MOD caught cutting corners to save on pensions....again
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOD caught cutting corners to save on pensions....again
This story will be hitting the headlines again very soon. Monday to be exact, at first it was thought only the Army was subject to this policy abuse.. we were wrong. If you or you know people that was, please keep your eyes peeled for monday both papers and evening news programs will be highlighting some damming evidence that will hit Hoon and co were it hurts
for more information please visit this site
http://www.dream-tool.com/tools/mess...pe+90002+index
or
http://www.dream-tool.com/tools/mess...+brownenvelope
thank you
Manning control is a policy used by the army to dismiss soldiers who are considered to be 'not fit for a full army career' to make space for other recruits. All soldiers can be reviewed after 6, 9, and 12 years in the Army and dismissed if considered surplus to requirements. Because of the stigma attached to being sacked, many soldiers elect to jump before they are pushed after they have been warned. In this way, official figures about the number of people sacked hide the true numbers of people who are slated to be sacked. A leading legal professional stated that Manning Control is deceitful, disgraceful and an insult to our service personnel protecting this country.
2. Why is there so much fuss about Manning Control Points?
This policy has been rigorously abused by various units Commanding Officers to get rid of their “Dead Wood” .In lament terms , people they don’t think should serve a full career for whatever reason. These have included “So called troublemakers”, soldiers with long term injuries and health problems. Also included were Gulf war veterans including those who had contracted Gulf War Syndrome and other illnesses. There was also evidence to show soldiers were kicked out because of various family problems, that was out there control such as terminal illnesses etc.
The Liberal Democrats revealed documents in July 2003 that showed a soldier had been denied a medical discharge and fired under manning control regulations instead, because it was cheaper. The letter from the Army Personnel Centre in Glasgow to the soldier's Commanding Officer acknowledged that it was MoD policy to cut the number of medical discharges and sack people instead because it was cheaper. The letter said: "You will also be aware that he escaped his last MCP only because it was assumed he would have been medically discharged by this time, a factor confused by a change to medical board guidelines which effectively reduced the number of personnel discharged on medical grounds - opting instead for administrative discharges to reduce the budget requirements to the MoD (Army)."
Over 600 soldiers are preparing a class action suit against the MoD because they allege they were hoodwinked or bullied into leaving the army or signing onto short term contracts with less employment protection through abuse of the manning control system. Being threatened with manning control and then pressured to voluntarily leave is commonly known as 'brown lettering'. Aggrieved soldiers have set up a website on www.expra.co.uk under Manning Control Link which is dedicated to those who believe they have been unfairly dismissed from the Army in this way.
3. How much money can the MOD save by releasing a soldier at His/Her MCP point?
Those who leave at, for say at their 12 years MCP Point save the Treasury, on average, £200,000 each according to the MoD's own figures. [Better In Than Out - MoD, Army].
The MoD gives the soldier a resettlement grant of around £8000 and a pension when they reach sixty years of age of around £2000 a year .If the soldier served another 10 years service they could receive a lump sum on discharge of around £30.000 or more depending on rank. Also the soldier would receive straight away, a monthly pension of £400 a month or more, also depending on rank.
4 Can the soldier complain about the Manning Control Point?
Many of the soldiers currently suing filed complaints with the MoD's internal complaints procedure (called 'redress'). However, the Government claims that there have only been two applications for 'Redress of Complaint to the Army Board' since 1997.
Dr Moonie, former Under-Secretary of State at the MoD said that: "Since then there have been two applications for Redress of Complaint relating to the Manning Control Point policy, which were resolved before submission to the Army Board. In these cases, manning control action was terminated and the individuals concerned continue to serve on their original engagement." [23 Jan 2003: Column 447W]
The Liberal Democrats have seen documents showing that at least two soldiers had their applications turned down by the Board. We have also spoken to five soldiers who submitted applications for redress to the Army Board, four of whom were not granted redress and were sacked. And one of which, that of Cpl Paul Biddiss, is still going on after 3 years.
One of the soldiers was declared medically unfit by the NHS but was still administratively discharged. The letter denying him redress from the Army Board, said: "We have read the redress of complaint submitted by X, and we have concluded that Cpl. X had no right to be granted a medical discharge and thus his discharge at the 12 year manning control point was justified. However, we accept that Cpl. X received his injury through no negligence on his part during normal military training, furthermore we note that the medical treatment for his injury on which we are not in a position to pass clinical judgement was administered by the Defence Medical Service, we also accept that he has been judged by the DHSS to be disabled. We therefore strongly recommend that Cpl. X insures that he receives any war disability pension to which he is entitled."
