# 2017-154 Pay and Benefits, Administrative Action, Parking

Case summary

F&R Date: 2018-11-26

The grievor disputed the monthly parking rate he paid for parking on Department of National Defence property, as well as the survey methodology used to determine the parking rate. The grievor argued that the fair market value (FMV) study failed to follow the guidance in the Defence Administrative Order and Directive (DAOD) 1004-1, “Parking Administration”. As redress, he sought to have the 2016 FMV survey quashed and to be reimbursed all parking fees collected from his pay.

The Initial Authority (IA), the Commander of Maritime Forces Atlantic, granted partial redress, finding that the 2016 FMV survey was flawed. The IA directed that a new survey be completed in accordance with previous Final Authority (FA) direction. The IA declined to reimburse any parking fees collected to date.

The Committee agreed with the IA that the 2016 FMV survey was flawed, and that it failed to properly incorporate previous FA direction arising from a 2015 grievance decision. The Committee also found that it would be premature to reimburse already collected parking fees prior to the completion of a properly executed FMV survey. Once such a survey has been completed, parking rates can be established accordingly. The Committee recommended that the FA direct the completion of a fully compliant FMV parking survey and, subsequently, that the grievor's account be audited to retroactively correct any variance between what he has already paid for parking and the amount he should have paid as determined by the new FMV survey.

FA decision summary

The FA agreed with the Committee that the FA for a previous grievance had found that the 2014 survey was flawed. The FA agreed with the Committee's finding that the 2016 survey was flawed and in contradiction to DAOD 1004-1 Parking Administration but found that it was not “fatally” flawed. The FA agreed with the Committee's findings that the Canadian Armed Forces failed to incorporate the FA's 2015 direction into the 2016 survey and failed to provide all of the necessary information to Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) in order to ensure that the 2016 survey was completed in accordance with policy but found that as the criteria were “generally” adhered to, this was a “moot point”. The FA therefore determined that the 2016 survey was valid. The FA agreed with the Committee's finding that in key areas the methodology used in the 2016 survey contradicted national guidelines and was not policy compliant but stated that as PSPC was the department responsible for setting the methodology, this was outside the FA's jurisdiction.

The FA did not comment on the Committee's observation that the next survey should have been completed, or at least started, by the fall of 2018, but that when the Committee inquired, there was not yet a statement of work in effect for the next survey.

The FA did not accept the Committee's recommendations to direct that a fully policy-compliant study be conducted and to direct that on its completion, the grievor's account and those of all other affected Canadian Armed Forces members be audited to correct any variance between what was paid and what should have been paid, from 1 September 2014 onwards. The FA found that the grievor had been treated fairly in accordance with the applicable rules, regulations, and policies, and did not grant redress.