Is this Fair?

[ExFJ85]

Ok first of all I've obviously had some bad news recently...

Does anyone know where I stand 'legally' in terms of rights of appeal - ive obviously been made redundant despite committing to the Air Force, yet ive heard of some Chinook Pilots at Odiham who have PVR'd early and are having to take legal action to get out! How can the Air Force have it both ways? Surely I must have a right of appeal or some sort of legal leg to stand on, can anybody help?

[ExFJ85]

No harm intended with my post. I know loads of us are in the same boat, its terrible for us all. I just wanted some friendly advice thats all.

[LongTimeInCX]

Mate, good legal advice would be one of the better places to start, but check out those with a good track record in that particular specialisation.

Clearly the outcome is extremely important to you, and more so from a temporal point of view given the aspect of continuity with flying training. However you should remember the legal brains you may choose to represent you, will get paid whether you win or lose, hence the caveat of getting GOOD legal advice.

As other posters have implied, you are in the top part of society with brains, apptitude and I assume youth on your side, so whilst the dream may slip from your grasp, the other opportunities for bright young men are many, varied and in certain fields - ultimately very rewarding.

If you really want to stay flying, you could consider moving to Oz and look at the RAAF, I hear F18/35's are going to need crewing.

Look forward not back, and good luck,

[FFP]

How do you know you've been made redundant already ?

[Dan Winterland]

UK employment law is fairly well entrenched and fairly objective, although it is open to a certain amount of interpretation. I went through a redundancy a few years ago and managed to get better terms as a result of a little research and being foreceful with my claims. But here are a few pointers.

First, the redundancy process has to take a period of time - usually three months. Although the law accepts that paying three months of pay instead is acceptable if the decision is that the redundancy is inevitable. Second, an individual is not made redundant. His job is. Therefore, someone can't be told to go and another moved into his place - which is why some pilots on some fleets may be OK. Third, the selection of candidates must be fair and follow laid down criteria such as 'Last In First Out' - although this in itself is not necessarily a selection process.

It's complex and if you feel you want to have a protest, you should seek legal advice rather than soliciting opinions here. But the MoD are no different to any employer and have to follow the law.

[sturb199]

Er the fact your a fast jet jockey and not a helicopter chap, must make it clear why its happening in just the same way they got shot of bean counters and kept the caterers!! Sorry old chap its they way of the world.

[jed_thrust]

This is not to belittle your current position, or your feelings, but a move downunder probably needs to be on your list of possibilities.


It's been done many times before, admittedly by dark blue mostly. In the 70s, when Ark Royal no 4 was scuttled, many FJ guys went to the RAN. In the early 80s, when the HMAS Melbourne met the same fate, many Aussies ended up flying the (mighty) Shar.

The RAAF is certainly short of crews for the forseeable future...


I heard on the grapevine that the amount saved on the defence force cuts would be 0.1% of the total NHS budget! It may be a rumour, of course, but even if it is close to being true, it just shows how pollies will always be pollies, no matter what side of the fence they're on.

Good luck.

[alisoncc]

The Air Force doesn't change. At least you may get some form of redundancy payout. Not so 40 odd years ago. They kicked me out and I had to pay them.

I had no intention of purchasing my discharge when I was up in front of the flight commander for some minor infringement in 1968. Never even entered my mind. I am quite sure that he raised it as a suggestion, and I must have nodded or something because next minute he had the application forms out of his desk drawer and ready to go. I was aware that it was considered insubordination if a person attempted to back out once it was being "discussed". So I was trapped. Two weeks later I was out, on the dole in Hull in the middle of Winter. Not a happy person at all.

Sometimes wonder whether he didn't have a "quota" of "redundancies" to meet. Wouldn't surprise me.

[Hachet Harry]

Two weeks later I was out, on the dole in Hull in the middle of Winter.

Mate, you have my every sympathy. Hull huh? That sucks!

[Wrathmonk]

To play devils advocate, if the MoD really wanted to play 'hardball' it could just change the wording for all those being forced out from the flying training system as "failed to meet required standard" [the goalposts move all the time, cutbacks or not]. That way, like the hundreds before you that were "chopped" (despite committing to the Air Force (your words)), the MoD have not had to pay a penny in compensation/redundancy (AFAIK) or even provide any sort of resettlement training.

