# Post MLR Sea-Pay?



## VanStoker (6 Jul 2015)

So there's a rumour going around that HMCS Calgary fought to get their sea-pay (and won) as soon as the ship came back from VSL/Sea-span.

Can anyone speak to this?

I'm onboard OTT and we're floating here on C Jetty standing duty watches not receiving sea-pay.  The Sgt. Pay Writer told me we'll get it "when the ship is ready for sea".

I'm searching rules & regs and the only thing I can find about sea-pay is in the Compensation & Benefits Information Chpt. 205.  It clearly states that if a sailor is posted to a ship, they are entitled to sea-pay.

Why am I not receiving it?  Do I take this to the ombudsman next?  Please someone chime in here.


----------



## PuckChaser (7 Jul 2015)

The way the CBI is worded, it sounds like anytime you're posted to a ship, refit or not, you get sea pay.



> accumulated eligible service
> 
> means any period during which the member was:
> 
> posted to a submarine that was not in refit or a ship;



The catchall seems to be (bold portion mine):



> 205.35(2) (Eligibility) Subject to paragraph (3), a member posted to a ship, other than a submarine, or serving in a sea-going position *designated by the Chief of the Defence Staff – or by an officer designated by the Chief of the Defence Staff* - for the purpose of this instruction, is entitled to Sea Duty Allowance at the appropriate monthly rate set out in the Table to this instruction for the member's accumulated eligible service, unless the member is in receipt of an allowance under 205.385 (Special Operations Allowance).



Someone has said you're not getting it, so you don't get it. Thats why officers get paid the big bucks to make decisions like that. I can see you having a case if you're ordered to sleep aboard, but you're standing duty shifts and going home at night; that's called "work".


----------



## Pat in Halifax (7 Jul 2015)

Duty watches are 24 hours and you do remain on board BUT there is absolutely no correlation whatsoever between standing home port duty watches and getting SDA. Usually SDA shows up after HAT or just prior to SAT. I supposed by definition, a ship is not a ship until it is ready to proceed to sea. As for CAL getting theirs immediately following MLR-You may want to check officially on this (and not through the buddy system). Remember - believe half of what you see and less of what you hear.

I will actually loo into this today if I get the chance.


Pat


----------



## VanStoker (7 Jul 2015)

Hi there,

Thanks for replying.  

We are actually standing duty watches on the ship, which includes sleeping onboard (about a 26 hour day, cut up into shifts of course).  We are so short Machinery Control guys that our rotation right now is 1 in 12.   Which means every 12 days I am required to sleep onboard.  

Pat, I know you said sea-pay has nothing to do with standing duty watches, but in reality most of the guys in the fleet think this is the case.  When I first got in the Navy I thought: "Seapay?, Are you kidding me? I didn't expect extra money for sailing...I CHOSE THE NAVY.  Oh, you mean I have to sleep onboard 2 or 3 times a month?  Ok...well now I see this benefit warranted."

If we are going by what the CBI says, I think I have a case to bring to the ombudsman.  Some officer somewhere along the lines making a decision to pay seapay when `...the ship is ready for sea`... while contradicting rules and regs is exactly the B.S. that is sending so many sailors to civy street these days.

I want an answer and my ship cannot provide one...Thus the ombudsman has been great to me in the past for getting questions like these answered.

Thank you Pat.  I will wait for what you have to say before knocking on their door.


----------



## Pusser (7 Jul 2015)

This is an interesting one.  CFAO 205-25, Annex H states:

*INTENT*

2. Sea Duty Allowance (SDA) is financial compensation paid for the performance of assigned duties where there is a continuing and substantial exposure to the environmental conditions associated with operations in a surface ship.


The "environmental conditions" referred to are actually a number of "specific factors" (there were 13 of them the last I checked) as determined/approved by Treasury Board.  The requirement to stand duty watches is NOT one of those specific factors, so don't bring that issue into the argument.  On the surface, CBI 205.35 would appear to place no restrictions on members serving in ships in refit; however, the old QR&O 205.35 certainly did, if for no other reason in that it contained a clause along the lines of, "subject to other conditions as determined by the CDS/Minister.  Such other conditions would normally be promulgated by through a CFAO or DAOD.  In this case, CFAO 205-25 (which is still in effect) Annex H says:

*REFIT*

9. Where a member is in receipt of SDA and the ship onboard which the member is serving is in refit, the member is entitled to the continuous payment of SDA from the date of commencement specified in paragraph 6 until:

            a.  the date which is six months following the date on which the ship first commenced refit; or 

            b.  the cessation date specified at paragraph 8, whichever comes first. 

10. Where a ship has been in refit for more than six months, and where a member's entitlement to SDA has been:

            a.  ceased, pursuant to paragraph 9, or 

            b.  delayed, by virtue of the fact that such a member was posted to the ship on a date which was more than six months from the date 
                 on  which the ship first commenced refit, 

such a member's entitlement to SDA shall commence or *recommence on the effective date that the final phase of the refit is completed*.

This disconnect here is that the CBI makes no reference to the imposition of any further restrictions by a lesser authority, whereas before they converted the allowance-related QR&Os to CBIs, the old QR&O likely would have (i.e. would have said something along the lines of, "subject to any conditions determined by...").  The question is whether a CFAO (which is a lesser level of regulation) can still be enforced when the applicable CBI seems to make a pretty definitive statement.


----------



## VanStoker (7 Jul 2015)

Pusser said:
			
		

> The requirement to stand duty watches is NOT one of those specific factors, so don't bring that issue into the argument.



...Noted.  

But wow.  Is it just my pea-brain...or is this a little convoluted?


----------



## Pusser (7 Jul 2015)

westcoastsailor said:
			
		

> ...Noted.
> 
> But wow.  Is it just my pea-brain...or is this a little convoluted?



No. it's not just you.  It IS convoluted!

I once wrote a paper on how we could simplify all of this and make SDA more fair in the process.  However, it involved taking it away from senior officers and chiefs who did NOT actually go to sea, so it was promptly dismissed.


----------



## Stoker (7 Jul 2015)

Pusser said:
			
		

> No. it's not just you.  It IS convoluted!
> 
> I once wrote a paper on how we could simplify all of this and make SDA more fair in the process.  However, it involved taking it away from senior officers and chiefs who did NOT actually go to sea, so it was promptly dismissed.



Taking it away from sea going billets? or did you advocate only paying it when the ship sailed?


----------



## Halifax Tar (7 Jul 2015)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Taking it away from sea going billets? or did you advocate only paying it when the ship sailed?



That is a head scratcher.  If you go to sea you get sea pay.  I don't know anyone who collects it without going to sea... Malingerers aside. 

As for paying it out only for days at sea, no I won't open that can of worms again. 

Even the ST staff are on casual allowance.


----------



## Stoker (7 Jul 2015)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> That is a head scratcher.  If you go to sea you get sea pay.  I don't know anyonewho collects it without going to sea... Malingerers aside.
> 
> Even the ST staff are on casual allowance.



I agree, there's been a number of "rumours", perhaps studies and proposals to change the present sea pay structure to one rate, and you would only get it when you went you actually left the harbour. It would also see to eliminate the sea going shore billets. From what I was told it was shelved.


----------



## VanStoker (7 Jul 2015)

Well, if we're gonna start talking about saving the military some money.  How about getting rid of LTA???

Why the hell can some single LT(N) get a paid ticket once a year to fly across the country to see mum and dad... 

Yet the no hook private who's married with a 2 year old has to pay for 3 seats on a WestJet flight to get his family back home.  There's an inherent flaw there.  And if anyone wants to mention the Christmas Flight Program...  :threat:

I've tried 3 years in a row to get on that... ???  I remember last year sitting at a DND computer while on leave ready to hit the send button the SECOND the clock struck (insert time here) and still haven't made it.


----------



## Pat in Halifax (7 Jul 2015)

...One thing at a time!


----------



## PMedMoe (7 Jul 2015)

westcoastsailor said:
			
		

> Well, if we're gonna start talking about saving the military some money.  How about getting rid of LTA???
> 
> Why the hell can some single LT(N) get a paid ticket once a year to fly across the country to see mum and dad his NOK...
> 
> Yet the no hook private who's married with a 2 year old has to pay for 3 seats on a WestJet flight to get his family back home.



[/off topic]

Because the single Lt(N) is _entitled_ to a trip to see his NOK.  The married Pte sees his NOK every day.

[/on topic]


----------



## jollyjacktar (7 Jul 2015)

:goodpost:


----------



## Pat in Halifax (7 Jul 2015)

Initial digging has determined that ships crew start getting SDA about 2 weeks prior to their first sailing following a refit in excess of 6 months. This is linked to the "Operational Status Transfer" message which makes a ship a Naval asset again. Generally there is about a 8-9 month gap through the post MLR EWP following transfer from the contractor to the Navy. Remember, this statement from the CFAO "...such a member's entitlement to SDA shall commence or recommence on the effective date that the final phase of the refit is completed...." similar to the CBI is VERY convuluted but the CFAO does go further to say "...The critical dates of refit commencement, of the six-month point and of refit completion shall be as promulgated by the Commander Maritime Command (now CRCN)..." Therefore CRCN determines when a ship reverts to 'operational ststus'.

