- Reaction score
- 29,252
- Points
- 1,090
I think that is scheduled for the same day that DND's OPCMA becomes 4.
PMV and Travel Limits While on TD
- Thread starter twilrecce
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 1,781
- Points
- 1,140
I searched the forum and could not find an answer to my question.
Let’s say someone is ordered on TD, the most practical and economical mean of transportation is CAL. Member requests to use PMV instead and is authorized. Member uses 3 days of leave as it is required and understands the cost comparison. Member signs Annex A of the CFTDIs. Member proceeds on TD and travels to TD destination in one day. Member comes back and files his claim truthfullly.
Our OR says he broke rules and are looking at us, his CoC, to take actions. I disagree in that nothing in the TDIs saying he has to travel no more than 500 km per day, just that the CoC needs to provide him the time to do so (in this case, using paid leave).
References are CFTDIs Annex A and para 7.41(2).
Am I missing something? I doubt we can order someone how to manage his time during leave.
Let’s say someone is ordered on TD, the most practical and economical mean of transportation is CAL. Member requests to use PMV instead and is authorized. Member uses 3 days of leave as it is required and understands the cost comparison. Member signs Annex A of the CFTDIs. Member proceeds on TD and travels to TD destination in one day. Member comes back and files his claim truthfullly.
Our OR says he broke rules and are looking at us, his CoC, to take actions. I disagree in that nothing in the TDIs saying he has to travel no more than 500 km per day, just that the CoC needs to provide him the time to do so (in this case, using paid leave).
References are CFTDIs Annex A and para 7.41(2).
Am I missing something? I doubt we can order someone how to manage his time during leave.
ballz
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 459
- Points
- 910
You're 100% correct. This is the kind of the stupidity that is the natural result of a very very stupid policy. I know we already had a heated debate on another area of the site about the merits of babysitting members by making them take enough leave so as to allow for sufficient time for *cough* walking *cough* sorry, enough time for driving.
Unfortunately, when you write a policy to try and force that effect onto people even though you can't actually tell them what to do on their leave, there are naturally those who extend the logic and try to make that rule.
Noteworthy, it's this kind of "extrapolating" that leads to further stupidity. A good example is DCBA's stance that since you can only drive 500km on a duty day, then if you are taking your PMV you must only be allowed to claim 500km for mileage even if cost comparison is for $1500. There is currently a grievance awaiting a decision from the Final Authority but the Grievance Committee agreed that it is pretty black and white in the policy that you get paid the cheaper of the mileage or the cost comparison figure... not some DCBA made-up figure based on an extrapolation of logic from a completely different situation (being requested to use your PMV) and only allowed to drive 500km.
Unfortunately, when you write a policy to try and force that effect onto people even though you can't actually tell them what to do on their leave, there are naturally those who extend the logic and try to make that rule.
Noteworthy, it's this kind of "extrapolating" that leads to further stupidity. A good example is DCBA's stance that since you can only drive 500km on a duty day, then if you are taking your PMV you must only be allowed to claim 500km for mileage even if cost comparison is for $1500. There is currently a grievance awaiting a decision from the Final Authority but the Grievance Committee agreed that it is pretty black and white in the policy that you get paid the cheaper of the mileage or the cost comparison figure... not some DCBA made-up figure based on an extrapolation of logic from a completely different situation (being requested to use your PMV) and only allowed to drive 500km.
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,503
- Points
- 1,010
You are not missing anything, SuperSonicMax. That's why, IMHO, paper pushers don't belong in the CoC - only ops people. And ultimately, deciding to do or not to do something disciplinary or administrative against a member is left to non-admin/logistics types, i.e. the Chain of Command.
I remember many years ago a friend of mine asking her unit (HMCS HUNTER, then under a CO who was logistics and an XO who was NCS) to be exempt week night training because she was going to university in Montreal - but wanted to be there for her unit on week ends. She was HUNTER's only qualified MARS officer at the time. Her unit said no, and indicated they didn't really need qualified MARS officer (in a Naval reserve Unit!!!). We were more than happy to take her on to our unit as a transferee (HMCS DONNACONA) even though we already had lots qualified of MARS types. Was her original unit served by such a decision?
