Literally the first decision on the ET judgments website if you search for Air Cadets, is a 2019 decision where a VR(T) officer claimed they were an employee, and lost.
Mr S Mayoh Smith v The Ministry of Defence: 3307354/2018 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
2 Likes
When I was an Adult Instructor (the term CFAV didn’t exist at the time) with the ACF in the 1990s, I had a contract of employment from the Secretary of State for Defence (Michael Portillo at the time) and received a daily rate of pay, via pay parades, detailed on a payslip. It wasn’t referred as VA until several years later.
2 Likes
People need to get over this VRT thing…
13 Likes
Agreed - VR(T) is long dead by now and we need to move on
However… I still want the twiddly pins back (even as RAFAC) as opposed to the awful officer rank slides we have at present… Especially as they’re deemed private purchase by the powers that be 
4 Likes
Especially as it’s fine on 1’s and 5’s
1 Like
Apart from VR(T) Memes.
1 Like
From a cadet’s point of view, I can tell you that I have found this forum to be everything but negative. I initially came here in search of shoe polishing, badge sewing, general uniform care advice, along with camp tips, PTS tips etc, which is what I’d imagine most newer cdts would also be searching for, and indeed do. Not only does this show their own initiative, trying to be more independent with information finding rather than the usual ‘ask sqn staff/Cdt ncos’, but also shoes them how much of a community there is regarding RAFAC. It was only after a few years, when I got more invested in the wider RAFAC sphere that I went into the more ‘grown up’ threads, and these only served in keeping me more informed. Certainly they highlighted some of the shortcomings of the organisation, but this still wants the forum being negative, just allowing cdts and volunteers to talk about something they value very much. Now I obviously can’t talk from a cfav point of view, but surely this forum would just make them aware of the issues RAFAC is facing. If they came to be a cfav expecting to have a lovely swan about in the park, and not deal with anything stressful or challenging, then would they really be the most committed volunteers? I know that the staff I have met on sqn, and come to know well definitely put up with all sorts of bull poo, but they dont get pushed away, aslong as the bull poo stays to a reasonable level. In short I think this forum is pretty brilliant. There may be many reasons for cfav and Cdt declining numbers and poor recruitment, but I doubt this forum plays a major role in it.
11 Likes
Except for pilots.
1 Like
Your new backed rank slides look so much better.
But the idea your rank slides should be private purchase is stupid. You do everything for free. The least they can do is pay for your work clothing.
We get one lonely pair that we can technically wear on all uniforms.
But changing colours to match is so much better 
I’ve had to buy all mine
1 Like
Oooo we are entitled to one light blue set issued (at the rank your in - so you should also get them if your promoted)
Wonder if your wing just has a pile somewhere 
And that’ll do for rank slides and VRT chat please.
2 Likes
Well this is awkward. I knew of this Officer… Wondered what happened to him since I left the corps.
1 Like
Please feel free to search Google for employment cases.
Some will have been settled, in which case the details are available through a Freedom of Information Act request.
As already stated, I said the majority. I am pleased that you have had good experiences, but that does not reflect the majority. Just look at the current state of things.
Asking for specific incidents is intentionally obtuse, especially as that will expose the individuals concerned. In many cases, if you file a Freedom of Information Act request and seek details of grievances, they won’t give you the specifics and will avoid answering, but eventually, they have to tell you.
The VR(T) gave rights and protections under the Armed Forces legislation.
Legal protections such as employee protection in the event of being sued personally for negligence, which, as it stands now, means a CFAV who forgets a first aid kit, acts outside the scope of a risk assessment or simply makes a mistake as a human is at risk of losing their home and/or other assets as they can be sued personally.
CFAVs were always salaried, hence the parity with service pay, the issue of pay slips in accordance with UK law, and the issue of P60 and P45 at the end of service.
Per UK employment law, before December 2017, CFAV’s were employees within the meaning of the guidelines laid down by the UK courts from Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions to the updated case law. This is in addition to the guidelines of HMRC.
Do a Freedom of Information Act request, and keep doing so until you get full answers, as they will avoid complying initially until you show determination.
I stated the majority. Gone are the days of dedicated former senior officers who did so because they believed in the RAFAC’s aims.
You can ignore the facts and manipulate the details, but that doesn’t mean it is untrue. Do you own FOI requests? Unless, of course, you are actually HQAC staff or regional/wing permanent, in which case the information is already available.
I thought we were meant to be decreasing the number of FOI requests?
You’re talking absolute rubbish, with no proof or evidence, ignoring someone who literally posted proof of you being wrong.
You are not only now factually incorrect, you’re doubling down on it and overtly making things up.
You are the reason a) CFAVs get tarred with the same brush and b) this site gets a reputation. We need to make it clear we’re not all like this.
13 Likes
I did. There’s multiple ET cases from RAFAC snd ACF CFAV all being thrown out as they fail to meet the definition of employee.