:worthy: I’ve recently failed OASC because of a speech impediment due to illness. It makes sound un confident supposedly.
Do you get to go back and have another go?
Don’t let it dishearten you.
If your allowed to try again, then go away build your confidence, maybe seek help for it.
Then, prepare. And retry. And smash it.
Was that the only reason they gave?
I do hope that all efforts were made to make ‘reasonable adjustment’ to the assessment/role in line with your disability, I’m guessing from you posting here that they weren’t?
Or is there more to it?
Well that’s one in the eye for equality and diversity, or maybe OASC have immunity from such things.
The irony is that you have probably been carrying out an instructional role, organisaing/doing things and talking to people and it’s not been a problem.
Is this an instance of OASC needing to get their head around the real world experience of staff in the ATC and what we do.
What is funny is that two members of our board at work have stammers. Hasn’t stopped them getting 6 figure salaries in competitive business world, yet it seems they wouldn’t get through OASC to carry out a hobby.
Blimey we are quick to jump on any bandwagon aren’t we.
We don’t know the circumstances and nor should we. This is an incredibly sensitive and personal issue which will need to be looked at locally with the posters CoC. If OASC have been unduly harsh then an appeal can be made.
We have to take into account the OPs post. Is it a question or a statement? Why? What’s the point behind it? What are they trying to achieve? Is it real?
Were they made aware of the condition beforehand?
Should it matter?
We are led to believe these are professionals at OASC, so advance notice shouldn’t be required. I thought one of the RAF’s buzzwords was Adapt!!
Should it matter?
We are led to believe these are professionals at OASC, so advance notice shouldn’t be required. I thought one of the RAF’s buzzwords was Adapt!![/quote]
It’s a bit difficult to make a reasonable adjustment if you don’t know one is necessary.
Should it matter?
We are led to believe these are professionals at OASC, so advance notice shouldn’t be required. I thought one of the RAF’s buzzwords was Adapt!![/quote]
Well yes, it should matter. If the OP had a speech impediment that made them sound not confident, how would the assessors that it was the condition that was the issue, not their confidence? This is important when confidence is part of the assessment criteria!
I would have thought a speech impediment would be easy to spot from the outset.
If this is why they have been binned, it is shocking.
There is a blanket exemption from the Equality Act 2010 for the Armed Forces in the interests of operational effectiveness, and as VR(T) Officers form part of the RAFR, that exemption applies (if the RAF wants it to). The definition of operational effectiveness is at the discretion of the MOD/RAF.
However, since WOs & SNCOs are (legally) uniformed civilians in the ATC, and are not part of the RAFR, there is no legal exemption for them from the provisions of the Equality Act. I don’t think this has gone un-noticed by HQAC in the recent TCOS review, and is one more reason why the duty rumour is that VR(T) service is being considered for these cadres.
To be controversial, whilst I have every sympathy with the OP, the RAF has its reputational image to consider (which is also why the VR(T) OASC process originally also included a fitness test).
Standing by for incoming!
Cheers
BTI
It’s a pretty flimsy argument for getting SNCOs in the VR(T) just to avoid provisions of the Equality Act. If this is part of the thinking, our SLT really do need to get out more.
While I can understand the need to be able to deter some from operational duties, the last time I looked the VR(T) do not have any call-up requirement, so using their opt out from the Equality Act as a sort get out of jail free card, is pretty shallow and not becoming of professionals.
Cant see that happening. My money is on a cadet commision.
BTI: I believe the exemption you mention is not a blanket ban as you state.
The wording is at Schedule 3, Part 1, para 4 of the Equality Act 2010, it makes specific reference to ‘combat effectiveness’ not ‘operational effectiveness’. I am unable to see how the MOD would ever be able to relate ‘combat effectiveness’ to any part of a CFAVs service.
As a caveat, there may be additional sections in the act that I am not aware of and you may be entirely correct.
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=16764]I would have thought a speech impediment would be easy to spot from the outset.
If this is why they have been binned, it is shocking.[/quote]
That really depends on the nature of the impediment.
A speech impediment may also not meet the definition of a disability under the Equality Act. To meet it, it must have a substantial and long-term negative effect on your ability to do normal daily activities.
As I don’t know the severity of your condition, I can’t tell you that you have been discriminated against and whether or not you have a legitimate complaint. Your GP or consultant will normally let you know if they believe your condition meets the definition of a disability under the act. If this is the case, take independent legal advice, I’m sure once a solicitor mentions the ‘D’ word to the MOD, all will fall into place.
I’m also firmly of the opinion that the onus would be on you to make the MOD aware of your disability. Having not been through the application process personally, I don’t know if at any stage you are given an opportunity to do this. i.e. a question on the application form that states ‘Do you have any condition and/or disability which might require us to make special arrangements/adjustment to support you in your application?’ If you failed to mention anything here and your disability isn’t immediately obvious upon meeting you, then I reckon you wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.
However all of this rests on your condition fulfilling the legal definition of a disability…… and if it doesn’t, then unfortunately you will have to live with the boards decision and perhaps apply again when you are in a better place.
Apologies if this post sounds negative, I mean it to be entirely constructive in nature.
[quote=“talon” post=16788][quote=“glass half empty 2” post=16764]I would have thought a speech impediment would be easy to spot from the outset.
If this is why they have been binned, it is shocking.[/quote]
That really depends on the nature of the impediment.[/quote]
You would need to be getting into pretty major neurological problems, before it would become a real hinderance.
I think there’s more to this and they have used this as an excuse, rather than a reason. I know it’s shocking to say this, but selection processes (even OASC et al) are by their very nature, (unless they are based soley on specific things that can be measured empirically) arbitrary, subjective and inconsistent affairs and subject to human frailties and prejudices.
I think the expectation should have been set by the OP’s CoC - not least the Wing Board.
The question of whether it is serious enough to qualify as a disability can be found here: http://www.stammeringlaw.org.uk/disability/disab.htm
It would be interesting to know whether the OP would still be allowed into VR(T) Uniform if they were in the CCF - them not having to do OASC and all… :whistle: