds and lockers,  The civilian (CR-3) was put in a suite with a queen size bed, big screen TV, fridge, microwave, etc......

Personally, I think they all should have been treated equal....but that is just my opinion.

 

[aesop081]

Yet, when a group of CF members travels on TD to the same location and are put into transient quarters, why are these people assigned accomodations based on their "rank" (think about Cpl, MCpl, Sgt, WO, Lt, Capt and NOT Snr Offrs)?  Cpl and MCpl get a room with 4-5 bunk beds, Sgt and WO get doubled up and the offrs get a single room.

This is not a 'CF" situation. Blame the environment, formation or unit you work in. When I travel on TD with a group from my unit, we all stay in the same accomodations, Private to LCol.

Well, with the exception of Halifax and Esquimalt ( Waaaaaaait a minute.....that's the RCN......... : )

 

[Gunner98]

The civilian can be asked if they will voluntarily stay in quarters but they have the right at any class & level to say no if the quarters do not meet the NJC Directive - comfortable, safe and convenient. 

Local decisions result in different outcomes as someone known as a Responsibility Manager or Administrator is signing off on Section 32 of all claims before the journeys begin, even on bulk claims. 

As a senior officer I have slept in bunk beds and shared bathrooms over the last decade. I have seen civilians volunteer to stay in below standard bunk-bed quarters in the spirit of conserving limited TD funds.  At the same time at the same unit I have seen 'entitled senior officers' whose flight bookings have been approved when the cost is in excess of 5 times the rate of 'non-entitled' personnel flying on the same aircraft to the same destination.

 

[Shamrock]

In the above, for us innocent bystanders, one should note CR-3 is (I believe) equivalent to a Cpl Clerk.  However, to avoid a lopsided discussion, we should compare the compensation the Cpl receives to that of the CR despite the CR's collective bargaining agreement. 

 

[garb811]

The thing to remember is the NJC directives apply to Public Service employees.  From the NJC Website:

The National Joint Council of the Public Service of Canada is the Forum of Choice for co-development, consultation and information sharing between the government as employer and public service bargaining agents.

As with everything negotiated between Treasury Board and the Unions, these directives are the starting point for CF members and there are a ton of places where CF and NJC directives are similar yet different; take a look at the differences between MFSIs and FSDs, the differing moving and separation entitlements etc etc.  DAA, judging by your avatar you've been OUTCAN to an embassy and benefited from this "perk" in the past as well.

The issue of the not respecting that NJC directives apply to DND employees and CFTDI apply only to CF members must be wide spread, if I recall correctly there was a fairly recent CANFORGEN clarifying this point.

 

[DAA]

The thing to remember is the NJC directives apply to Public Service employees.  From the NJC Website:

As with everything negotiated between Treasury Board and the Unions, these directives are the starting point for CF members and there are a ton of places where CF and NJC directives are similar yet different; take a look at the differences between MFSIs and FSDs, the differing moving and separation entitlements etc etc.  DAA, judging by your avatar you've been OUTCAN to an embassy and benefited from this "perk" in the past as well.

The issue of the not respecting that NJC directives apply to DND employees and CFTDI apply only to CF members must be wide spread, if I recall correctly there was a fairly recent CANFORGEN clarifying this point.

What I find intriguing, is CFTDI 1.04 (Authority - TB - Delgation) which basically states "......to determine and regulate payments that may be made to CF members, for the following specific purposes:  a.  to ensure comparability to payments that are authorized to be made to a public service employee in similar circumstances;  and b.  to make minor amendments to the unique travel and reloc benefits that may be payable to CF members, if the Secretary is of the opinion that the amendments will not change the essential character of those benefits"

So once again, we find ourselves subscribing to a nationally recognized directive for what could be the purpose of "standardization" but then not following the basic guidelines and by default "restricting" core entitlements based on an individuals rank.  Also, if you look at the DND Living Accommodation Manual, there is no longer any references contained in this document which direct the allocation of single and or transient quarters based on an individuals rank either, only based on the persons status in location (ie; Posted, Att Posted, TD, etc).

I'm not saying putting people up in barracks where the room is 10 bunk beds deep is right or wrong, all I am saying is that the regulations should be applied equally.

 

[bridges]

There are many instances in which CF and PS entitlements differ.  Just on my last claim I found out that civ employees can take their personal vehicle even if it's not the most cost-efficient method, whereas mil mbrs are obliged to do an elaborate comparison of at least 3 travel options ahead of time, and can only claim mileage up to the cheapest option - at least, that's how it's applied in my unit.

A while back we had a civ emp and CF mbr deploy to KAF together, as individuals (not a large unit);  on their return flight the civ emp was in business class while the mil mbr was in economy, on the same plane.  The civ emp was not allowed to refuse business class - while the mil mbr was not allowed to request it.  This after working 6 months together in theatre.

