Place of Duty means... What?

[the 48th regulator]

Well holy crap!  I can't believe I didn't notice this.

I'm actually blown away.

There are two links in the Benefits "relocation" section of http://cmp-cpm.mil.ca/en/benefits/benefits-generic.page. One says "Post Living Differential Areas" and one says "Geographical Boundaries".

Each takes you to a page that has a different "introductory paragraph" and then provides a list of different cities with links to geographical boundaries.

And you know what?

Those boundaries for each city are EXACTLY THE SAME for both the "Geographic Areas" page and for "PLD Areas" page.

That means that the rumours I heard are actually true: Places of Duty are defined by the PLD Areas. So, they actually ARE related.

Thanks Blackadder!

Second, I'm in charge of the Finance section at my unit, and my small unit has made over 300 individual travel arrangements this year.

And you are using an online forum to garner expertise in working to fincancially support your unit.  I know for a fact there are official resources you can use, and I was never "In Charge" of a financial unit.

As the saying goes, it is in black and white. No interpretations needed.  Period.

That came from someone that writes CBI's but who the heck do I know, eh?

dileas

tess

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Tess, lots of us use the forum to ping off each other for stuff.  We both know the DWAN isn't the most search-friendly place and all that jazz...

 

[Lumber]

And you are using an online forum to garner expertise in working to fincancially support your unit.  I know for a fact there are official resources you can use, and I was never "In Charge" of a financial unit.

As the saying goes, it is in black and white. No interpretations needed.  Period.

That came from someone that writes CBI's but who the heck do I know, eh?

dileas

tess

Absolutely! Just look through my history of posts. I've left numerous queries on here for official answers, and I often get answers really quick. Some of the people who follow this site, including dapaterson, DOA, Eye in the Sky, Recce, are all highly experienced and great people to lean on. There are a ton of experts on here, and they are happy to provide quick answers to specific questions.

When I go through normal channels, I often get a busy tone, a voicemail, or told I need to make an official enquiry, which often takes a while.

 

[the 48th regulator]

Tess, lots of us use the forum to ping off each other for stuff.  We both know the DWAN isn't the most search-friendly place and all that jazz...

Totally understand, but when people bite your hand when offering info, I get my hackles up.

Lumber, sorry for beng aggressive.  EITS brings up a good point, and I am barking at you for using all available resources.  My bad.

dileas

tess

 

[captloadie]

Well holy crap!  I can't believe I didn't notice this.

I'm actually blown away.

There are two links in the Benefits "relocation" section of http://cmp-cpm.mil.ca/en/benefits/benefits-generic.page. One says "Post Living Differential Areas" and one says "Geographical Boundaries".

Each takes you to a page that has a different "introductory paragraph" and then provides a list of different cities with links to geographical boundaries.

And you know what?

Those boundaries for each city are EXACTLY THE SAME for both the "Geographic Areas" page and for "PLD Areas" page.

That means that the rumours I heard are actually true: Places of Duty are defined by the PLD Areas. So, they actually ARE related.

Thanks Blackadder!

I would be careful making this assumption for the Toronto area. There are 5 different PLD areas, but I think only one geographical area. I would check on this as the PLD areas were set up for people to live close to work, but you could live anywhere in the Toronto area without asking to live outside the geographical area.

 

[Pusser]

In Chapter 5, however, members are entitled to "actual and reasonable" expenses, meaning you could claim more than the meal-time rate, if it was actual and reasonable.

That's not true at all.  Before you question me, my pedigree includes compensation and benefits and I am well in tune with this sort of thing.

In simple terms, "actual" means you need a receipt in order to make the claim (to see what you actually spent) and "reasonable" means up to the limit proscribed in the NJC meal rates for that meal in that geographical area.  In other words, for the most part, you cannot claim more than the meal rate.  The only exception is that the Minister can approve reimbursement at a higher amount, but you would have  have a pretty hard time justifying it.

As for your original question, others have since answered it.  The "place of duty" is normally the geographical boundaries set for your particular unit.  By and large, these are the same as the PLD area, but Toronto is a notable exception.

 

[Lumber]

That's not true at all.  Before you question me, my pedigree includes compensation and benefits and I am well in tune with this sort of thing.

In simple terms, "actual" means you need a receipt in order to make the claim (to see what you actually spent) and "reasonable" means up to the limit proscribed in the NJC meal rates for that meal in that geographical area.  In other words, for the most part, you cannot claim more than the meal rate.  The only exception is that the Minister can approve reimbursement at a higher amount, but you would have  have a pretty hard time justifying it.

As for your original question, others have since answered it.  The "place of duty" is normally the geographical boundaries set for your particular unit.  By and large, these are the same as the PLD area, but Toronto is a notable exception.

I think we're essentially saying the same thing; I'm just being a lot more liberal with it.