Sorry here: Beef of mine against putting support personnel in command positions. They just don't get the difference between a rule and an order.
/RANT OFF
I remember many years ago a friend of mine asking her unit (HMCS HUNTER, then under a CO who was logistics and an XO who was NCS) to be exempt week night training because she was going to university in Montreal - but wanted to be there for her unit on week ends. She was HUNTER's only qualified MARS officer at the time. Her unit said no, and indicated they didn't really need qualified MARS officer (in a Naval reserve Unit!!!). We were more than happy to take her on to our unit as a transferee (HMCS DONNACONA) even though we already had lots qualified of MARS types. Was her original unit served by such a decision?
Sorry here: Beef of mine against putting support personnel in command positions. They just don't get the difference between a rule and an order.
/RANT OFF
- Reaction score
- 2,564
- Points
- 1,190
Pretty much agree with everything that has been said, but I'll elaborate a bit.
The requirement to take leave is really only there to absolve DND of any liability. Were we to authorize someone to drive pmv, knowing full well they would have to drive 28hrs straight to make it to the TD destination on time, we'd be hooped if they got in an accident on the way.
The leave just let's us wash our hands of their decision. You cannot order the person to actually drive a certain amount while on leave. All we can do is order them to take leave in the first place, and order them to report for duty at a specif place and time.
Go tell your OR to suck eggs and whole you're at it, tell them to stop asking people for proof of cohabitation when they apply for common law status.
The requirement to take leave is really only there to absolve DND of any liability. Were we to authorize someone to drive pmv, knowing full well they would have to drive 28hrs straight to make it to the TD destination on time, we'd be hooped if they got in an accident on the way.
The leave just let's us wash our hands of their decision. You cannot order the person to actually drive a certain amount while on leave. All we can do is order them to take leave in the first place, and order them to report for duty at a specif place and time.
Go tell your OR to suck eggs and whole you're at it, tell them to stop asking people for proof of cohabitation when they apply for common law status.
ballz
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 459
- Points
- 910
Lumber said:
That's not "having our cake and eating it too," that's referring to the absolutely silly interpretation DCBA *made up* that if you chose to drive your own vehicle, instead of getting the equivalent cost of the cheaper option (i.e. a flight) you got 500km x the high-rate and that was it... even if the flight (cheaper) option would have cost $1000, you were limited to $250. They arbitrarily limited the reimbursement to 500km x high-rate, with zero authority to do so.
They did not lift the BS restriction of having to forfeit annual on a 500km/day basis.
Comd Canadian Army recently reached out to DCBA regarding the requrement to take annual leave at a rate of 500km/day when travelling by cost-comparison. The Army was asking for the creation of another type of special leave, so that someone on long taskings (60 days was the example) could take a cost comparison and be granted special leave instead of having to use annual. The answer from DCBA was, as is the DCBA way, absolutely ridiculous. Their statement was (paraphrased) "if the member's convenience is so adversely affected that it warrants asking Treasury Board to create a new time of paid leave, then it's important enough that the Approving Authority request the member to take his PMV instead so that he receives the required number of travel days."
While I'm glad someone finally acknowledged the approving authority has the ability to do this, DCBA completely overlooks the fact that using their solution there is an extra $8000 in incremental costs for a member to drive from Edmonton to Gagetown and back for a tasking, and units simply can't bear that cost nor can the Crown when you multiply it by the thousands of taskings. However, with the creation of special leave to accommodate member's going on long taskings, the member could have 1) not been penalized by taking annual leave and 2) there would have been no incremental costs to the Crown. Good thing all these people get paid gigantic salaries to overlook something as significant as an extra $8000/task.
- Reaction score
- 6,555
- Points
- 1,040
Question for someone with access to the DWAN; if I take my PMV on a TD trip, can I still claim gas for the usage while on site for two weeks? Shouldn't be too much, so normally tack that kind of thing in with the daily incidentals that you get, but curious. So for example fill up on arrival would be included in mileage rate, but curious if I filled up before I left, if I could claim gas for what I used on site.