The CAL issues (I believe) involved one individual in a unique circumsatance and involved 1 week of SDA.


I need to be careful here as I am by no means proclaiming gospel and AM NOT the resident expert on this stuff. I would do a little more homework before you look at a redress. Apparently there is some sort of documentation submitted via MARPAC to CRCN. Might be an idea to dig at that. I would on your behalf but after tomorrow, I am unofficially a partial-civi and will have no business whatsoever discussing this kind of stuff!


Pat


----------



## jollyjacktar (7 Jul 2015)

A member of FRE also tried the tack (and I am paraphrasing here IIRC) that a case for re-instatement of SDA was also made due to the CO accepting care and control of the vessel when it was returned from the yard post-MLR.  

As for the ship being just on the cusp of RRI sailing, well that went out the window with ATH.  Her crew had SDA immediately upon the vessel returning to dockyard and she did not sail on RRI for months from that point.  If they did it for ATH, they should do it for all.


----------



## Pat in Halifax (7 Jul 2015)

Good point. If you know anyone on the left coast, maybe see what they can dig up about this initiative


----------



## Halifax Tar (7 Jul 2015)

:goodpost: :goodpost:





			
				PMedMoe said:
			
		

> [/off topic]
> 
> Because the single Lt(N) is _entitled_ to a trip to see his NOK.  The married Pte sees his NOK every day.
> 
> [/on topic]



Exactly.  You're married with kids.  That's your family .


----------



## Pusser (8 Jul 2015)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> That is a head scratcher.  If you go to sea you get sea pay.  I don't know anyone who collects it without going to sea... Malingerers aside.
> 
> As for paying it out only for days at sea, no I won't open that can of worms again.
> 
> Even the ST staff are on casual allowance.



Let's put things into the context of when I wrote the paper.  At the time, SDA was payable to anyone posted to a ship or who was in a "Designated Position."  Giving SDA to anyone posted to a ship makes a lot of sense except for those select few who are posted to ships, but who never sail.  We had documented cases of individuals who would get their posting messages, report on board in order to start their SDA and then immediately report to Sick Bay in order to be declared unfit sea, walk ashore and still collect SDA for the next two years.  Did this happen a lot? Actually no, but it did happen (malingering is actually very rare).  However, in my last ship, we had a PO1 who never actually went to sea in the entire two years I was there.  What sometimes happened were cases where the medical staff, rather than increase TCATs to 12 months (which would stop SDA), would instead repeatedly issue TCATs of six months so the individual would keep their SDA (notwithstanding that they were not doing anything remotely connected to what the allowance was for).  I would argue that actual malingering is/was quite rare, but it is a fact that there is/was some abuse going on.

My big target was the list of Designated Positions, which included Sea Training (surprised to hear that they are on CASSDA now) and Fleet Staffs (i.e. largely senior officers and chiefs).  The issue here was that there were a fair number of personnel in Designated Positions who were not actually going to sea, at least nowhere near the number of days per year that they were supposed to (130 days/yr in 1994).  It is also worth noting that one of the BIG differences between SDA and CASSDA is that time drawing SDA is accumulative toward higher rates, whereas time drawing CASSDA is not.  In other words, CASSDA gives you money, but nothing else in the long run, so everyone wants to be on SDA if at all possible (another reason I'm surprised STS is apparently now on CASSDA).  The fight to get on that list of Designated Positions was pretty intense and trying to remove  a position from the List was tantamount to chopping off somebody's arm they way some folks reacted.  It was also very difficult to get a new deserving position on the list.

Another important thing to remember is that all of the environmental allowances were set up in an era when we did all of our bookkeeping by hand and paying a monthly allowance was much simpler than paying one out daily.  Field Operations Allowance (FOA) was an exception to this.  The casual allowances were designed for sporadic payments in small increments.  Otherwise, the norm was to pay environmental allowances monthly (except FOA).  Modern electronic accounting methods eliminate this concern and the payment of daily allowance is well within the realm of the possible.  For that matter, if we can track every hour that aircrew spend in the air (and have been since people started flying), surely we can track the number of days people spend at sea (would make the whole SSI thing a lot easier too).

Another thing to note is that in accordance with Treasury Board instruction, in order for SDA to paid to a *unit*, that unit was supposed to be spending a minimum of 130 days per year at sea.  Likewise, a Designated Position was one that was supposed to be spending a minimum of 130 days per year at sea.  I believe this number has been reduced to 90 days, but I'm not sure.

My proposal was to simplify the whole business and only have one allowance for sea duty and to pay it only for days actually spent at sea in the same way as we were paying FOA at the time.  (I'll point out here that we actually went the opposite direction and replaced FOA with LDA, which is modelled on SDA.)  Now before everybody howls and accuses me of stealing money from sailors, know that I did not propose simply paying CASSDA (which was a fixed rate) by another name.  Instead, I proposed an incremental allowance, ranging from about $6.00 to $45.00 per day  depending on one's accumulated sea-time (i.e using a point system).  I also proposed removing the cap that currently exists on CASSDA (i.e. no maximum amount per month).  My rates were based on the SDA rates at the time.  Using the same calculation method today, the rates would be from $41.00 to $104.00 per day.  The benefits to this were as follows:

1)  Eliminates people receiving or accusations of of people receiving an allowance they didn't earn.  In order to get it, you have to go to sea - period.  

2)  Eliminates the administration of the list of Designated Positions.

3)  Puts MORE money in the pockets of the folks who are actually earning it.  Consider this:  Right now, a sailor posted to a ship that isn't sailing much (e.g. spends 50 days at sea this year) draws the same amount of SDA as the poor sap who is constantly being attach posted from ship to ship and spends 300 days at sea this year.  Where's the fairness in that?

In summary, my proposal was to make the system more fair and redistribute the money to those who were actually earning it.

No, I think we can do this much better and LDA was the wrong way to go...


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 Jul 2015)

Despite the electronic tools available to track folks correctly it still needs the meat interface to work and track.  I know it is still a dog's breakfast trying to account who is sailing properly with all the Chinese fire drills of personnel changes.

My SSI calculations have never been correct, they have me shorted on numerous trips and list me on a couple I did not do.  He'll, even my MPRR postings have gaps you could sail a task force through.  I gave up trying to get it right long ago.  

The meat interface that logs the data is your weakest link and frankly I don't have full confidence in it.


----------



## Pusser (8 Jul 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Despite the electronic tools available to track folks correctly it still needs the meat interface to work and track.  I know it is still a dog's breakfast trying to account who is sailing properly with all the Chinese fire drills of personnel changes.
> 
> My SSI calculations have never been correct, they have me shorted on numerous trips and list me on a couple I did not do.  He'll, even my MPRR postings have gaps you could sail a task force through.  I gave up trying to get it right long ago.
> 
> The meat interface that logs the data is your weakest link and frankly I don't have full confidence in it.



What you're referring to is the attempt to extract information from a system that was never designed to keep track of that information in the first place.  By starting afresh, most of the problems we have in getting the sea day count right can be eliminated.  Like I said before, if the system can track every *hour* that aircrew spend in the air, surely we can track every day that sailors spend at sea.  Will there be mistakes?  Of course, but for the most part, they would be minor and I would argue that any mistakes would almost exclusively involve cases of sailors being overpaid (folks who don't receive an allowance they're entitled to tend to kick up a stink about it).


----------



## Stoker (8 Jul 2015)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Let's put things into the context of when I wrote the paper.  At the time, SDA was payable to anyone posted to a ship or who was in a "Designated Position."  Giving SDA to anyone posted to a ship makes a lot of sense except for those select few who are posted to ships, but who never sail.  We had documented cases of individuals who would get their posting messages, report on board in order to start their SDA and then immediately report to Sick Bay in order to be declared unfit sea, walk ashore and still collect SDA for the next two years.  Did this happen a lot? Actually no, but it did happen (malingering is actually very rare).  However, in my last ship, we had a PO1 who never actually went to sea in the entire two years I was there.  What sometimes happened were cases where the medical staff, rather than increase TCATs to 12 months (which would stop SDA), would instead repeatedly issue TCATs of six months so the individual would keep their SDA (notwithstanding that they were not doing anything remotely connected to what the allowance was for).  I would argue that actual malingering is/was quite rare, but it is a fact that there is/was some abuse going on.
> 
> My big target was the list of Designated Positions, which included Sea Training (surprised to hear that they are on CASSDA now) and Fleet Staffs (i.e. largely senior officers and chiefs).  The issue here was that there were a fair number of personnel in Designated Positions who were not actually going to sea, at least nowhere near the number of days per year that they were supposed to (130 days/yr in 1994).  It is also worth noting that one of the BIG differences between SDA and CASSDA is that time drawing SDA is accumulative toward higher rates, whereas time drawing CASSDA is not.  In other words, CASSDA gives you money, but nothing else in the long run, so everyone wants to be on SDA if at all possible (another reason I'm surprised STS is apparently now on CASSDA).  The fight to get on that list of Designated Positions was pretty intense and trying to remove  a position from the List was tantamount to chopping off somebody's arm they way some folks reacted.  It was also very difficult to get a new deserving position on the list.
> 
> ...



