VR(T) Commission Change


#667

Prune, don’t be AN IDIOT all your life - take a day off. Today would be good. The question is a rhetorical one (if you don’t know what rhetorical means, look it up).


#668

They Could say "You are officers in the RAF, Do as your told and um …aaa … Don’t be in the RAF any more and to sort this mess about being employed out won’t pay erm … VA you any money just to make things legal.


#669

I think mines up first, Dec 17
I will let you know what happens :wink:


#670

I was originally supporting your argument about mid term change of service. But being a grunt I expect you wouldn’t have realised that. Muppet.


#671

This has really got me thinking now…

In both the above ET and EAT cases, the claimants were ACF AIs - and therefore not subject to Service Law, since they are not reservists.

Commissioned CFAVs are - currently, as reservists - subject to Service Law & QRs when on duty, and you have to be on duty (and thus subject to Service Law & QRs) to be “paid”. In the cases in question, there was no mutuality of obligation because of the “if” question; they were paid if they did the work, and if there was eligible work they would be paid (is how I read it). The ACF AIs in question could not be sanctioned if they did not perform the work, even if they had already committed to it - they simply would not be paid.

How does Officers being subject to Service Law when on duty under the Armed Forces Act 2006, and QRs affect mutuality of obligation? Could the liability/fact that one could - legally - be disciplined (up to and including CM) create a mutuality of obligation, once remunerated work is offered and or performed under these conditions?

I wonder if the definition of when one is on duty - and thus when subject to Service Law & QRs - is vague enough to create an obligation (through being subject to the possible sanctions of Service Law once work has commenced - ie, once started, must finish) duty of care etc. demands, for example, that an OIC/Activity Cdr cannot simply walk away from an activity once commenced, and a serious breach would mean a sanction (in extremis, potentially under Service Law/QRs) …so, when on paid duty therefore, do the TCOS of commissioned officers - through a reservist legal status, subject to Service Law/QRs when on duty - create a mutuality of obligation?

Have there been any ET or EAT judgement where the claimant is a commissioned Officer?

If this is the crux of the matter, VA is safe when we’re “commissioned civvies” under the CFC, since we will not be a reservist/subject to Service Law & QRs; thus no mutuality of obligation, thus no status of employment.


#672

When talking about discharge from duty in between sign-on periods:

Reserve Forces Act 1996

16 Entitlement to discharge.

(1)Any man of a reserve force shall (subject to the provisions of this Act) be entitled to be discharged on the expiry of his current term of service.

(2)Any enlisted man of a reserve force shall (subject to the provisions of this Act) be entitled to be discharged—

(a)before the end of his current term of service, on complying with the conditions mentioned in subsection (4); and

(b)in such other circumstances as may be prescribed.

(3)Subsection (2) shall also apply to any man of a reserve force who re-engages in the force; but in the case of a man who—

(a)is serving on transfer to the reserve from the regular services, and

(b)re-engages before the end of his term of compulsory service,

paragraph (a) of that subsection shall not apply until after the end of his term of compulsory service.

(4)The conditions for entitlement to discharge under subsection (2)(a) are that the man concerned—

(a)gives to his commanding officer 3 months’ notice in writing, or such less notice as may be prescribed, of his desire to be discharged; and

(b)delivers up in good order, fair wear and tear excepted, all arms, clothing and other public property issued to him, or, in cases where for any good or sufficient cause the delivery of that property is impossible, paying its value,

but his commanding officer may, if it appears that the reasons for which the discharge is claimed are of sufficient urgency or weight, dispense either wholly or in part with either or both of the above conditions.

(5)A man of a reserve force who becomes entitled to be discharged shall be discharged in such manner as may be prescribed with all convenient speed (and shall continue as a man of that force until actually discharged).


#673

Is this not about entitlement to discharge, as opposed to any rights “not to be discharged”?

Also confirms discharge by “relinquishment” of commission, on expiry of a term of service (ie not reengaging) …not sure if this creates any right not to be discharged.


#674

Also states

15 Discharge by commanding officer.

(1)A commanding officer may discharge any man of a reserve force under his command, in such manner and on such grounds as may be prescribed.

(2)A man discharged by his commanding officer may appeal to the Defence Council, who may give such directions in his case (including a direction annulling the discharge) as they consider appropriate.

Which basically puts the responsibility back onto the local regs for the ACO.


#675

But in all honesty I would suppose that HQAC would like to keep some staff even though they may want to get rid of all of us. An ACO run by NCOs, you know it could work…


#676

To me, your comments seemed to carry a derogatory tone. However, in the spirit of the New Year, I’ll apologise if you considered your tone to be of a supporting nature.

In future, try not to sound like the Swedish chef :grin:.


#677

Good man. Have a :sunglasses: emoticon on me.

Swedish meatballs.


#678

WTD but they would review the activity as well


#679

Apparently the revised date for introduction is 1 October 17


#680

Interesting. Suggests lots of work/checks/advice required until then. No planning needed as up until April, it was “ready to go” so something else must be holding it back…

Perhaps a formal hearing in a legal establishment? Who knows.


#681

I’d bet money there won’t be an explanation on RCN’s open about this question and stinted answer page.
It shouldn’t need a question from someone.


#682

Well, it’s time to say goodbye. My NEP finishes tomorrow, life changes, organisation changes (for the worse) and no drive to return to a Sqn (or contact from my old Sqn) have made me see that it is time to move on from the ATC.

The past 24 years, man and boy have been dotted with some fantastic highlights, memorable names of those who I have seen develop and grow over time, but also increasingly, with lack of direction, poor decision making, lack of communication and disconnect from those at the front line.

The forums here have always been a source of information, advice and humour and I wish all of you who continue to deliver the cadet experience all the best (especially in light of future change in the organisation) and good luck.


#683

I wish you the best for the next endeavour!

In the bigger picture, it’s now more than anecdotal evidence of the new commission resulting in losses of personnel. I can name two people in a local Wing who have resigned their commission over the change. And for those that say ‘they were in it for the wrong reasons’…maybe they were, but I can think of much tangible benefit they brought to the organisation, and have worked with both on activities that otherwise wouldn’t have run. One of the chaps was a Sqn Cdr. These are people we can ill afford to lose - they cited the handling of the matter as their rationale, rather than the change in status. I do hope two people in one Wing is not a representative snapshot of how things are across the rest of the organisation.


#684

Sadly I think it is representative. Perhaps underrepresenting what’s going on.

In other news: not RAFAC now until 1/10


#685

My sector - not overly resplendent with uniformed staff - lost two VR(T) within two months or so of this debacle hitting the road. Another has said that he won’t be renewing when his term comes up in October.

I have a slight suspicion that one of the ones who went was, in probably a small part, motivated by the change of status, but the other two don’t appear to give a monkeys about the commission per se their grump is the way it’s been done.

We’re heading towards running on empty now, 3 VR(T) is just less than a third of our sector Officer strength and we’ve only got 5 SNCO (ATC) - this is then compounded by our geographic location, we’re quite spread out and we’re miles and miles from the next nearest units.

I have a feeling that one of the units will fold.


#686

Is that the date that officers will begin to be commissioned into the CFC structure or is it when all existing VR(T) also transfer over?

We haven’t yet been briefed on our side of the fence.