Which document outlines staff discipline procedure from verbal warnings to written orders etc?
ACP25 (Pers Casework Regs), includes cadet and staff stuff. CFAV stuff is Leaflets 8/9
1 Like
thanks are written orders classed as informal or formal action such as administrative action?
You’ll need to expand on that a bit. It’s not always obvious as a verbal warning contains a written confirmation, for example.
would you mind if I expanded more about it in a private message please.
Sure, as long as you only give anonimised info!
The ACP is worthless anyway. The Regions ignore it and do what they want.
2 Likes
yes I have noticed that
What is the point of RAFAC national rules & regulations if regions seem to be able to ignore them at will?
Or to put it more correctly, in a military based organisation with a hierarchy of command, how are officers able to make up they own rules and conditions?
I’m taking this point more generally than what was referenced above, as I see people making rules that conflict with policy and higher direction all the time, all over the organisation (e.g. dress regs, drill manoeuvres, policies on moving staff around etc).
It reminds me of a chat that needed to be had with a cadet, once upon a time.
If a cadet decided they were going to countermand all of your directions just because they wanted to do their own thing and felt like they’d earned the seniority and right to run the show as they saw fit, we’d course correct pretty quickly and explain how, if nothing else, it undermines their own position if they imply they can deviate from direction at will, when they haven’t been given that latitude.
If they can cut their own detail, why can’t the next rank down when they receive direction they don’t like?
I think unit OCs and SNCOs need to remember that too. Yes we’re volunteers, but a lot of what we’re here to teach is about teamwork, discipline, understanding the detail, and then manoeuvring within a left and right of arc and exercising initiative wisely.
Initiative is ultimately about how we can meet our leader’s intent as best as possible, even though the situation may have changed. It’s not about doing our own thing.
We need to be careful about the example we set, because they’re *always* paying attention.
Followership / leadership is also about holding peers and seniors to gentle account when those rules are broken (correctly, obviously).
4 Likes
new here? /j
feels at times that we’ve got more squadronisms, wingisms and regionisms than actual policy…
That was a big fight that TK had and one of his more positive focuses, but there’s still more work to be done.
2 Likes
A lot of it comes from making the Groupies the DDH for their Region, they work on the principle that if they are responsible for their region then that extends to everything.
3 Likes
The biggest issue I have and this post is an example of one is sqn ldrs in the wings. They are the worst at making up their own rules than what hq put out. They end up in the role a long time and are very overly controlling which causes many issues. Obviously I can only speak for my own wing in this regard as others may be different.
who’s TK again?
Tony “I oversaw the 2000 head reduction of CFAV numbers in my 4 year tenure and am selling this as a positive on my LinkedIn” Keeling
3 Likes
10 years ago i would have readily agreed 100% - Sector commanders particularly insisting on X or Y on top of policy/regulation requirements.
it rarely added anything positive, typically restricting eligibility or otherwise and always adding more/different effort for the CFAV versus their neighbour under a different CoC
Thread drift, but I think that’s why initiatives such as the Dress Policy Steering Group are so important. It gives people a legitimate outlet to influence national decisions or seek clarification on the unclear, and thus partially removes “isms” because there’s a way to get an official, national response.
3 Likes