DPPD Frequently Asked Questions

Following unification of the Canadian Forces (CF) in the mid-60s, the Department of National Defence and the Treasury Board Secretariat adopted the principle of comparability between the CF and the Public Service (PS). There were two major reasons for instituting comparability - that CF members would benefit from the results of collective bargaining and that the federal government acted as the employer for both groups.

As is the case in most militaries, the CF uses a rank-based "team concept" or institutional approach to determine pay. In this methodology, the average value of the work performed by all members of a specific rank level is considered in developing pay. This is quite different from the more common Public Service method in which an individual is paid the evaluated worth for the specific position they are filling. In exceptional cases, market factors force the CF to consider a handful of military occupations, such as doctors, dentists, lawyers and some high-tech trades, separate from the majority of CF members. However, within these special occupations, the "team concept" is applied.

Given the nature of the military's work, the "team concept" makes a lot of sense and it is used to the maximum extent possible. However, the use of the "team concept" presents some challenges when comparing the CF to non-military organizations that use an occupational or job-specific approach.

In the late 70s, Treasury Board directed that the Department adopt Total Compensation (TC) analysis, which was also being developed for use in collective bargaining with the PS unions. Treasury Board wanted to ensure that the full value of the compensation and benefits made available by the employer to federal public servants was considered in negotiations. The methodology includes salary, but also evaluates benefits such as pensions, severance pay, acting pay, overtime and medical and dental services, as well as "time not worked", annual leave and sick leave being two examples.

The objective of this form of analysis, therefore, is to compare the compensation and benefits available to one group of employees to the compensation and benefits of another group. The end result provides a net value, expressed in terms of the dollars paid per hour actually worked, for the first group of employees, as compared to the net value of the dollars paid per hour actually worked for the second group. The warranted pay increase or decrease in a given year is the percentage difference between these two values. For the military, two TC analyses are conducted: one for general service officers and one for non-commissioned members. "Comparability" is considered to be achieved if the CF dollar per hour worked is equal to the PS dollar per hour worked.

The Military Factor

It is important to note that the TC analyses, as applied to the CF, also provide latitude to determine the dollar value of the unique aspects of CF service. The most obvious example is the Military Factor, which values the major characteristics of military service. Although the unique aspects of military service such as Code of Service Discipline, separation from family and posting turbulence are not easily quantified, the Military Factor was originally valued at 4% of salary for all non-commissioned members and general service officers. As of April 1, 1999, the Military Factor stands at 7.5% for non-commissioned members and 6.5% for general service officers. These recent increases were in recognition of a higher operational tempo and resulting increases in the incidence of separation, and a new component (Personal Limitations and Liabilities), which further recognizes the implications inherent in the military system of unlimited liability. Another less obvious example is the fact that CF members are not eligible for overtime. To adjust for this in the TC analyses, values of 6% of salary for non-commissioned members and 4% of salary for general service officers are used.

"Comparability", therefore, is not a case of making one rate of pay equal to another. Instead, a "comparability" shortfall is the amount of increase to CF pay that is needed to equalize the bottom line (dollars per hour worked) between the CF and the PS values, but only after considering all salary and applicable benefits including unique CF conditions of service.

Non-Commissioned Members

Non-commissioned members are paid rates of pay determined through TC analysis. Within each rank there are a number of Incentive Pay Categories (IPC) which represent automatic annual increases given in recognition of advancements in experience, skill and knowledge. As well, there are three sub-groups of pay into which non-commissioned member trade groups are slotted. These sub-groups are Standard, Specialist 1 and Specialist 2 and pay rates vary in each sub-group. The Specialist 1 and Specialist 2 sub-groups, which include trades such as Fire Control Systems Technicians, Flight Engineers, Biomedical Electronics Technicians, and Marine Engineering Artificers, comprise jobs which are highly complex in nature and whose skills are in high demand in the private sector.

General Service Officers

General service officers are all officers below the rank of colonel in all occupation groups except for pilots and specialist officers (legal, medical and dental officers). General service officers pay rates are also determined through TC analysis and they receive incentive level increases just like non-commissioned members. One significant difference is that there are often more incentive levels for officer ranks than there are for non-commissioned member ranks, on the basis that it takes longer for officers to gather all the experience, skill and knowledge required for their rank. Hence, they must wait longer than non-commissioned members to receive the job rate (maximum) for their rank.

Pilots are paid general service officer rates of pay plus a pilot differential that is in recognition of private sector market factors.

Senior Officers (Colonels and above)

Officers, other than legal, medical and dental officers, at the rank of colonel and general officer are paid based upon direct benchmarks to the Public Service's Executive Category. Job analysis is used to establish the benchmarks and after that they receive the same pay and benefits as their PS counterparts. These benefits include performance pay (for colonels) and the Performance Management Program (for general and flag officers) (discussed below).

