# PLD FOR LOCALLY HIRED RESERVISTS



## SeaRoom (23 Mar 2005)

Current policy is that if a reservist is hired for a long-term full-time position is his/her home town, they do not receive PLD as they have not moved. In some parts of the country, it means you are making $1,000-$1,200 less than the person sitting at the desk across from you who had to move 300 Km.

Has anyone submitted a grievance against this? What was your experience? who did you talk to? How far did it get? Has anyone else already tried to fight this, or in the process?


----------



## PPCLI Guy (23 Mar 2005)

SeaRoom said:
			
		

> In some parts of the country, it means you are making $1,000-$1,200 less than the person sitting at the desk across from you who had to move 300 Km.



The difference being, of course, that the person sitting next to you had no choice about where they wanted to live.

If you want the benefits, sign on the dotted line.


----------



## Gunner (23 Mar 2005)

> The difference being, of course, that the person sitting next to you had no choice about where they wanted to live.
> If you want the benefits, sign on the dotted line.



I think SeaRoom is referring to Reservists who have been given cost moves to take up employment outside their geographical area.  But I also ack your comments on signing the dotted line.


----------



## SeaRoom (23 Mar 2005)

I understand that the reg F makes sacrifices that the reserves are not required to make...I'm ex reg. And I'm not suggesting that everything be absolutely equal...there needs to be a financial attraction to join the reg f. But I'm already making 15% less the my Reg F equivelent, and I am not entilted to the same job security.

As directed by SCONDVA in December of 1999, the CF was to provide a Cost-of-Living Allowance (COLA) to balance out differences in living expenese. PLD, however, is implemented more like a moving expense allownace which lasts throughout your posting. But I'm I paying any less rent than a reservist who moved here (Toronto) from Kingston? Is it cheaper for me to live here than that person. The intended purpose of a COLA was to â Å“...to ensure that CF personnel enjoy a similar and predictable standard of living no matter where they serve. We therefore need to stabilize the cost-of-living factor from one region to another.â ?(SCONDVA Report Dec 1999)

Lastly, the argument that a reservist is a voluteer and therefore signs away any rights he/she has, is the same attidue that use to be applied to the CF in general..."no life...like it." Its the same attitude that allowed military pay rates to fall way behind the public service, that allowed colonel's to get greater amounts of AAA than a corporal, that allowed any number of fustrations to grow in the forces, and resulted in SCONDVA. If it is the fact that it is a voluteer position that makes the difference, then perhaps Reg F members who are granted a requested posting should not be entilted to PLD. I would never want that to happen, but it makes a point.


----------



## Gunner (23 Mar 2005)

> 205.45 - POST LIVING DIFFERENTIAL (1) (Policy) *Post Living Differential (PLD) is established as a means of stabilizing the overall cost of living of CF members and their families in order to maintain a relative and predictable cost of living no matter where in Canada the members are posted (excluding isolated posts).* PLD rates represent the differential between the CF standard cost of living in Canada and the cost of living at established PLD areas. PLD rates are set annually based on a Treasury Board approved methodology.
> 
> (2) (Application of PLD) PLD is a taxable benefit payable to eligible members of the Regular Force and to members of the Reserve Force who are moved at public expense for service reasons, who rent or own a principal residence in a qualifying location.
> 
> ...



Seems to me the stated purpose of PLD is for members who are posted to a high cost of living area not for members who chose to live there.  Don't like it?  Submit a redress.


----------



## COBRA-6 (23 Mar 2005)

SeaRoom, excellent points... 

Reservists are entitled to PLD, but only if they are cost-moved to their new place of work... I learned the hard way! Moved from Sudbury to Ottawa for a class b, didn't apply for a cost move as I didn't have a lot of stuff, now I'm missing out on a few thousand a year... leason learned!


----------



## SeaRoom (23 Mar 2005)

Gunner,

This isn't a reg f vs. res f issue. This inequitable application of PLD is happening within the res. A reservist from Kingston moving to Toronto to fill a class B position is choosing to live in a high cost area as much as I am, yet they get $1,000 PLD a month - free rent. I don't. Current application of PLD in the reserves is creating different standards of living among personnel of equal rank, pay cat, position, and component in the same geo area.