Be very careful before taking legal action - as I think has been said on other threads the 'no win no fee' chaps will stay well clear so you could end up losing what little redundancy payments are on offer (plus probably a bit more) paying a lawyer to fight your battle. There are a lot of lawyers on this site - but you'll notice none of them are offering advice for free ;)

Good luck in whatever path you follow.

[sarboy w****r]

ExFJ85,

I'm very sorry to hear of your troubles, it can't be any fun at all. In answer to your question, and to reiterate what others have said, there's no point asking for unqualified opinions such as those you will see being bandied around PPrune, however well-intentioned they may be; such opinions are not going to dig you out of the hole you find yourself in at the moment.

When I was looking to leave, I looked long and hard at the law as it stood (I believe the relevant statute is the Employment Rights Act 1996, but I believe it has been amended since then). When you do so (use Google), you will notice that the military is exempt from large parts of the Act - so beware people quoting rights that exist for civilians and saying that this is what you're entitled to, because these supposed 'rights' may or may not apply to you. Fair? No. Legal? Yes. Which is particularly galling if you find that the law appears to favour the military and seems to go against natural justice, but sadly that is the way of the world.

I know a number of lawyers personally, and I know of none that will take on military personnel disputing employment issues, mainly because the military can often change the rules as it sees fit, c.f. royal perogative. Your best bet I think is to consult with a specialist employment solicitor (and I expect that the first consultation may be free). Just think long and hard before committing to a legal process, because like divorces, there is likely to be only one winner in the end. And that's the lawyer.

That said, I know there are sadly a number of you in the same position, so clubbing together to get an initial legal opinion may well be something you may wish to investigate, and if a solicitor feels that your case has some merit then initiating some form of class action may interest them enough to take it on on a no-win no-fee basis. It can't hurt to ask, but ask a professional.

SBW

[Knifester]

As one of those in Pool 1 finding out tomorrow, I've already looked into the RAAF as a possibility, sadly they aren't taking laterals at this moment, and when they do they want fully qualified pilots.

The original poster might stand a chance, but currently they aren't recruiting lateral pilots.

I'm still awaiting a reply from the Canadian Air Force...

[Biggus]

With reference to Wrathmonks earlier comment, I think the RAF would find it difficult to play the "failed to meet the required standard" card, given all that has already been published and released by the RAF, both in internal documents and statements to the media.


There can no doubt that this issue is one of some unfortunate individuals being made redundant, rather than failing during training.

[Lottery Winner]

How do you know you've been made redundant already ?


Yeah ... How? Nobody in the RAF will find out whether or not they have been made (or will be made) redundant until 1 Sep 11.:confused:

[Biggus]

LW,

I'm pretty sure that doesn't apply to the pilots under training. They may not be out of the RAF until Sep 11, I don't know, but I believe they will be selected, or de-selected, about now, and cease flying training.

I believe WSO training has already stopped, and those WSOs that were already in the pipeline have been told something along the lines of they are up for rebranching or redundancy, probably the latter. But my knowledge of that is incomplete.

[frodo_monkey]

Not if you're in the pool of those recently withdrawn from pilot/WSO training!

To add to the sentiments above, the original poster has my sympathy but I would doubt that legal action would succeed. I also question whether the RCAF (or modern equivalent!) or RAAF has any great need for those who aren't already qualified (and by qualified I mean previously CR as opposed to 'wings' etc). That isn't to say that it is all doom and gloom; the airlines from what I can gather (am a WSO myself so no real interest!) are starting to recruit, and the grass may well be greener!

To all those in the pool (from one who has a close interest) good luck :)

[frodo_monkey]

Biggus, great minds!

I believe WSO training has already stopped, and those WSOs that were already in the pipeline have been told something along the lines of they are up for rebranching or redundancy, probably the latter. But my knowledge of that is incomplete.

Wot he said. I have heard figures of around a 30% chance of rebranching...

[Pontius Navigator]

With reference to Wrathmonks earlier comment, I think the RAF would find it difficult to play the "failed to meet the required standard" card,

Regardless of moving goal posts, the training reports would also have to reflect a less than scintillating performance.

[c130jbloke]

I don't see how trying to go the commercial route is going to help these guys either. Assumeing that if still in training, they will have 300 ( max ) hrs, possibly no MCC or other relevant quals. Not exactly attractive to an operator, though if a ME guy was getting the axe it would not be an impossible task to get to a position to put yourself up for a job with a cargo operator.

What a bummer, looks like Maverick really will be flying rubber dog #hit out of Hong Kong :uhoh:

[Wander00]

I remember having a similar argument when an IOT flt cdr in the early 80s. Cadets who failed to meet the standard were to be told they had "failed". My line was that as the RAF selected them and trained them, how could the student then be told (s)he had "failed". The wording was changed to "failed to meet the standard required"

[Wrathmonk]

I agree that given the MOD statements on 'flying training redundancies' they would find it hard to back peddle and just show you the door. However, we have proved year after year that just because there is a course of A* students doesn't mean they will all get what they want. How many pilots have been given a 'single seat rec' at Valley/Tac Wpns only to be posted to the GR1/4 or F3 because there weren't the places on the single seat OCUs (perhaps because the others on the course were better ....) or been streamed to a role/fleet other than that of their wish because that was where the demand for new pilots was? It could be argued that the current situation is no different - places are fewer therefore the number required is less and so only the very best get through (i.e the goalposts move and those who fall by the wayside have 'failed to achieve the required standard').

The point I am making is that those who are being shown the door whilst still under training are, IMHO, "lucky" (and before I'm flamed please note the use of the " ":hmm:) to be offered exit on redundancy terms. There are an awful lot of people who have got much further through the system (including onto squadrons) who, when failing to meet the standard applicable at that time, have been shown the door with liitle more than a "don't forget to hand your watch back". Of course, the flip side to this is there may also be quite a few aircrew on squadrons now who only got through the system because the demand was high and the standards at the time were low!!

As before, good luck in whatever path you choose to follow.

[Talk Reaction]

If the RAF took the line of "failed to meet required standard" then all these chaps would be very happy as it wouldn't take a tribunal long to discover that this was not the case, and they'd be back flying or with a very hefty payout.

Sadly, I'm not sure if there will be any suitable legal course as it's down to service need.

You all are the victims of some terrible decisions by people who are not affected and may have moved on some time ago. The only real positive out of this is those of us lucky enough to be doing the job should feel very lucky (perhaps we haven't of late) and maybe not be so quick to complain.

Good luck to you and all your peers.

[Rude C'man]

****e day today at Cradnitz IOT, 22 Pilots found out theyre not branched Pilot anymore , the same day as Champagne Tues. At least the GC told them all personally their through or not to Pilot. Good luck all.

[SimWes]

Second, an individual is not made redundant. His job is. Therefore, someone can't be told to go and another moved into his place

Beg to differ on that one

My trade encountered similar circumstances many years ago in the 90s when we all were made redundant. One day we wore the Queen’s Uniform, the next day the one of the Company that had taken over the contract. Same job, less money, more grief. How did they get away with it? Change the job description

[The Old Fat One]

Beg to differ on that one



How did they get away with it? Change the job description


Errr, that's you agreeing with what he said.....

As has been said already, many of the young men and women who have been so abruptly short-changed on their dreams will be very high quality candidates for a myriad of other careers. Probably doesn't help much right now, but its a fact. Again, to repeat others, look forwards not back...and don't dwell too long on the rights or wrongs of the process, get on with the rest of your life. Good Luck.

[SimWes]

Second, an individual is not made redundant. His job is. Therefore, someone can't be told to go and another moved into his place

Not really. Our jobs were made redundant one day and the next we came in to do the exact same job. That or some people just went to a different station (as happened with me) to do the same job albeit on a different piece of kit

So in a way the workforce was replaced

As for me, it worked out for the better. Haven’t looked back once! Better life etc

Good luck to all the peeps in that situation

[camelspyyder]

Back to the original question:

No! It's not fair young man, but whatever...

Many of those being made redundant are not in their early 20's, footloose and fancy-free. Many of them have mortgages and children and responsibilities, why do you all think the PPrune community should care any more about some unproven young kids than guys and girls who have already given the Service everything for years on end - and still get dumped on the scrapheap.

If the RAF doesn't owe it's veterans a living, it certainly owes baby pilots :mad: all.

CS

[High_Expect]

Whilst Camel's statement of out current situation is sadly close to the truth, I'd just like to say.

Camel you are a massive bell! These young Officers may not be 'owed' anything but one thing is for certain, I'd rather have any of them on my wing than you. I would say for certain that despite their lack of experience their work ethic is 10 times yours and they are a lot less poisonous to those around them.

Rant off - now where the rest of that bottle.

[The Old Fat One]

How depressing.

One posts in support of the qualities to be found in all RAF Aircrew and then along comes a couple of flyboys intent on demonstrating the reverse to be true.

