I stole them from Colchester
2 Likes
From an institution on Beerchurch Hall Road perchance?
I may have already expressed my view elsewhere, but I think there are several interconnected reasons for the switch to a Cadet Forces Commission.
-
The MOD has finally accepted (had to accept) that uniformed, remunerated CFAVs, are - legally - employees. My sources tell me this has come about through ACF Service Complaints related to our (CF Offrs) not being entitled to the ânewâ reservist offer; inc. pension and holiday pay. As these SCs have escalated, and legal advice has been taken, it has become clear that the MOD position on commissioned CFAVs has become somewhat precarious. Interesting, I changed jobs recently, and my HMRC tax coding notice form (P2) clearly stated that I had other taxable income from the âRAF Reserveâ. Clearly, HMRC - correctly- sees commissioned CFAVs as reservists; and I suspect this would be the basis of any legal case to establish the full legal status of commissioned CFAVs (and whether they are therefore entitled to the current reservist offer), finally putting to bed the âare we volunteers or are we employeesâ argument. I also wonder whether the speed and undue haste with which the CF Commission appears to have been lashed together has anything to do with that.
-
As referenced above - the ânewâ reservist offer is effectively part-time employment; inc. pension, sick, and holiday pay. Although I donât have it to hand, this is alluded to in one of the official communications weâve received; something along the lines of âthe terms and conditions of deployable reservists has changed recently, and it is no longer appropriate for CFAVs to have similar TCOSâ. That isnât it word for word, but itâs the message. Iâll try and find the actual quote. I read this as a tacit admission of #1 above.
-
Service Complaints are a problem - CFAVs, due to their civilian employ/HR experience, and the fact that many are quite simply more âBolshieâ (as it wonât damage their career) - are more likely to complain if something doesnât go their way, less likely to be fobbed off, and more likely to use the system. I also understand that - as stated in #1 - the SC system has been used to try and establish that uniformed, remunerated CFAVs are legally employees (âVolunteer Allowanceâ and âVolunteer Agreementsâ anyone?); and that commissioned CFAVs are entitled to the current reservist offer, by virtue of legally being reservists (the issue of call out liability aside).
The combination of all these factors has - in my view - in the last couple of years, resulted in the moves to try and reinforce the volunteer nature of CFAV service (and play down/deny any suggestion that we might, legally, be employees - especially commissioned CFAVs who are reservists); and not culminates in the CF Commission, lifting us entirely out of the Reserve Forces, and any entitlements so conferred legally through membership. I strongly suspect that the next move will be a bounty based VA, that is linked to how many eligible days you put in, rather than rank/status (moving away from the suggestion of rank-based progression/remuneration; which suggests employment. Either that, or standby for VA to go completely âbecause we canât afford itâ; but in actuality because it is remuneration for services performed - i.e. a form of employment.
Cheers
BTI(actual!)
2 Likes
Interesting thoughts there,
It will be very interesting to see what happens with VA overtime, itâs already been announced it will be looked at in the coming year.
If VA went completely it would be the final straw I recon for a lot of people, so it could be more interesting times aheadâŚ
I see this as an incremental approach; decouple the CFs from the RFs by virtue of the nature of the commissioning of Offrs, then move on to the trickier question of addressing the employment issue.
The fact that commissioned CFAVs are reservists and therefore employees is IMHO a slam dunk now, as evidenced by the need to de-couple. Although SCs are a problem they are also a straw man for the real issue of employment status. Once commissioned CFAVs are no longer reservists, the wider issues can be addressed. It recently occurred to me that all mention of Employment Tribunals has been removed from ACP20, whereas ACP20B used to give guidance on these as part of the redress of grievance process (anyone still got a copy for reference)?
The only way in which I can see the remuneration issue being resolved, so that there is no legal status of employment, is what is now being called VA (predictive programming!) becoming a âvery generousâ allowance for any out of pocket expenses incurred during uniformed CFAV duties; e.g. uniformed staff would claim VA rather than F1771 travel, MIE, etc. I think HTD is safe, since it is reasonable reimbursement of expenses for volunteering and is not - legally - remuneration. All conjecture, of course.
