I've become somewhat of a SME with regard to the documentation regarding this issue in the past few months. I too am dealing with a similar situation and may be able to point you in the right direction. The following is several a few references, and some excerpts from said references that make it pretty clear. Pay close attention to the bolded reference in the ADM (HR-MIL) Instruction... this one is particularly important for reservists.
And, a note for all of those who have worked in recruiting in the past and have never seen this on a CT, the most of the refs I found have ammendments dated around October 2005, so alot of it is relatively new. Feel free to check my refs.
Reference ADM (HR-MIL) INSTRUCTION 07/05 (Instruction for Component Transfer)
http://hr.ottawa-hull.mil.ca/docs/instruction/instructions/engraph/0705_admhrmil_e.asp
“IPC determination should not result in a lower pay entitlement than one that would have been recognized if the applicant had been in the RegF and completed an occupational transfer.”
”All reservists selected for attendance to an RMC program and meeting the skilled status under this instruction will be treated as if they were UTPNCM candidates. Reservists who do not meet the skilled status will be treated as if they were ROTP candidates. (October 2005)”
Skilled status is defined as:
2.8 Skilled Applicant
A skilled applicant is one seeking CT into the same occupation and who has:
reached the Basic Occupational Qualification as defined by the occupational specification for the component from which the member is transferring; and accumulated the equivalent of 36 months of FTPS. The skilled applicant may be selected for further training in order to be fully employable in the gaining component.”
This is amplified by CBI 204.211 (4)
http://hr.ottawa-hull.mil.ca/dgcb/cbi/engraph/home_e.asp?sidesection=6&Section=204.211&sidecat=21&Chapter=204#204.211
(4) (Rate of pay - University Training Plan (Non-commissioned Members) and Special Commissioning Plan) A lieutenant or second lieutenant to whom the University Training Plan (Non-Commissioned Members) or Special Commissioning Plan applies shall be paid, for each month after the month and year specified in the table, at the rate of pay for the officer's rank and pay increment as follows
if appointed to the rank of officer cadet directly from the rank of private, in pay level A of Table "B" or "C" to this instruction;
if appointed to the rank of officer cadet directly from the rank of corporal or above, in pay level D of Table "B" or "C" to this instruction.
if commissioned directly to the rank of lieutenant or second lieutenant from a non-commissioned member rank, in pay level D of Table "B" or "C" to this instruction
In addition, although the reference are quite clear, I have found several cases filed with the CF Grievance Board that set a precedent for cases like theses. Below are the URLs and key parts of these grievances.
http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/casestudies-e.php?case_study_id=219
http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/casestudies-e.php?case_study_id=223
http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/casestudies-e.php?case_study_id=121
"Notwithstanding, the Board also found that a component transfer results in continuous and uninterrupted commitment to the CF. As such, the Board found that the grievor had been treated inequitably in accordance with the current pay policies, as he should not have had to endure a loss of salary during his transition to the Regular Force."
"The Board found that there was inequitable treatment in the manner the grievor’s rate of pay was determined at the time of his transfer and that his rate of pay should not have been lower than the pay he was receiving immediately prior to his transfer."
"The Board found that there was inequitable treatment of the grievor in fixing his pay on transfer from the P Res to the Reg F. The Board found that the grievor was not given adequate recognition for his past service and experience when the payment terms were set in the terms of service for transfer to the Reg F. The Board also found that certain pay regulations applicable to transfer into officer classifications were not sufficiently clear to allow for proper recognition of P Res service."
I hope this helps and welcome discussion on it from any members who are working at CFRG to comment.... oh and if you're at CFRG, feel free to tell me how my case is going. :