As far as I know Sea Training is still a Designated Position and getting full sea pay, or at least the Minor Warship guys are. I'm going to be selfish and say i'm against anything that could take money out of my pocket after many years at sea.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (8 Jul 2015)

Pusser said:
			
		

> What you're referring to is the attempt to extract information from a system that was never designed to keep track of that information in the first place.  By starting afresh, most of the problems we have in getting the sea day count right can be eliminated.  Like I said before, if the system can track every *hour* that aircrew spend in the air, surely we can track every day that sailors spend at sea.  Will there be mistakes?  Of course, but for the most part, they would be minor and I would argue that any mistakes would almost exclusively involve cases of sailors being overpaid (folks who don't receive an allowance they're entitled to tend to kick up a stink about it).



Tracking flying hours is relatively trivial. Crews are small and the aircraft captain records the hours flown after each flight- personally. 
Are you suggesting Ships Captains be held to the same standard?  >


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Jul 2015)

westcoastsailor said:
			
		

> Do I take this to the ombudsman next?  Please someone chime in here.



Definitely not to the Ombudsman before using existing CAF processes such as the grievance system, if you even decide to pursue after all the info posted after yours.


----------



## Pusser (8 Jul 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Tracking flying hours is relatively trivial. Crews are small and the aircraft captain records the hours flown after each flight- personally.
> Are you suggesting Ships Captains be held to the same standard?  >



Of course not.  The Coxswain already keeps daily records of exactly who is on board when the ship is at sea.  It should be a relatively simple thing for the Ship's Office to input that into the pay system.  Remember, we used to do this manually for FOA, so the only thing that would be new would be the accumulative aspect of it and the pay system is more than capable of accounting for that.


----------



## jollyjacktar (29 Apr 2016)

Just a bit of an update here folks.  Of course, we already know that it is in the works to retroactively pay sea pay for all refits going back to 2001 when it became the policy of cut things off at the 6 month mark.  T he system was hoping to have everyone seen to by September 2016.  The update is that payments are coming in.  A west coaster who is on the other side of my big cubicle wall was paid out about a month or so ago.  Now mind you, he was only owed 3 months back pay so his file was somewhat simple, but the main point here is that it is happening.  I have been hearing of other guys too seeing it come in as well. So, good news.


----------



## CountDC (30 Apr 2016)

whoa - know we don't all know this.  Are you saying if I was on a ship in 2001 that was in refit and thus not paid sea pay they will now be issuing me it for that period?


----------



## jollyjacktar (30 Apr 2016)

Yes, my man, you should be in for some money.  

They are going to pay everybody, who was in a refit going back that far, for the period of when the sea pay was stopped at 6 months until it was re-instated.  It won't matter if you've since released either, everyone is getting it.  The "policy" of cutting it off was deemed arbitrary and not on by TB (? can't remember just now) around June of last year.  We were briefed on it last fall by Admiral Norman where he went into the history of it and why the 180 was decided upon us.

I believe they were going to try and take care of personnel who are presently on ship first and then comb through the rest of us who are somewhere ashore or retired.

Some thing else to ponder.  For those of us, like myself, who have multiple refits behind us in the target zone, not only will they have to correct for the missing months but also adjust the levels from the first cut off to the last too boot.  That will mean more money as you will have your levels adjusted all the way along.  The taxman is really going to love some folks this coming tax season.


----------



## CountDC (30 Apr 2016)

Thanks  - found the CANFORGEN now.  Of course it is navy information so the wise army here didn't pass it on.  Normally I check but it was released in Mar so I missed it with leave and end FY.   I can't imagine my clerk has nothing better to do than look back to see what period we weren't paid it so will be happy if I ask her.    [  

My ears are already hurting.


----------