Civ emps' guidelines are based on the results of collective bargaining.  That notwithstanding, putting a Cpl in a room with 5 bunk beds while a CR-03 (basically a Cpl-equivalent) gets a private room with all the goodies doesn't seem right - it seems like an anachronism that has long since been done away with, in many locations.  Sounds like the unit wasn't allowed to force the civ emp into shacks, and the particular civ emp didn't offer, so they decided to save money on the backs of those whom they CAN force into shacks.  It's too bad the system still allows this.  :not-again:

 

[DAA]

The thing to remember is the NJC directives apply to Public Service employees.  As with everything negotiated between Treasury Board and the Unions, these directives are the starting point for CF members and there are a ton of places where CF and NJC directives are similar yet different; take a look at the differences between MFSIs and FSDs, the differing moving and separation entitlements etc etc.  DAA, judging by your avatar you've been OUTCAN to an embassy and benefited from this "perk" in the past as well.

The issue of the not respecting that NJC directives apply to DND employees and CFTDI apply only to CF members must be wide spread, if I recall correctly there was a fairly recent CANFORGEN clarifying this point.

Actually, the NJC directives apply equally right across the department, whether you wear a uniform or not.  You have to remember that the NJC Directives have "replaced" the old Treasury Board directives.  So there is no gray area.  DND/CF can amplify these within the content but without approval from the "Secretary" of the TBS, they cannot be restricted.  MFSI's and FSD's are relatively the same but I will agree, with modifications.  As a matter of fact, if the benefits of an MFSI exceed what is an FSD, Foreign Affairs will be certain to adjust things to ensure comparability, regretably, the same cannot be said for the other direction in some instances.

And yes, I was OUTCAN at an Embassy but the TD travel benefits when I was there, were identical to anyone else serving in Canada.  Anyone that did try to take a "perk", I am sure you can find their names on the Military Justice Court Martial site.

The CANFORGEN that came out, dealt with DND civilian employees travelling into and out of areas of operations which falls into an entirely different category.

 

[armyvern]

There are many instances in which CF and PS entitlements differ.  Just on my last claim I found out that civ employees can take their personal vehicle even if it's not the most cost-efficient method, whereas mil mbrs are obliged to do an elaborate comparison of at least 3 travel options ahead of time, and can only claim mileage up to the cheapest option - at least, that's how it's applied in my unit.

...

I've already pointed out the vast differences in the differing standards of entitlement in the Benefits Loss thread where the original CANFORGEN clearly pointed out how awesome us CF members have it compared to other militaries with a comment about, "but not compared to our fellow public servants". 

Check out the NJC for PS on unaccompanied postings - compared to our IR - living standards of entitlement (2 bedroom), entitlement to "weekend travel assistance to home" compared to our once per year ... etc etc ad naseum. This shit is not new, surprising, or equal ... and hasn't been since as far back as I remember. We just have to remember that CANFORGEN's focus as they dumbed/cheapened us down even further, "but you've got it soooooooo good compared to other militaries." PLUS: we can't strike.    Live with it or GTFO we're told.

 

[bridges]

Live with it or GTFO we're told.

Agreed.  And this kind of statement, along with "It goes with the uniform", "If you don't like it, there's the door" etc. is a poor substitute for treating people fairly and communicating things clearly. 

Wish I could be more specific (memory fails) - but I heard of one particular briefing a while back, concerning some perceived grievance of great concern to those present, where the senior officer said in effect "If you don't like it - hand in your release request" - whereupon several of the attendees did just that. 

That should be an indicator that something's wrong. 

 

[armyvern]

Agreed.  And this kind of statement, along with "It goes with the uniform", "If you don't like it, there's the door" etc. is a poor substitute for treating people fairly and communicating things clearly. 

Wish I could be more specific (memory fails) - but I heard of one particular briefing a while back, concerning some perceived grievance of great concern to those present, where the senior officer said in effect "If you don't like it - hand in your release request" - whereupon several of the attendees did just that. 

That should be an indicator that something's wrong.

And the caveat line of "that's why you get paid more ..." kills me too. If we got paid the overtime pay PS are receiving for those hours over and above 40/week that we are subject to, I might buy that line.

But hey, now that they bartered away their own severance pay ultimately resulting in the loss of ours, I wonder if they'll barter for us to receive that OT pay too; I won't hold my breath.

 

[Veovius]

I've got a weird question, and for the life of me, I can't find any references that say I'm WRONG.

I'm permanently posted to, and work at, Base A, but I live in a "suitable residential community" (not sure if that's important, I'm not on IR) for Base A.  My residence is located just within Base B's AOR.
I've been TD'd to Base B for a month, but because I live in Base B's AOR, I'm not entitled to R and Q, according to the TD message.

