There definitely seems to a number of wings that appear to be doing that as a active policy but there have been some wings HQ that have gone above and beyond what they need to do.
Ie actively hunting down evidence that a CFAV actually meets the criteria if they didn’t get in on tranche 1 and proactively building appeals for the CFAVS in tranche 2 without requiring them to do anything. With the exception of tranche 3 appeals where they’ve asked for evidence of prior eligible service but have actively contacted anyone not in Tranche 1 or 2 to ask if it applies.
A CFAV on a Sqn somewhere in England Im friends with didn’t get on the tranche 1 list as not enough CFAV service.
They decided they wouldn’t appeal as they thought it would be impossible to get evidence from over 18 cadet service from the early 2000s so didn’t do anything.
A few weeks later they got an email out of the blue saying that an appeal had gone in and was supported for them to be awarded it and that the WHQ had found all the evidence required to get them over the limit. All without the CFAV doing anything. Big issue is that there is no consistency throughout the corps.
What this needed was one person driving it at HQRAFAC; a volunteer would have been fine as a temporary secondary duty. With HQRAFAC’s authority, they could have set the process for Regions/Wgs to follow and communicated that to everyone. They could also have chased up any dithering sub HQs and acted as the focal point for everything.
Nope not lawful as you cannot replace a paid role/task with a volunteer. Volunteers can help coordinate it l, but you couldn’t use a volunteer to do a paid staff persons job.
It causes all sorts of issues with unions, employment law & when any redundancies are muted.
It doesn’t need to be a paid role/task. It’s something that the HQ needs to do, anyone could do it. After all, we have volunteers doing other pan-RAFAC roles for the HQ and nobody bangs on the Unions’ door.
If someone is appointed by an HQ to do a certain job, they then do that job and all that comes with it, with the authority of the senior person in that HQ. This is (or should have been) an additional task and we all know that HQRAFAC can’t cope with normal jogging, let alone anything extra.
Same way things have always been got away with it - no one challenging and not asking questions until something goes wrong or there is a legal action.
I would summarise that as they have a paid digital team then the work is defined as either too complex or unfunded as in not in the scope of the paid team. They may also still be working on the old basis of CFAVs are reserve forces rather than pure volunteers. Assuming that the volunteers are not receiving any form of payment inc VA.
Volunteer Law is complex & it’s been frequently said that the organisation doesn’t understand volunteer management.
If it’s a critical task that must be done then it can form part of someone’s role and make the difference between a role being redundant and still needed.
Following on from the HQ announcement that WHQs have the list of eligible CFAVs, did those wings ever release them or was the glimmer of hope that they’d do the right thing in a timely manner misplaced?
The DIN dosent mention anything about the RAF VR(T). I wonder did somebody some where forget that the AEF pilots are still VR(T) and therefore don’t fall under the wording of the DIN for Cadet Force personal and they also don’t meet the reservists criteria as they dont get Certificates of Efficiency’s.
Pretty sure they would be covered under “Uniformed Cadet Force Adult Volunteers of the MOD sponsored Cadet Forces”
The DIN doesn’t specify that officers in that category much hold a cadet forces commission and in every other way they are treated as CFAVs
