Perhaps this site could become the WIKI for the whole process. If only someone would actually 'fess up and admit the above is true. I fear we could be thread drifting talking about this. I really fear GHE2/his other name getting back into work next week and loggin onto ACC (which he only seems to do at work) and starting a whine-fest detracting from the real crux of the discussion.
It does seem to me that the ATC are often found to be rather disillusioned.
I am looking forward to the CFC to stop all this nonsense.
What exactly do you think it will stop?
Idiots that think they’re regular service personnel will still be in a uniform lording it over others. The wording of their scroll won’t change that.
CCF SSI - required to do the job and be in school and on activities as part of paid role, however paid VA, not holiday pay, no sick pay. Clearly as SSI is not a volunteer role but a job this is completely illegal. Apparently a study done several years ago led to the decision not to give SSIs those rights as it would cost too much.
Only CCF SSIs can claim 51. The rest of us are much more limited…(I got 19 last year!)
I don’t think the introduction of the cadet forces commission is going to help with the feelings the staff have towards the organisation.
I think you are misunderstanding the problems that are being complained about.
@juliet_mike depends on how an SSI is “employed” (note JSP313 says it is a school “appointment”, there is no requirement for them to actually be employed).
The traditional pre-CEP legacy model of employment by the school, plus 51 days VA is now being supplemented under CEP by other arrangements; ie SSIs simply claiming their VA for SSI duties, and not being paid by the school - much more akin to the community CF CFAV model.
I believe that SSIs claiming VA (whether or not being concurrently paid by the school) will also - legally - fall into the MOD employee category. The payment is for work, not expenses.
SSIs are employed by the school and their pay is set by the MOD and is the same whatever the rank. If they were not employed they would not be SSIs they would be a normal CFAV.
Below is taken from an advert for a SSI outlining part of their remunerations:
The position is full-time, based on a 52 week working year with 30 annual leave plus Bank holidays per year, including Bank Holidays. Normal working hours are 37 hours per week, although you may have to work such additional hours, as may be reasonably required by the Academy and to meet the demands of CCF, overnight exercises, camps etc.
The salary is competitive and will be commensurate with qualifications and experience, circa £25,000 pa. In addition the SSI will be able to claim for up 51 paid training days from the MoD.
We do tend to get caught up with the wording of our commission parchment or the ATC Warrant. But the reality is, these can be and will be changed as required by the MOD. You are in denial if you think this cannot be done. TOC can be changed and we have two choices accept the changes and soldier on or leave and volunteer with another Youth Organisation. The choice is ours.
@sarge your quote is from a job ad from a particular school - and that is exactly my point re. CCF SSIs. The terms of their employment/appointment are entirely down to the school; as are their school duties (if they have any) outwith the CCF. Until very recently, there weren’t even any standard TORs for SSIs; there certainly aren’t any in JSP313.
An SSI does not have to be employed by the school. They can be appointed by the school, approved (in the words of JSP313) by the relevant Army Bde; but do not have to be paid by the school. I know personally of several SSIs in CEP schools who are not employed - ie paid - by the school; they simply claim one of their 51 days VA on their SSI day (although they may have other paid duties in the school outside the CCF).
My point is simply this - whether we are talking about a CFAV “proper” (and whether community CF or CCF) or a CCF SSI - the Chaudri case is established legal precedent (the ruling of an Employment Appeal Tribunal) that where payment is made for “work” - ie duties performed - other than reimbursement for expenses; the individual receiving payment is an employee, not a volunteer.
This is 100% the crux of the matter, and is the underlying reason for the introduction of the CF Commission, Volunteer Agreements, and the re-branding of pay as Volunteer Allowance (which it isn’t, legally).
In my view the MOD has moved forward with the CF Commission first because, if it were to come to a court of law, it would be easier for a commissioned CFAV - as a reservist - to establish that they were an employee; and therefore also entitled to the current reservist offer (as a part time employee) under employment law. As a by-product, by taking CF Officers out of the Reserve Forces, it also eliminates Service Complaints.
Logically then, the next step is - as we have discussed - to gradually phase out VA, since it is payment for work, not reimbursement of expenses.
And I think that is the rub, as employees we would have protection or employment law. Terms and conditions cannot be changed by employers without the consent of the employee. If we are in paid employment then there is a whole host of benefits that will come with this status of employed. The only way to find out our true status is an employment tribunal in front of a judge.
Things like the working time directive, rest periods, minimum wage, duty of care plus this like holiday pay and pension rights will all be in the mix. Many of these issues have come about because of the changes in the Reserves. The TAs were never entitles to holidays and pensions. now the VRT are paying the price.