It's my belief that even though I don't get R and Q, I'm still on "TD", and entitled to the rest of the TD umbrella.  I've read the CFTDTI, and this is what I've come up with so far:

My "place of duty" is Base A.  Since I've been TD'd outside of my place of employment, I think Section 6 applies to me:

Subject to Chapter 3 (Application of CFTDTI), this Chapter applies to a member who:
(a) is on TD or on an attached posting;
(b) is travelling between their place of duty and another duty location; and
(b) is not authorized to occupy accommodations overnight.

Also, Sec 6.20(3) looks like it's applicable:

(3) (Home Outside Place of Duty) In this Section, for the purposes of calculating a direct road distance from a member’s home, a home that is located outside the member’s place of duty is deemed to be located at the nearest point to the member’s home on the geographical boundary of that place of duty.

My BOR has expressed their opinion that since I live in Base B's AOR, that I'm not entitled to ANY TD at all.  However, from my relatively uninformed readings, it seems that even someone who is TD'd to somewhere within their AOR is, according to Section 5, entitled to:

5.28 — DISRUPTION — TEMPORARY WORKPLACE CHANGE
(1) (Entitlement) Subject to instruction 5.20 (General), a member is entitled to be reimbursed — for a maximum of 60 days — for travel expenses to and from their temporary workplace if all of the following conditions are satisfied:
(a) an approving authority ordered the member to work at a temporary workplace instead of the member’s permanent workplace;
(b) the member was not advised — in writing and at least 30 days beforehand — of the workplace change;
(c) the workplace change disrupts the member’s regular travel to and from their permanent workplace; and
(d) no alternative transportation is provided at public expense to the member.

What I'm looking for is:

What am I entitled to, if anything?  A duty vehicle?  Duty Shuttle from Base A to Base B?  PMV Mileage from my house to Base B?  Meals?  I don't know if it matters, but I didn't receive my TD message until ~28 days prior.

If I'm totally out to lunch, can someone please provide a reference?

Thank you.

 

[DAA]

If this is still the case ----->  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/104849/post-1126361.html#msg1126361

Then "technically" you are proceeding on TD, to the location where your DHG&E were last moved at Public Expense.  Hence, you are NOT entitlted to the benefits of TD, whilst geographically "re-located" with your DHG&E.

The only exceptionn to this rule, is if the Unit that you are being TD'd to, orders you to occupy R&Q for the purpose of training.

So while you say Base A is within the AOR of Base B, your previous post "Requesting to Live Outside the Geo Boundaries" along with it's subsequent approval, says otherwise.

 

[Veovius]

Sorry for the confusion; I clarified my above post.  My residence is in Base B's AOR (which I moved to at public expense) but the town has been designated a suitable community for Base A.

I received a reply back from DCBA just after my COS date.  My commuting assistance memo from DCBA reads that I am not entitled to "separation expense, free rations and quarters, leave travel assistance, special commuting assistance and any applicable post living differential will be authorised at the lower of the two rates between the living location and the place of duty.".  It goes on to say that because my town is a suitable community, I shall be entitled to commuting assistance.  It doesn't say anything about Base B at all, TD or otherwise.

Do you mean to say that "technicallY" I've been on TD to base A for the whole time?

Edit:  And can't you be TD'd to another location in your AOR?  Isn't that what section 5 is all about?

 

[DAA]

Sorry for the confusion; I clarified my above post.  My residence is in Base B's AOR (which I moved to at public expense) but the town has been designated a suitable community for Base A.

I received a reply back from DCBA just after my COS date.  My commuting assistance memo from DCBA reads that I am not entitled to "separation expense, free rations and quarters, leave travel assistance, special commuting assistance and any applicable post living differential will be authorised at the lower of the two rates between the living location and the place of duty.".  It goes on to say that because my town is a suitable community, I shall be entitled to commuting assistance.  It doesn't say anything about Base B at all, TD or otherwise.

Do you mean to say that "technicallY" I've been on TD to base A for the whole time?

Edit:  And can't you be TD'd to another location in your AOR?  Isn't that what section 5 is all about?

Because of the fact that you requested to "Live Outside the Geographical Boundaries" of your place of duty and had that request approved, you had to "waive" certain entitlements.  I have PM'd you with some questions, so I can't really give you a proper answer until you respond.

From a purely generic point of view, personnel on TD within the geographical area of their DHG&E are not entitled to the benefits of TD.

 

[Richard P]

I received an email containing the loading message for my courses this summer. I can get the gist of it, but am curious as to what a few things mean. I know I should be asking up CoC, but perhaps if the information is publicly available  (as in here), it would save everybody confusion.

Firstly, what exactly is TD?

Also, what does the following mean? "MAR SS OFFRS WILL BE TAKEN IN CHARGE BY LRTD"