Will be working in Waterloo in an out of the way location, so the alternate is take the train and get a rental for the duration, so it's kind of cost neutral for either option for the two week mark, and PMV is cheaper for the GoC for longer than that. From experience, know that doesn't matter if it saves the GoC money if it's not in the policy, so probably won't bother to even submit the gas claim, but sometimes these things get flagged as something you could have claimed and slows down the process of getting it settled (again, from experience).
Will be working in Waterloo in an out of the way location, so the alternate is take the train and get a rental for the duration, so it's kind of cost neutral for either option for the two week mark, and PMV is cheaper for the GoC for longer than that. From experience, know that doesn't matter if it saves the GoC money if it's not in the policy, so probably won't bother to even submit the gas claim, but sometimes these things get flagged as something you could have claimed and slows down the process of getting it settled (again, from experience).
If the most economical option is that you are already getting a train ticket and a rental car, why would you even want to take your own POMV? With the default option your gas on site is guaranteed to be paid, and you put zero miles on your own vehicle. Or are you hauling a lot of gear that you don’t want to take on VIA One?
Edited to actually try to answer your question — I took a look at the CFTDI and I can’t find any way to reimburse local mileage on a POMV during TD, it seems to imply that you should drive there and back in your POMV but use and claim a taxi for local travel.
Edited to actually try to answer your question — I took a look at the CFTDI and I can’t find any way to reimburse local mileage on a POMV during TD, it seems to imply that you should drive there and back in your POMV but use and claim a taxi for local travel.
- Reaction score
- 6,555
- Points
- 1,040
That makes all kinds of sense to park my car and Uber. Unless I find an AirBNB close by, it's about a 20 minute drive from the hotel, so probably double the cost of a rental. :nod: :
Planning on dropping my daughter off at the grandparents at the visit, and taking some time off afterwards to visit family, so PMV makes more sense, but otherwise would have gone with the train and rental. It's a nice ride down on the train and faster than driving, once you include traffic. Last time hit some crazy traffic starting in Kingston and took me almost 9 hours in total.
Planning on dropping my daughter off at the grandparents at the visit, and taking some time off afterwards to visit family, so PMV makes more sense, but otherwise would have gone with the train and rental. It's a nice ride down on the train and faster than driving, once you include traffic. Last time hit some crazy traffic starting in Kingston and took me almost 9 hours in total.
CountDC
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 497
- Points
- 960
answer I got was maybe to the gas.
7.20 General
1.(No Entitlement) There is no entitlement for a member to be reimbursed any expenses for travel to and from their permanent workplace on a daily basis.
2.(Selection) An approving authority selects a member’s mode - or combination of modes - of transportation on duty travel after consideration of all of the following: a.the relative cost and efficiency of available modes of transportation during the duty travel;
b.the conditions of road transportation and all other modes of transportation — in the duty travel area;
c.forecasted weather conditions during the duty travel;
d.the preferred transportation for short, local trips is by bus, taxi, shuttle, and other local transportation services;
e.the CF’s operational needs;
f.an intermediate sedan is the standard rental vehicle across government;
g.the member’s safety and convenience;
h.the amount of baggage or supplies that the member is required to transport; and
i.any other factor that is immediately relevant to the duty travel requirement.
7.42 Taxis, buses, etc
Subject to paragraph 7.20(2) (Selection), a member who uses a taxi, bus, or other local transportation on duty travel is entitled to be reimbursed for actual and reasonable travel expenses and gratuities.
So that could be a matter of the approving authority, prior to going on the trip, determines that utilizing your car would be more reasonable than taking the bus. Perhaps you have a lot of material that you need to transfer with you (but then that would be a basis for utilizing PMV on request of the CAF).
7.20 General
1.(No Entitlement) There is no entitlement for a member to be reimbursed any expenses for travel to and from their permanent workplace on a daily basis.
2.(Selection) An approving authority selects a member’s mode - or combination of modes - of transportation on duty travel after consideration of all of the following: a.the relative cost and efficiency of available modes of transportation during the duty travel;
b.the conditions of road transportation and all other modes of transportation — in the duty travel area;
c.forecasted weather conditions during the duty travel;
d.the preferred transportation for short, local trips is by bus, taxi, shuttle, and other local transportation services;
e.the CF’s operational needs;
f.an intermediate sedan is the standard rental vehicle across government;
g.the member’s safety and convenience;
h.the amount of baggage or supplies that the member is required to transport; and
i.any other factor that is immediately relevant to the duty travel requirement.