Get a life.

[ExFJ85]

Thanks for your replies everyone. Obviously a pretty poor time for those involved, I appreciate all your advice - it was a friendly query looking for a bit of help.

Camelspyyder - I think you should take a long hard look at yourself, a totally uncalled for comment. Get a grip and try and show a little bit of respect to the hundreds serving who are having their dreams ruined.

[NutLoose]

I really feel for you all,

For what its worth, I got shafted too, I was at the time I was asked to sign on going for 22 which was offered, but was told by some WO clerk to go for 15 then extend, rules changed and I was screwed... heck I even put in a redress to see the AOC.........you have to see to believe the WO admin..... O/C admin... Staish cr+p and pressure to withdraw my application to see the AOC that was put on me...... (looks bad for the station and those running it)

It took me saying if it was refused / blocked I would walk onto the AOC's parade whilst it was in progress straight up to the guy and tell him why i was there......... got my time in front of him and still was not satisfied, so I told him I was redressing him as he was obviously not in a position to do anything, SWO and Co present nearly fainted.

I then got a letter saying reviewed etc but no, what really pissed me off was the fact i could not take it further and no one in authority had the balls to stand up and tell me to my face.

Do I still regret leaving at the time........... Yes
Did I leave at the right time?............ Yes
At the time Civi street were desperate for engineers and with my RAF career and a lot of self study I am fully licenced and C certed.

Ohhh how I feel for people now being dumped onto a market where fully licenced or type rated ATPL civilian pilots and engineers cannot find enployment, I know the feeling

Would I have taken the same actions again.................. YES
If I was still in and it was going to happen again as it is now.......... would I try to fight it. YES
If this is your dream then fight for it. if you don't you may find you regret not trying in your future life........ It is in your hands, no one elses, "rocking the boat in the RAF" counts for squat once out of those gates ,you only have one chance in life to fight for what you want, so choose wisely, based on your circumstances.... BTW it is illegal to give anyone a bad reference.





As to the civilianising of jobs etc...... you can be made redundant and that job cannot be filled within a set time scale ......... however a different job covering your post but slightly changed and under a different description can be filled

So Chief Bottlewasher

could become Glass bottle recycling and cleansing manager

sucks don't it.

[GrahamO]

Legal it is.

Fairness does not come into it as far as 'fair' means paying attention to personal preferences is concerned.

When a surplus exists within a trade group/skill group, it is up to the employer to decide who stays and who goes, as long as they do not breach any sex or racial discrimination rules. It is not uncommon to have people wishing to leave being refused, and those wishing to stay being asked to leave.

I have no idea of the particular circumstances to which you refer, nor do I need to know, but typically this happens when the group wishing to go have higher long term benefits to the employer and may be expensive to release. They can in industry frequently be the least flexible and a royal PITA which may seem a contradiction but usually is not.

Those wishing to leave are often less experienced, cheaper to release and of relatively replaceable quality. They may also have jobs lined up due to their less specialised background, lower cost of employment and flexibility, but importantly in industry, they are hoping to be paid to leave, and to walk into a better job.

While none of this may apply to the OP, it is common elsewhere and shapes the way organisations handle staff level reductions.

Nobody could say it is completely fait but the employer has to be able to continue in business, and their choices are made to support that rationale - not the preferences of leaving staff.

[jed_thrust]

Get hard copies of any and all personal/flying reports that you can lay your hands on.

You never know when you might need them, especially if the story changes later on...

[camelspyyder]

Sincere apologies for offence caused by my last post which was both ill-considered and badly written.

There are however, not 170 redundancies in tranche 1 but 1000+, and I feel most will think it "unfair".

Many of those will be less able, or less well placed, to manage their future than the highly qualified and talented youth who are being let go.

It all comes down to money in the end, and I have no idea how much it would cost to train 170 pilots that the service does not need - but I do know that today's military can't afford it.

CS

[The Gorilla]

SIMWES

I was there at the time, you were NOT made redundant you were TUPE'd across to a civilian company - a big difference!
TG

[c130jbloke]

Camelspyyder :D

[Kreuger flap]

Camelspyyder - I think you should take a long hard look at yourself, a totally uncalled for comment. Get a grip and try and show a little bit of respect to the hundreds serving who are having their dreams ruined.