Try and running a summer camp if all staff could only work for 48 hours in a working week?
Also where as before HQAC could hide behind the fact that VRT officers could be told to follow the chain of command you are in the RAF. Most did to a greater or lesser degree. With the advent of the cadet commission and our dubious or non-existent (as with ATC NCOs) military status I feel more will make complaints as “well that is how the military do it” will cut little crust with the future civilian world. Now the disgruntled fell they can take thing to the top for resolution in the future resolutions will be looked for outside of the chain of command.
3.2.5. SSIs. SSIs are employees of the school appointed by the Head, but their appointment
is subject to Army Fmn HQ approval. Should a Bde not support the preferred choice of a
school they should do so in writing giving a full explanation of their reasoning. They will
normally be retired Warrant Officers (WOs) or Senior Non-Commissioned Officers (SNCOs)
@sarge Yes, where the school employs them. There is no REQUIREMENT (sorry to shout, can’t get the italics working) to employ them specified in JSP313; eg it does not say “you must employ an SSI”. The wording is not semantics, and as a result, there are SSIs at CEP schools who are not employed by the school during their SSI duties - they are claiming VA. This is the only viable option for some CEP schools who cannot afford (or do not wish to) employ an SSI.
Remember that JSP313 was written pre-CEP, and has been under re-write for the past 3-4yrs; it is woefully out of touch with events on the ground, and was only written with the legacy CCF model in mind. In many respects it is next to useless for reference when it comes to CEP. I am close to this issue, trust me on it.
I think you’re missing my point. I’m saying the scroll could say you were a teletubby for all it matters, if someone wants to pretend to be someone they aren’t they will. Changing status, commission, whether we are technically reserves or not makes no difference whatsoever.
We are (I suspect) finally getting to the crux of the matter. The mad rush to get people to sign new TOCs is a good indication of this.
If we take the above argument surround employment rights (which in the face of legal precedence is quite weighed in the VRT camp) then the current practise of signing on for another 5 years is a moot exercise. I would conjecture that the recent relaxation of the paperwork process is evidence of this (that being no requirement for the individual to complete formal paperwork, it can be done on a verbal discussion).
Unless you are found of misconduct, given a criminal sentence, die or leave, I suspect there is very little the organisations (inc other orgs) can do to remove current commissions (back to the mad rush to bring this in before people realise).
This also covers the issue of changing contracts and “rights” of the staff force. Legally, it isn’t something which can be done. The government tried it a while ago with the doctors remember and have lost quite a few of the technical points (some continue).
If what is being said regarding employment is correct then SHAME on those above for not having the decency to explain this from the beginning and hiding behind excuses.
Relaxation of paperwork?? My adj got his renewal paperwork just before the Christmas break to complete.
@Plt_Off_Prune - exactly.
The fundamental issue for RAFVR(T) Officers serving with the ATC is that the ATC Royal Warrant specifies that it’s Officers are to be commissioned into the aforementioned. Whether the MOD likes it or not, the Royal Warrant underpins everything; and references the regulations that apply, ie RAFVR(T) TCOS in AP1919. ACP20 does not have the same “force”; our actual TCOS are those extant in AP1919 7th Edn, as referenced in AP3392 Vol 7. The regulations “in so far as they apply”, in the (not quite exact) wording of the Royal Warrant.
BTIActual is entirely correct.
My youngest lad is the Cdt SNCO in his CCF(Army) Section at his former school.
However, the permanent SSI (who was employed directly by the school) retired due to ill health and an ACF Captain arrived to fill the post. The Captain holds a dual commission and is a Major (CCF) who currently commands the Contingent in addition to his ACF and SSI duties. He is not employed directly by the school.
He has recently relinquished the role of SSI and handed over to yet another ACF Captain who is also not directly employed by the school but who draws only VA for the CCF activities she participates in.
If they removed the VA then much of the good will which the ATC relies on to function would disappear. I for one spend much on admin which does not get reimbursed, stamps paper envelopes Wi-Fi all has a cost. There are trips to the sqn which do not attract home to duty like letting in contractors annual RFCA inspections and picking up cadets for activities, each one is a 15 mile round trip. No 3 uniform which I have to purchase out of my own pocket. Much of the AT kit I use I have bought out of the pay I receive. Don’t forget as an officer we only get £22 a year uniform allowance to replace the uniform I wear. this won’t even pay for a new pair of oxfords. Finally the time we all put in outside of a parade night all relies on good will of the volunteer.
Whilst I agree with you, some of those mentioned (like letting in conrtractors) IS claimable. You need to give your WExOs head a wobble. /thread drift.