All of this revolves around the central issue of whether uniformed and remunerated CFAVs are employees or volunteers. Can you imagine the financial implications for the MOD if someone mounted a successful legal challenge?
I can also confirm - as reported earlier in the thread - that Captain Sea Cadets has briefed the SCC that they will retain honorary RNR status when the CF Commission comes into effect. Although I think this outcome unlikely, if it works for the SCC, I donât see why honorary RAFVR status couldnât work for us.
Cheers
BTI
CFAV are not reservists, wish everyone would stop kidding themselves on that.
The wording on my commisioning scroll says otherwiseâŚ
1 Like
The general understanding and implications of âreservistâ has changed significantly over the past few years as proper reserves have been expected to become a larger part of our armed forces. Whatever was chosen for convenience in the history of the commissioned side of the ACO is no longer a sensible option and we are right to distance our volunteers from that perception and expectation.
2 Likes
Wiki says;
A reservist is a person who is a member of a military reserve force. They are otherwise civilians, and in peacetime have careers outside the military. Reservists usually go for training on an annual basis to refresh their skills. This person is usually a former active-duty member of the armed forces, and they remain a reservist either voluntarily, or by obligation. In some countries such as Israel, Norway, Singapore, and Switzerland, reservists are conscripted soldiers who are called up for training and service when necessary.
[UK]
All three branches of the British Armed Forces have volunteer reserves. Reservists hold civilian jobs and train on a stipulated number of weekends monthly. They are generally assigned to an administrative corps or specialist trade according to their occupations and location in the country.
Dictionary definition:
reservist
rÉŞËzÉËvÉŞst/
noun
noun: reservist; plural noun: reservists
a member of the military reserve forces.
Popular soshul meja definition;
Whatever suits someoneâs argument to be an Internet hard man.
Slightly off tack I know, but watching âGoing Postalâ on the telebox there were a couple of lines from an exchange between 2 characters worth noting -
Pump 19 âWe volunteeredâ
Adora Dearheart âThat is the worst kind of exploitation!â
Just putting it out there, just because its from fiction doesnât mean it isnât true.
Hippo new year everyone 
2 Likes
Wording blah blah blah.
We cannot consider ourselves to be equal of the real reserve forces. We complete no MATTs, have zero fitness requirement and only command a few adults and mostly children.
Wording does become quite important when it comes to the legal aspects of these things though.
Who said VRT officers were equal to those who are deployable?
Two different things. Both are members of the reserve forces like it or not. For now.
2 Likes
You are conflating facts with your opinion. From a legal perspective, your points are - no offence - immaterial. What matters here is the legal perspective; your opinion is your own, and youâre quite entitled to it (even if it is factually incorrect).
s2 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 (RFA96) specifies who is a member of the Reserve Forces. ATC and CCF(RAF) Officers are - currently - commissioned into the RAFVR Training Branch (one of several branches). The RAFVR is a âdivisionâ (in the wording of Schedule 8 to RFA96) of the Royal (since 1997) Air Force Reserve (RAFR). The members of the RAFR are - according to s2 of RFA96 - therefore members of the Reserve Forces; ie reservists.
Being a reservist has nothing to do with call out or annual training liability, indeed RFA96 makes specific provision to exempt RAFVR(T) and TA (as was) General List B (ie CCF(A) and ACF) Officers from both. Being a reservist is simply about being - legally - a member of the Reserve Forces âŚand, from the MOD perspective, that is the whole point of the Cadet Forces Commission; so that we are no longer - legally - reservists, and all that entails.
So, to say âCFAVs are not reservistsâ is utterly missing the point (as well as incorrect, in the commissioned case). The MOD would not be jumping through the hoops it is - and a tremendous rush (why?) - to introduce the CF Commission, were it not for this issue (can you imagine how much the staff work is costing?!). All has been well enough for the past 75 years (in the case of the ATC) for its Offrs to be commissioned into the RAFVR and therefore reservists; to have the level of activity on this matter that we have had for the past 4-5yrs, something(s) have changed, and those things are (a) employment law, (b) the reservist offer, and Š the willingness of what we now call CFAVs to use - properly or improperly - the HR/Service Complaint system.