Consider this FJ, Nimrod aircrew posted to Kinloss passes out of OCU and gets onto sqn. Moves his family up and buys a house in local area thinking wow I'll be here for years. Nimord canceled. He is now out of a job stuck with a house he can't sell and now has to move his family elsewhere as their is no employment prospects in the local area to speak of.

You see, you are not the only one to have the rug pulled out from under them. Why would you want to sue the MOD for money it hasn't got? Money that would have to be diverted away from the troops on the front line to pay you. How much respect are you showing those fighting in Afghanistan?

[Henry09]

Kreuger

Why would you want to sue the MOD for money it hasn't got? Money that would have to be diverted away from the troops on the front line to pay you. How much respect are you showing those fighting in Afghanistan?

You're stretching it a bit there mate!

[Hachet Harry]

What's fair got to do with it?

The world doesn't owe anybody a living and the MOD is no different. A sad time without doubt and those affected have my deepest sympathies, but legal action?

Like that Harrier chap who was reported to have had a dig at the PM over the axing of his fleet. He was reported to have said words to the effect of 'What about me'! Well yes, what about you?

I realise that this post will make me sound cold and heartless and for that I apologise. My point is that we all need to wake up to the 'new world' and realise that although this is not fair, neither is life in general.

[Biggus]

As the OP is in the early stages of flying training no doubt (s)he is too young to have children of their own.

Most parents try to ensure that their children are treated fairly as they grow up. However, one of sad duties of a parent is to teach the child, when it is old enough to understand, that, much as we would wish it to be otherwise, THE WORLD IS NOT ACTUALLY A FAIR PLACE!

Perhaps the OPs parents did not pass this lesson on?

While I can sympathise with youngsters who have had their chosen career path "unfairly" taken away from them, which I agree they have, I only have a limited amount of sympathy to give, and I consider there are more deserving cases for my sympathy throughout this globe of ours....



By the way, if anyone cares to read post 76 on this thread

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/436692-training-pipeline-clogged-4.html

they will see the advice that I offered on this very subject some 2 months ago!


Best of luck to those being made redundant from flying training, but they are all young, healthy, intelligent and proactive. They will survive. Who knows, for some of them it might turn out to be better to have your dream taken away now than have it turn to dissolution once they experience the reality of much of the RAF of today. This experience was in some ways a foretaste of what you would have had to come...

[MrPVRd]

Of course it's not fair. Made me sit up in shock, to be honest, this news...if the flying race aren't safe from the axe, then no-one is. It seems especially unfair because of the investment made on all sides - the taxpayer, the RAF and those who have invested their hopes and talents in the RAF.

It's also not fair that the executives of bust banks have been bailed out and are walking away with millions after failing again. It's also not fair that there are 650-odd MPs and plenty of peers sitting on plush leather and sucking the taxpayers' nipple.

Just because it isn't fair, doesn't mean that it cannot happen, as is unfolding.

Equally, you may have some redress under law. In times past, there may have been notions of 'loyalty' to the Service...hmm. So, seek whatever legal avenues are open to you, along with others if required, taking expert advice. Redundancies will happen regardless, but the employer can be made to compensate the employee if it wasn't handled properly, and the only way that businesses, managers and leaders actually learn is from financial penalties (if indeed they do). And you have yourself to look out for as well, most importantly....no-one else will.

[Geehovah]

Hachet Harry

What's fair got to do with it?

The world doesn't owe anybody a living and the MOD is no different. A sad time without doubt and those affected have my deepest sympathies, but legal action?

Like that Harrier chap who was reported to have had a dig at the PM over the axing of his fleet. He was reported to have said words to the effect of 'What about me'! Well yes, what about you?

I realise that this post will make me sound cold and heartless and for that I apologise. My point is that we all need to wake up to the 'new world' and realise that although this is not fair, neither is life in general. For me this sums up the difference between the Air Force that I joined and the one that I left recently, although Hachet Harry may just be fishing. I hope I didn't just take "a living" from what I did during my time. When I joined the Services, I saw it as a lifetime commitment. I didn't wonder what would happen tomorrow; I worked towards being operational and then becoming productive as a supervisor and trainer and took it as it came. If Her Majesty said go; I went. As I progressed, I didn't agree with all the policy; I muttered in my cups over much of it. I changed some of it but most of these youngsters are not so lucky. What is being forced on them is a job.

If that is the way we are going, then lets see revised terms of service. It will then be a brave PM who questions those who choose not to offer the "ultimate sacrifice" as those who have gone before have been prepared to offer. Is it a job or are we serving the Nation? The two are not the same!