7.42 Taxis, buses, etc
Subject to paragraph 7.20(2) (Selection), a member who uses a taxi, bus, or other local transportation on duty travel is entitled to be reimbursed for actual and reasonable travel expenses and gratuities.
So that could be a matter of the approving authority, prior to going on the trip, determines that utilizing your car would be more reasonable than taking the bus. Perhaps you have a lot of material that you need to transfer with you (but then that would be a basis for utilizing PMV on request of the CAF).
- Reaction score
- 6,555
- Points
- 1,040
Thanks for the ref; don't need to really bring much, but the site is outside of town, not on a bus route and no where near to any lodgings, so some kind of car is required. Would definitely have a rental car if I took the train down, as it'd cost as much for the day as one way on a taxi/uber.
Driving is kind of a no brainer, but was more curious as I don't want to even be bothered with the hassle of trying to claim that with a PMV, as the daily TD allowances will be more than enough to include some gas.
Long story, but this whole TD approval is tenuous anyway, so just happy if they pay the accommodations and I don't need to do two moves (or two years of IR) when I can get 90% of the PG done via distance learning with a few months total of on site time for some thesis experiment work.
Cheers
Driving is kind of a no brainer, but was more curious as I don't want to even be bothered with the hassle of trying to claim that with a PMV, as the daily TD allowances will be more than enough to include some gas.
Long story, but this whole TD approval is tenuous anyway, so just happy if they pay the accommodations and I don't need to do two moves (or two years of IR) when I can get 90% of the PG done via distance learning with a few months total of on site time for some thesis experiment work.
Cheers
Pusser
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 32
- Points
- 530
The key question is whether you need a car to conduct your duties at the TD location. If you do, there is a way to do that:
1) Rent a car from home and drive that to the TD location. That's the simplest option and all your gas receipts can be paid.
2) Travel via POMV and claim mileage from home to TD location and back on a cost comparison basis. Then while on location, claim daily mileage for use of your POMV while on task. The daily mileage should NOT be included in the cost comparison.
3) Use your POMV for travel to and from the TD location, but then rent a car for daily use on task.
1) Rent a car from home and drive that to the TD location. That's the simplest option and all your gas receipts can be paid.
2) Travel via POMV and claim mileage from home to TD location and back on a cost comparison basis. Then while on location, claim daily mileage for use of your POMV while on task. The daily mileage should NOT be included in the cost comparison.
3) Use your POMV for travel to and from the TD location, but then rent a car for daily use on task.
Pusser
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 32
- Points
- 530
Oldgateboatdriver said:
I actually take serious offence to that. Idiocy is not confined to one Branch or another. I have seen "operators" make some colossally stupid decisions over the years that I have then had to clean up in order to keep them out of jail. I am fully aware of the difference between rules and orders and I'm pretty good at navigating around them to achieve the mission. Just as I will fault an operator for running roughshod over the regulations because they are inconvenient, I will also fault a loggie for not trying to find a way to do it properly.
ballz
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 459
- Points
- 910
Pusser said:
Why did you necessitate "on a cost comparison." If the member is going to need a vehicle on location, and the Chain of Command doesn't want to pay a rental fee / daily taxis, then they should be requesting the member to take his PMV and he should get the high-rate.
Pusser
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 32
- Points
- 530
ballz said:
The cost comparison is for the travel by POMV to and from the TD location. That still has to be done. The policy is quite clear that travel has to be by the most economical means. A cost comparison is required to determine his maximum reimbursement for travel from home to the TD location. Daily transportation at the TD location is a separate piece of this and the OP has already stated that he would be allowed to travel by other means and rent a car when he gets there.
- Reaction score
- 1,781
- Points
- 1,140
A CO cannot order someone to use PMV but if someone agrees to using his/her PMV and the CoC agrees it is the “most practical and economical” mean? I have done that before.
Similar threads