I don't argue with the words of DGCBA policy on PLD. I'm arguing that it's policy isn't faithful to SCONDVA's recommendations in principle.

I don't think that a grievance can actually be filed to redress the situation as it is TB policy and therefore government jurisdiction. But I'm trying to find out what other people have found.


----------



## Gunner (23 Mar 2005)

> A reservist from Kingston moving to Toronto to fill a class B position is choosing to live in a high cost area as much as I am, yet they get $1,000 PLD a month - free rent.



Right, a reservists has been hired from Kingston to fill a position in Toronto.  As they are moved at government expense, they are entited to PLD to assist them in having the same standard of living as they had in Kingston.



> Current application of PLD in the reserves is creating different standards of living among personnel of equal rank, pay cat, position, and component in the same geo area.



I know what you are saying, but would you agree that Cl A reservists living in the area deserve a proportional level of PLD?  They are soldiers of equal rank, position, component in the same geographical area, albeit working part time, as you are?



> I'm arguing that it's policy isn't faithful to SCONDVA's recommendations in principle.



This SCONDVA benefit was focused on the Regular Force, not the Reserves.  I'm not sure if I agree with you that a Reservist who is hired in his local area deserves PLD in a similar fashion as a Regular or Reservist that is posted to that city.  In my mind, the Reservists has chosen to live in the city and has chosen to work in a full time position with the CF.  Why should the CF compensate that person for his/her own choices?



> I don't think that a grievance can actually be filed to redress the situation as it is TB policy and therefore government jurisdiction. But I'm trying to find out what other people have found.



A greivance can always be filed.  If you feel strongly about it, file it.  The worst that can happen is it will be denied.  No harm done.


----------



## SeaRoom (23 Mar 2005)

SCONDVA recommended the implantation of a COLA to ensure that pers of equal rank, position, pay cat enjoyed an equal standard of living no matter where they lived in the country. So that the LS in Conerbrook was equal to the LS in Yellowknife, Toronto, or Halifax. The intent was not to perpetuate differences in standards of living, which is what current DCBA PLD policy is doing.At least in the res f.

Class A's should not get PLD because mil employment is not their only means of income. In their civilian jobs they are paid a rate such as the local job market will support. And thats the whole point of PLD. It was intend to make up for difference in cost of living where you are living - not where you are coming from. In the civilian world if you work in a high cost area you get paid more. PLD was suppose to address this issue for military personnel. It's been great for Reg F because there is rarely a situation where they are recruited directly to their post in the same geo area as they were living before the were employed. Res pers have been allowed a fall through what I believe is largly a loop hole because it saves the CF money. But that's just an off-the-cuff opinion.

Except in war, all res have a choice as to where they will work, and what contracts they will take. Some get PLD, and some don't. And that's not right.

But anyway, I don't want to argue the validity of this, I can save that for a grievance - plus I have to get back to work even if I am paid less. I wanted to hear form other people who might have tried a grievance already, or alternate route of redress. Anyone?


----------



## Cloud Cover (23 Mar 2005)

My observation on the grievance process is this - the grievance is reduced to writing, and although there is some discussion and investigation into a grievance, the decision ultimately rests on what was submitted by the grievor to begin with. A carefully drafted grievance which succinctly articulates the issues will ultimately guide the administrator and decision maker in the direction that you want. Clarity, functionality and substance are absolutely critical. 

Do not make assumptions that factors which you have omitted to address will be considered. It is prudent to state the entire case advanced in the grievance, including the remedy that you hope to achieve. 

In fact, a board may prefer to overlook obvious factors not raised in a grievance in order to expeditiously dispense with the matter.  The objective is to get it right the first time so as to narrow down the possibility of amendment or appeal.  

A redress of grievance application is like one of those swinging screen doors and you are the fly that wants to get in- it takes a plan and some timing to execute in order to engineer a favorable outcome -otherwise, you get squished or stuck on the screen.

Cheers.


----------



## McG (23 Mar 2005)

Gunner said:
			
		

> A greivance can always be filed. If you feel strongly about it, file it. The worst that can happen is it will be denied. No harm done.



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



> 29. (1) An officer or non-commissioned member who has been aggrieved by any decision, act or omission in the administration of the affairs of the Canadian Forces for which no other process for redress is provided under this Act is entitled to submit a grievance.
> 
> 2) There is no right to grieve in respect of
> 
> ...


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


----------



## TCBF (23 Mar 2005)

If you do not like the pay and benefits package attached to a given contract, then my advice would be to GET ANOTHER JOB!

Tom


----------



## Gunner (23 Mar 2005)

> SCONDVA recommended the implantation of a COLA to ensure that pers of equal rank, position, pay cat enjoyed an equal standard of living no matter where they lived in the country. So that the LS in Conerbrook was equal to the LS in Yellowknife, Toronto, or Halifax. The intent was not to perpetuate differences in standards of living, which is what current DCBA PLD policy is doing.At least in the res f.



That is fine however as a member of the Reserve Force, hired on a long term Cl B contract in your home location, you are not posted from one geographical locale to another as a Regular Force member is or for that matter, a Reservist who was "posted" to another city to fill a contract.  There is a huge difference in QOL for someone moving from Shilo Manitoba to Toronto as directed to by his career manager.  I suppose the solution is for you to find another job in another unit in a separate city, thus enabling you to qualify for QOL.  My guess is you would prefer to stay in your own home town.



> Class A's should not get PLD because mil employment is not their only means of income. In their civilian jobs they are paid a rate such as the local job market will support. And thats the whole point of PLD. It was intend to make up for difference in cost of living where you are living - not where you are coming from. In the civilian world if you work in a high cost area you get paid more. PLD was suppose to address this issue for military personnel. It's been great for Reg F because there is rarely a situation where they are recruited directly to their post in the same geo area as they were living before the were employed. Res pers have been allowed a fall through what I believe is largly a loop hole because it saves the CF money. But that's just an off-the-cuff opinion.



Well, having gone through university as a Reservist I can tell you taht I didn't have any other civilian job to support me.  The logical conclusion of your argument is Cl A Reservists in Toronto should receive additional money than Saskatoon because, dollar for dollar, their Cl A pay is not going as far due to the cost of living.  PLD is granted to take into account the different cost of living for various postings that Regular Force must endure as part of their contract.  Reservists are entitled to it as well if they were "posted" from one locale to another.  Therefore they have not been left out of the benefit and there is no nefarious plot by the Man to keep the Reservist down.



> Except in war, all res have a choice as to where they will work, and what contracts they will take. Some get PLD, and some don't. And that's not right.



If you a Reservist and are "posted" to another location, the same as the Regular Force, you are entitled to receive the same benefit.  If you are not posted, why would you be entitled to the benefit?  As far as working next to someone making more money than you are, remember that the military directed that person to move to your particular location, whereas you chose to work for the military in your current location. This is a distinct difference.



> But anyway, I don't want to argue the validity of this, I can save that for a grievance - plus I have to get back to work even if I am paid less. I wanted to hear form other people who might have tried a grievance already, or alternate route of redress. Anyone?



If you want the same pay, you are going to have to accept the same responsibilities as the Regular Force. Until you do that, you will continue to be paid 15% less.  It use to be Reservists were paid much, much less than we are now....  Some would argue that 15% less is more than fair for the difference between the two components.


----------



## Cloud Cover (23 Mar 2005)

MCG said:
			
		

> 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.



TCBF: I think the question put forward by SeaRoom merits much more consideration than a simple freedom of contract analysis. 

MCG: When you think about this for a second, the operative effect of the cited provisions of the NDA show they are essentially privative clauses. That is to say that a greivance board has no jurisdiction to investigate or make orders to remedy any of the issues in 29 (2) (a) to (c). This simplifies matters since by design all of those issues are proper issues for judicial review. All the more reason for a properly drafted grievance, such that the board would conclude without error that it does not have the jurisdiction to consider the matter.   

The TB is a "federal board."  A person who wishes to challenge a decision of the TB regs may launch an appeal under section 18.(1) of the Federal Court Act. 

