Do not sign anything. Some of this these trumped up ‘Officers’ (deliberate use of the inverted commas) think they are Gods. This is a volunteer organisation, if this CO wants to go down the interview route then request a witness and the terms of reference / job / duty description which you are being assessed against. Forgot to add similar thing happened to me and as a senior civil servant (MOD) I waited to see what process they would adopt. I challenged the process and when I told them I requested a witness at my MOD grade they started to back pedal. Decided to leave anyway as many of the Officers are hopeless and I told them where they could stick it.
Sticking my two bob’s worth in here, the reaction from many of the commenters feels more over the top than the situation may have been.
You’re criticising the OC without much context or background. Maybe the CI was in the wrong, maybe they weren’t as they claim to be. Maybe the OC has been in post a grand total of 5 minutes and is just trying to do their best but you all seem quite intent on hauling them over the coals (even if they’ve not been properly taught as a lot of people in the organisation aren’t).
From what I can read in the original post, it looks like backside covering from the OC. If the record is incorrect then the CI needs to address this and then just ask plainly and simply what happens next.
For something that at first glance looks low level and dealt with quickly and easily, is there much need at this stage to get everyone from a senior officer to CAC involved? We’re all volunteers here and trying our best but it looks like some people are intent on pushing out anyone that makes a mistake.
The last sentence is forgotten or not even considered.
If the OC is a young man/woman stuck into the job without the necessary support then should we expect any less? But should they be going down this route without consulting someone? If they have and the person they consulted said do this, they should be kicked out the Corps for being a complete idiot. The organisation struggles to recruit staff in any way and something like this could see someone thinking “do I really need this after crappy day at work?” Even as an OC do you want the aggro of mainly your own doing. There’s enough BS and ordinary stuff to do, without something like this.
As for getting someone senior involved unless I missed something, the whole point of the CFC was to remove the complaints process by making the highest level HQAC’s group of ex-RAF types, sitting pretty in jobs for life with no accountability to us, who I wouldn’t trust to make a decision about milk and sugar. A staff AGM where we can hold them to account would be an interesting thing to do, especially if we got the option to vote them out. I’ve seen the fall out of company AGMs, which has seen votes of no confidence in board members.
I know of a squadron that was told on a Monday that it was co-locating four miles away, the move happened a week later, no discussion about alternative ideas, no CWC input to the new OC, which should have happened as per ACP 11, one letter for the parents giving a totally spurious timescale of two and half months from that Monday.
Region and wing totally focussed on the ove to the exclusion of all else, claimed that cadet numbers ws the problm, but if they had had 25-30 cadets then there would not have been a problem, just that RFCA had established a school CCF RAF a mile away, rightin the middle of the squadons main recuiting area. Wing staff knew and said nothing as far as I am aware of the CCF units existance and they actually supported the unit.
The organisation is a farce.
Bloody hell… This seems to have escalated quickly!
Lots of assumptions being made and the suggestions to just “give up” and “bin it” because “fighting it is not worth it” are, in my opinion, a little premature to say the least!
The fact that the event has not sparked an administrative or disciplinary action means that it is relatively minor.
Perhaps it’s something which could simply have been fixed with a “this is where you went wrong” chat but the OC could be a touch officious; or perhaps inexperienced and they mistakenly believe that they are handling it the “appropriate” way.
Maybe it is something which does warrant an informal interview.
Either way it is fair to expect the CI to be given the full picture. in which case the first advice given by Big_g is of course the best action to take - speak to the OC.
A simple “I don’t really understand what happens now, and I don’t agree with the statement here” should [hopefully] gain the explanation required.
No need to start throwing resignations and redress of grievance around yet. This might all be a storm in a teacup.
In what way is it OTT?
Have a chat, make a record of the fact. If everyone agrees then all sorted.
Obviously here the CI doesn’t agree with what’s been said, which is fine - that’s the point of getting everyone to agree.
Why make a record?
This is where it takes a sinister turn.
An informal chat is just that, a chat. You wouldn’t expect it to be noted, written down or anything like that.
If your manager just called you in for a chat and then said it was being recorded and gave you a script, you would be suspicious that something else was going on.
Either the CI has done something seriously wrong in which case it should have been told and dealt with it there and then, not the next parade or next week. This is something and nothing. Interestingly the words ‘timescale’ and ‘improvement’ would suggest a competency procedure, which as far as I’m aware is something the Corps doesn’t have or if it does it isn’t anything like you see at work.
In most professional organisations even informal management advice is recorded. It’s always about having an audit trail so that if behaviour or practices continue or escalate their is a record that the individual has already been given training/guidance.
At that point the employee has the right to stop it and request that they have time to speak to a representative or an other.
Fun input - years ago, as an instructor at DIOT, the baby officers used to have to partake of a week in the Office Simulator.
As part of a major upgrade (bringing the exercise inputs up to date, standardising the work load / flow, etc), the practice interviews were also enhanced, so that everyone had to conduct one disciplinary interview & one compassionate one; all interviews were observed by all the officer cadets in their syndicate (8 - 10 cadets) so that by the end of the week, they had seen a good number of interviews, with good & bad points covered, & hopefully corrected. Prior to this, most points of MAFL had been covered, along with work “relationship” aspects of officers towards airmen / airwomen, SNCOs, etc.
The staff played the role of interviewees. For one “disciplinary” interview, I was SAC Smiff, appropriate rank slides & scruffy beret, with a background of poor money management / debt. Cadet Flt Lt Jones called me in & proceeded to give me a good talking to, but without finding out any background facts / mitigating circumstances. Indignant SAC Smiff (me) then announced that as Cadet Flt Lt Jones had clearly made up his mind, he was going back to his other duties & stood up…
Like a striking cobra, Cadet Flt Lt Jones jumped up & pushed me back into the chair. “Oooh, ouch, that hurt” I announced. No sympathy, the telling off continued, then eventually I was dismissed.
Quick call to my mate, OC Plod. Five mins later, 2 RAFP + dog entered the building, located Cadet Flt Lt Jones & arrested him for assault, on went the handcuffs! Wide eyes all round, Cadet Flt Lt Jones went white. I let him stew (in close proximity to the dog) for about 5 mins, then permitted his release.
Best training example ever - they all learned that under no circumstances, unless in self-defence, officers should not touch airmen!