It may be approaching decision time for many. Do those who still care choose service or self preservation? I do hope I'm not being over melodramatic.

[BEagle]

Geehovah, I couldn't agree more!

As far as Pilots go (and I do know that many other loyal servicemen/women have been equally shafted by SDSR, if not more so), the RAF must come up with an 'equivalence' proposal which can ease transition to civil flying. There are 2 distinct issues here:

1. SDSR
2. EASA part-FCL

The first issue means that many highly talented pilots will be out of a military flying appointment. Any sensible airline of quality will bend over backwards to attract them as they are infinitely better future employees than pilots who have never been aptitude tested. But the second issue is something which the RAF owes to all its pilots to accommodate and which is also a significant recruiting and retention incentive - which, although not crucial right now, most surely will be in a few years' time!

Good luck; I know darn well that pretty well 100% of those chopped at Valley of late are of much higher quality than I ever was. I just had to know how to keep a Gnat airborne for 50 min without killing myself - you've had vastly more complex mission profiles to cope with.

Interestingly, I heard yesterday that the dumbing down of core skills has now trickled through to CFS. It seems that a large number of skills which any military pilot used to have are now having to be re-taught to some CFS students. To which I have to say "I told you this would happen!"...:mad:

[draken55]

Geehovah

An eloquent post. The "Harrier chap" had served in Afghanistan adding to his angst when responding to PM who like others likes to portray himself as being 100% "behind the troops" but then has no problem in dispensing with them once their purpose has been served! No change there I suppose, it's what we have always done.:mad:

Has anyone noticed that the no campaign (David Cameron's view) to any change in the voting system now uses a poster showing a soldier and the cost of body armour as compared to a voting paper and the cost of a change from first past the post. Politics aside how crass. Do they think the Public is that stupid to believe there is any connection.

[minigundiplomat]

Interestingly, I heard yesterday that the dumbing down of core skills has now trickled through to CFS.


The boarding requirement for QHI's applying to CFS(H) was lowered from Above Average to High Average a couple of years ago.

To date the output from CFS(H) has been broadly comparable [on the mighty wokka], but it is a retrograde step forced by high dilution levels and poor manning rather than any improvement in the quality of line pilots.

Ultimately, it is another of the checks and balances that have been removed due to the over-riding requirement to fight 'the' war.

[Really annoyed]

Ultimately, it is another of the checks and balances that have been removed due to the over-riding requirement to fight 'the' war.

Ah but don't you think that the overarching paradigm shifts that has caused this situation is underpinned in the sands of time and our strategic staircase we know as CFS is ready to lower its standards?

[minigundiplomat]

I'd have to examine the delta on that, brainstorm it, and get back to you.

[c130jbloke]

More management babble !

the RAF must come up with an 'equivalence' proposal which can ease transition to civil flying.

And why ?

Does that mean they will do it for every other trade group being shafted ? For that matter, every other public servant ?

Sorry to say it, but if you think a pair of wings ( or even a brave attempt to get them ) gives you a special right then get real and welcome to employment in the 21st century :cool:

[Hachet Harry]

although Hachet Harry may just be fishing.

Not at all, I'm just pointing out the elephant in the room.

the RAF must come up with an 'equivalence' proposal which can ease transition to civil flying.

Tripe! Why?

The boarding requirement for QHI's applying to CFS(H) was lowered from Above Average to High Average a couple of years ago.

A looooong time ago. c1997 actually.

Like I said, I didn't intend to come over as heartless, but at the same time, I'm not a politician, so don't have to say just what people WANT to hear. As Geehover pointed out, it most certainly is a different Air Force to the one we joined; certainly more corporate, financially and capability aware. We would love to think that the Services still offer a career for life. Sadly few if any careers these days do. We can either whine about it and consider ourselves hard done by, or we can accept the reality and embrace the opportunities that change offers.

[SimWes]

The Gorilla
I was there at the time, you were NOT made redundant you were TUPE'd across to a civilian company - a big difference!

So why does it say "Redundancy" on my F856 and do I also have to pay back my redundancy payment. I was not TUPE'd as you put it. What makes you think that you know what happened to me?
As for TUPE, I would suggest you read up on that before shouting the odds
Acas - Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) (http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1655)

[minigundiplomat]

A looooong time ago. c1997 actually.



Not saying you are wrong, but it may well have gone back up after 97.