I personally think the facts of this issue have some merit, and might be worth further investigation.  

Cheers.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (23 Mar 2005)

Quote from searoom,
_In the civilian world if you work in a high cost area you get paid more._

Not true at all, in the next 5 days I have to make a desicion, out of three options that I have, if I wish to keep my employment,[well thats option #4] and all of these are higher cost area's and I will not be getting paid more..........

..oh and Whiskey... ;D


----------



## Navalsnpr (23 Mar 2005)

If you think that the rules governing PLD are un-fair, it may be an idea to put a call into the ombudsman. That office would be able to point you in the right direction.

I do agree with the comments about Reservist that are cost moved though. 

I'm sure that if you did submit a grievance, one word would continue to come up "Choice"


----------



## COBRA-6 (23 Mar 2005)

The "choice" argument is unfair. Everyone "chose" to join the CF, so why should that matter? As the CF is depending on full-time reservists more and more, I think there will be change and the lines between the two for things like benefits, pay, entitlements etc will blur... we see this occurring right now with the new pension rules...

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!


----------



## Navalsnpr (23 Mar 2005)

Mike_R23A ,

First of all, I definitely agree with your comment on transferring into the RegF.

As for the choice argument, yes I chose to join the forces, but after I chose to sign the dotted line, the choice of place of employment now lies in the hands of the career manager who with the stroke of a pen can post me anywhere. I either accept the posting and move or my posting date becomes my release date. There is no way around it.

That being said, a reservist chooses the job that they are in or going to. Once there, the contract would have to be re-negotiated to change the terms of the employment. If the member is unhappy, they can always refuse.

I know town hall meetings are increasingly popular with Senior Staff of the CF. This issue seems like one that ought to be raised during that type of forum.


----------



## COBRA-6 (23 Mar 2005)

Navalsnipr said:
			
		

> As for the choice argument, yes I chose to join the forces, but after I chose to sign the dotted line, the choice of place of employment now lies in the hands of the career manager who with the stroke of a pen can post me anywhere. I either accept the posting and move or my posting date becomes my release date. There is no way around it.
> 
> That being said, a reservist chooses the job that they are in or going to. Once there, the contract would have to be re-negotiated to change the terms of the employment. If the member is unhappy, they can always refuse.



I understand what you're saying, but isn't the whole point of PLD QOL? If a reservists steps up to backfill a Reg F posn that no one is posted into shouldn't they enjoy the same QOL? regardless of whether they chose to be employed there or were posted?


----------



## Gunner (23 Mar 2005)

> I understand what you're saying, but isn't the whole point of PLD QOL? If a reservists steps up to backfill a Reg F posn that no one is posted into shouldn't they enjoy the same QOL? regardless of whether they chose to be employed there or were posted?



Mike, when it comes to PLD, Reservists are treated the same as Regular Force if they were "posted" to the new location.  For a Reservist, this means a cost move.  You and the others are arguing that Reservists hired from the local area on full time employment deserve to receive PLD.  While I can empathize a bit with the Reservist who isn't getting PLD, the army didn't post him there and he voluntarily took the employment.  This was not the case with the others working around him who had a choice of being posted or getting out.  I go back to the idea that a Cl A Reservist in Toronto should receive additional money in comparison to a Reservist from Saskatchewan due to the higher cost of living.  Isn't this the same argument?


----------



## McG (24 Mar 2005)

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 (24 Mar 2005)

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 (24 Mar 2005)

MCG said:
			
		

> 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 (1 May 2005)

>

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 (1 May 2005)

backinblack said:
			
		

> >
> 
> So...
> 
> ...



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 (1 May 2005)

Ok, thanks Aesop.   8)


----------



## TCBF (1 May 2005)

"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 (2 May 2005)

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 (2 May 2005)

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 (6 Jul 2005)

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.
> ...


----------



## Long in the tooth (6 Jul 2005)

Funny Stufff


----------



## 54/102 CEF (7 Jul 2005)

MCG said:
			
		

> 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 (7 Jul 2005)

"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.


----------