If we truly did send a member somewhere where the only option was to purchase a meal that was over the mealtime rate (I mean literally, 100% no other option), then I can't see the minister denying a request for reimbursement of the actual rate.

The "actual" rate is extremely important, because if your actual expense was below the meal time rate, then you only get that amount; you don't automatically get the mealtime rate as you do when chapters 6,7, and 8 apply.

 

[Pusser]

If we truly did send a member somewhere where the only option was to purchase a meal that was over the mealtime rate (I mean literally, 100% no other option), then I can't see the minister denying a request for reimbursement of the actual rate.

You would be very hard pressed to find a situation where that would happen.  Our meal allowances are very generous.  The only time I've ever even come close to reaching the daily rate is in Norway (where a single beer can cost $25 - although keep in mind that you can't clam for alcohol) and even then, I still had enough. 

 

[SupersonicMax]

$11 for lunch isn't much to be honest...

 

[SeaKingTacco]

$11 for lunch isn't much to be honest...

I just did a claim last month. I am pretty sure lunch is around the 18$ mark.....

 

[Pusser]

Current rates in Canada are:

Breakfast:    $17.00
Lunch:          $17.25
Supper:        $45.55

 

[dapaterson]

The lunch rate can be challenging when you're stuck in an airport, eating poor quality, overpriced food, while experiencing a four hour layover because HRG refuses to admit that there are better connections at the same price that you can see on the Air Canada website but not through HRG, so you sit fuming in the terminal, eating your overpriced meal.



Or so I've heard.

 

[Lumber]

You would be very hard pressed to find a situation where that would happen.  Our meal allowances are very generous.  The only time I've ever even come close to reaching the daily rate is in Norway (where a single beer can cost $25 - although keep in mind that you can't clam for alcohol) and even then, I still had enough.

Yea, I can't see it ever really happening for Supper, but for lunch I could see a member being forced to spend more than the $17.25.

The lunch rate can be challenging when you're stuck in an airport, eating poor quality, overpriced food, while experiencing a four hour layover because HRG refuses to admit that there are better connections at the same price that you can see on the Air Canada website but not through HRG, so you sit fuming in the terminal, eating your overpriced meal.



Or so I've heard.

We have that problem all the time. Google Flights is an amazing tool for looking up and comparing flight costs. Sometimes, however, when my guys are on the HRG website, it won't even display one of the two airlines (AC or WestJet), even though Google Flights shows tons of options for both flights. This seems to be remedied by actually calling HRG and booking the flights over the phone. For whatever reason, they have better access to flights than we see in the system. Problem is, first you have to spend 30 mins on hold waiting for the agent, and then another 10-15 mins booking the flight.

When you have a dozen people going away each weekend every weekend, that's not usually an effective way to manage time...

 

[dapaterson]

What's worse is when, even if you call, you're told the flight can't be accessed.  I know of one person who had to drive from Kingston to Pearson to catch their flight, despite Air Canada operating regular Kingston - Toronto flights, all of which appeared on the Air Canada website.

(The overall quality of Air Canada vs other airlines is best left for another discussion, preferably in a mess with appropriate libations in hand.)

 

[CountDC]

I have a better understanding of TD Travel than my HR-Mgr. My OR comes to me for clarification on aspects of the CFTDTIs..

Which is the way it should be considering claims is now a Fin function not an HR one. Actually your OR shouldn't even come to you, they should just send everyone to you. ;D  Of course that isn't how it really happens otherwise why am I approving all these claims that my staff are processing instead of the Fin NCO.

As for HRG - don't forget calling them costs more so that has to be factored in when comparing the rates.

Never had an issue with the meal rates myself even at the airport.  Guess it depends on the location and what you like to eat.  Usually when I have heard complaints it was because they were eating at  restaurants they normally wouldn't if paying out of own pocket and wanting the steak dinner with drinks.  Not saying I didn't do the same but I never cried about the rates either.

 

[George Wallace]

(The overall quality of Air Canada vs other airlines is best left for another discussion, preferably in a mess with appropriate libations in hand.)

Indeed.  And copious quantities of libations at that.

 

[charlielmao]

For CFTDTI, the place of duty for claiming of meal expenses is the geographical boundaries of the base.  See your Standing Orders for this.  Within your place of duty, you need to provide the actual receipt.  The limit of the receipt is that of the NJC rate.  Why would you expect anyone on TD from a different place to get less that you?  That is why the max is the NJC rate.  Geo boundaries are not to be confused with PLD areas, many bases have more than one PLD area.

For travel outside the geographical boundaries of the base, which is the case for anyone talking about eating at the airport enroute to somewhere else I would propose, the limit while in travel status with the exception of origin is that of the destination or individual destinations enroute.  Example, leaving Ottawa going to Brussels via London, UK if eligible, breakfast in Ottawa at airport because of checkin requirements, meal in London, UK in GBP and the rest of meals are in Euro.