I believe that the MOD is - rightly - terrified that someone will launch (and probably win) a legal case in respect of commissioned - and possibly all remunerated - CFAVs legally being employees, and not volunteers; opening up the possibility of their having to pay - retrospectively - all that that entails, to all of those entitled. Thus the push towards the CF Commission, and probably also the rush to implement. The cost of the staff work will be less than the cost of a successful legal challenge (BTW, I am not suggesting that such a thing would be appropriate; but someone is clearly exercising the legal eagles at Head Office).
I make no judgement on your opinion, you are as fully entitled to it as I am to mine; but I happen - based on the facts - to disagree with you. I would simply add that the majority of CF Officers are under not illusions that, despite their being commissioned Officers in the Reserve Forces, their role is a world away from that of the reserves with a call out liability. However, I submit that the majority are also hugely proud of their membership of their respective service, and their commission. That does not equate to thinking that their role is something that it isnât.
Cheers
BTI
11 Likes
Excellent work there@btiactual and much more eloquently put than I could.
However, the threat of future legal challenge aside it doesnât absolve of historical cases being sought.
Is this all damage limitation? Stem the tide so to speak?
2 Likes
From a legal background, thereâd be no basis for a legal challenge. People signed up without expectation that theyâd be entitled to reservist offers available now. Although a clarification in position (re cadet force commissions) works both ways.
I suspect the bigger issue is that of employment status. There is potential there for both Offr and WO/SNCO(ATC) / ACF AI cadres to be affected.
I wonât even begin to open the can of worms that is the CCF.
Happy New Year all - itâs going to be an interesting one!
Cheers
BTI
1 Like
I believe you are wrong here. If it can be shown that although they are considered to be volunteers but actually should be listed as employees by various virtues (including remuneration, contract and policies - which we all have) then employee rights exist such as disability or racial discrimination (Armitage v relate1994 in respect of the latter).
Also see Murray vs Citizens Advice Beruea 2004 for a case which parallels can be drawn. In these two situations the cases were live, but could it be shown within the statute of limitations on employment law that someone who used to be involved with the ATC and now isnât by virtue of a protected right (discrimination/laws) or other employee right then a case could be sought - and what BTIactual is alluding to is the MOD getting panicky over it. The change to VRT rights doesnât solve this but it helps as the VRT (and orrs) can take their cases quite far.
The next step will be a change of step with removal of pay and change to âminimum hoursâ I suspect.
1 Like
Does the new CF commission also mean we can transfer to the ACF or SCC and they to the VRT without selection process or being boarded, simply an admin exercise as an CF officer moving from one unit to another?
@FoolsGold Once CF Offrs are appointed to a CF Commission in the ATC or CCF (or perhaps the âAir Cadet ForcesââŚwith dark blue being Sea or Naval Cadet Forces, and the brown jobs being Army Cadet Forces?) WEF 1 Apr (apparently), there will be no further appointments to commissions in the RAFVR(T). The branch wonât be disbanded as such, it will just fall into disuse, like the RAFR(CC). However, no one has yet fully and properly explained how all this will fit with the ATC Royal Warrant, other than âit will be rewrittenâ. Anyone remember the CFM Royal Warrant fiasco a few years ago, when MOD changed the eligibility criteria without reference to the Palace; and HMTQ went vertical?
At the moment, my information is that - despite the original intent of tri-Svc TCOS - there will be differences in appointment process (eg CCF still not needing to attend OASC or Westbury - yet) and possibly even in TCOS.
@Plt_Off_Prune We are definitely in the same frequency! However, the ânewâ Cadet Forces Volunteer Agreements MAY alter this; if it is made a formal requirement for everyone to sign one, either WEF a certain date, or on reengagement. The issue of minimum hours is an interesting one, but the Volunteer Agreement may - going forwards - get around it. Fully agree on the VA issue, as I have already said, I suspect it will become seen as a âgenerousâ daily duty allowance, replacing all other daily rate expenses for uniformed CFAVs. However, the âeligible dutyâ element may disappear with this move; ie its your 28days VA (or 51 if youâre CCF!) claim it for what you want, probably within extant rules on hours on duty etc. HTD would be retained as its reimbursement for travelling expenses. CIs and CAs would - presumably - still be entitled to HTD and F1771 travel.
Cheers
BTI
1 Like