All CF legal officers (except military judges) are paid based on direct benchmarks to the Public Service's Law Group. In addition, legal officers below the rank of colonel receive the same military factor as general service officers as analysis has proven that they are subjected to similar conditions as the general service officers. Legal officers also receive performance pay (discussed below).

Military judges are paid based upon the recommendations of the Military Judges' Compensation Committee and the subsequent approval of both the Minister of National Defence and the Treasury Board. To ensure the independence of the military judges, their performance is not assessed and, hence, they do not receive performance pay.

Medical And Dental Officers

As of April 1, 1999, medical and dental officers' total compensation is determined in relation to private practice practitioners. Those below the rank of colonel receive the same military factor as general service officers. Medical and dental officers in the ranks of lieutenant-colonel and above also receive performance pay (discussed below).

There are no incentive pay categories for senior (colonels and generals) and specialist officers (except for medical and dental officers below the rank of lieutenant-colonel). Also, the military factor does not apply to senior officers. Instead, these individuals are eligible for either performance pay or the Performance Management Program.

The Treasury Board provides the authority and guidelines for the application of performance pay and the Performance Management Program to the CF. Performance pay and the Performance Management Program are the only mechanisms available for senior and specialist officers to progress through their salary ranges. Performance pay and Performance Management Program are not unique to the military - senior Public Service employees and senior RCMP officers also receive performance pay and the Performance Management Program.

Performance pay is applicable to non-specialist colonels and specialist officers. Basically, it consists of an annual incentive payment based upon assessed performance.

The Performance Management Program is applicable to generals and flag officers. It is based upon two annual performance assessments - one for ongoing commitments and one for key commitments.

Performance pay and the Performance Management Program are components of the senior and specialist officer pay plans, just as Incentive Pay Categories are part of the pay plan for non-commissioned members and general service officers.

Environmental allowances provide financial compensation to CF members whose military duties involve sporadic or continuous exposure to adverse environmental conditions, including hazards which other members do not usually experience, such as sea duty, field and aircrew operations. The allowances are intended to serve as an incentive to attract and keep properly motivated personnel, under such conditions.

The Canadian Forces pay system is based on the principle of comparability with the Public Service. To that end, a series of Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) approved salary benchmarks are used to develop the CF rates of pay.

The NCM benchmarks fix a lower and an upper limit. At the lower end, the Cpl benchmark matches CF occupations with PS trades at the journeyman level and include a military factor. The upper limit, Chief Warrant Officer Incentive Pay Category (IPC) 4, is pegged as a Captain IPC 5/6. Between the lower and upper limits, all ranks from Corporal to CWO, six in all, must be accommodated and a maximum salary cap given to each one. The pay structure developed for NCMs must provide reasonable salary progression in the form of incentives and must provide for reasonable increases on promotion. Given the overall size of the NCM salary range, and the number of ranks involved, the number of incentives at each rank level must be limited if the amount of each incentive is to be of significance. The number of NCM incentives is presently set at four. Ten incentives, as there are for Captains, could easily be established mathematically, but annual increases would be so small as to be meaningless. Moreover, the sooner an individual reaches his/her pay ceiling at a given rank, the better off he or she will be financially.

By comparison, the general service officer (GSO) Pay Structure is developed through a comparison to approximately fifteen groups in the Scientific, Professional, and Administrative and Foreign Service categories of occupations in the PS. The result is a relatively broad salary range for each of the GSO Ranks, particularly at Captain, that reflects the scope of jobs, training, experience, responsibilities, and career progression at each rank level. The number of IPCs for each rank has been established to account for these factors. It would be possible to reduce the number of IPCs at each rank, but this would mean larger increment amounts or a larger salary gap between ranks, both unjustifiable based on the rank structure of the CF.

3. Can you explain the re-administration of incentive pay categories (IPCs) following the freeze?

When the government IPC freeze was first announced in Feb 94, the CANFORGEN stated that "...a member will not advance toward the next IPC until the end of the legislation. For example, a member who is six months from IPC 2 on the date this provision took effect, will be six months from IPC 2 at the end of the legislation." A subsequent legal review determined that the Public Sector Compensation Act did not prohibit qualifying time toward an IPC. The Act simply prohibited IPC's from being paid during the freeze period. Therefore, all eligible members who had at least one year of qualifying service during the freeze were granted their next IPC on the date the IPC freeze ended, ie, 15 Jun 96.

This increase was welcome news for most members who had had their pay frozen for four out of five years and their IPCs for two years. A few seemed concerned about the fact that their peers may have "gained ground" on them as a result of the decision. While this might technically be true, any adjustments to the re-administration of the incentive pay to address this concern are not possible, as they would be in contravention with the intent of the Public Sector Compensation Act.