Either the Government has faulty records or else there has been a concerted effort to withhold information. In either case, whether deliberately or inadvertently, Ministers appear to have misled Parliament.
for more information please visit this site
http://www.dream-tool.com/tools/mess...pe+90002+index
or
http://www.dream-tool.com/tools/mess...+brownenvelope
thank you
Manning control is a policy used by the army to dismiss soldiers who are considered to be 'not fit for a full army career' to make space for other recruits. All soldiers can be reviewed after 6, 9, and 12 years in the Army and dismissed if considered surplus to requirements. Because of the stigma attached to being sacked, many soldiers elect to jump before they are pushed after they have been warned. In this way, official figures about the number of people sacked hide the true numbers of people who are slated to be sacked. A leading legal professional stated that Manning Control is deceitful, disgraceful and an insult to our service personnel protecting this country.
2. Why is there so much fuss about Manning Control Points?
This policy has been rigorously abused by various units Commanding Officers to get rid of their “Dead Wood” .In lament terms , people they don’t think should serve a full career for whatever reason. These have included “So called troublemakers”, soldiers with long term injuries and health problems. Also included were Gulf war veterans including those who had contracted Gulf War Syndrome and other illnesses. There was also evidence to show soldiers were kicked out because of various family problems, that was out there control such as terminal illnesses etc.
The Liberal Democrats revealed documents in July 2003 that showed a soldier had been denied a medical discharge and fired under manning control regulations instead, because it was cheaper. The letter from the Army Personnel Centre in Glasgow to the soldier's Commanding Officer acknowledged that it was MoD policy to cut the number of medical discharges and sack people instead because it was cheaper. The letter said: "You will also be aware that he escaped his last MCP only because it was assumed he would have been medically discharged by this time, a factor confused by a change to medical board guidelines which effectively reduced the number of personnel discharged on medical grounds - opting instead for administrative discharges to reduce the budget requirements to the MoD (Army)."
Over 600 soldiers are preparing a class action suit against the MoD because they allege they were hoodwinked or bullied into leaving the army or signing onto short term contracts with less employment protection through abuse of the manning control system. Being threatened with manning control and then pressured to voluntarily leave is commonly known as 'brown lettering'. Aggrieved soldiers have set up a website on www.expra.co.uk under Manning Control Link which is dedicated to those who believe they have been unfairly dismissed from the Army in this way.
3. How much money can the MOD save by releasing a soldier at His/Her MCP point?
Those who leave at, for say at their 12 years MCP Point save the Treasury, on average, £200,000 each according to the MoD's own figures. [Better In Than Out - MoD, Army].
The MoD gives the soldier a resettlement grant of around £8000 and a pension when they reach sixty years of age of around £2000 a year .If the soldier served another 10 years service they could receive a lump sum on discharge of around £30.000 or more depending on rank. Also the soldier would receive straight away, a monthly pension of £400 a month or more, also depending on rank.
4 Can the soldier complain about the Manning Control Point?
Many of the soldiers currently suing filed complaints with the MoD's internal complaints procedure (called 'redress'). However, the Government claims that there have only been two applications for 'Redress of Complaint to the Army Board' since 1997.
Dr Moonie, former Under-Secretary of State at the MoD said that: "Since then there have been two applications for Redress of Complaint relating to the Manning Control Point policy, which were resolved before submission to the Army Board. In these cases, manning control action was terminated and the individuals concerned continue to serve on their original engagement." [23 Jan 2003: Column 447W]
The Liberal Democrats have seen documents showing that at least two soldiers had their applications turned down by the Board. We have also spoken to five soldiers who submitted applications for redress to the Army Board, four of whom were not granted redress and were sacked. And one of which, that of Cpl Paul Biddiss, is still going on after 3 years.
One of the soldiers was declared medically unfit by the NHS but was still administratively discharged. The letter denying him redress from the Army Board, said: "We have read the redress of complaint submitted by X, and we have concluded that Cpl. X had no right to be granted a medical discharge and thus his discharge at the 12 year manning control point was justified. However, we accept that Cpl. X received his injury through no negligence on his part during normal military training, furthermore we note that the medical treatment for his injury on which we are not in a position to pass clinical judgement was administered by the Defence Medical Service, we also accept that he has been judged by the DHSS to be disabled. We therefore strongly recommend that Cpl. X insures that he receives any war disability pension to which he is entitled."
Either the Government has faulty records or else there has been a concerted effort to withhold information. In either case, whether deliberately or inadvertently, Ministers appear to have misled Parliament.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where is the problem? Has it not always been the case that soldiers/sailors/ airmen have leaving points at 3/9/12/22 years or age 55? For the commissioned ranks then similar short term commissions or permanent commissions apply with options at 16years/age 38 points. The MOD is simply applying the rules to which the service personnel agreed on joining.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The MOD is simply applying the rules to which the service personnel agreed on joining.
When this policy abuse was first "properly" exposed it was suspended and so far over two years down the line, no other soldier has been subject to the policy abuse. that is very odd if it was such a legitimate Manning tool, don't you think?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...2Fnsquad29.xml
"Where is the problem"
undermanning,overstretch I could go on
However if you read what happened to one family and the soldier that stood up to the policy abuse, a tad harsh don't you think?
http://pages.123-reg.co.uk/eve3-3732...ite/id134.html
or here
http://www.dream-tool.com/tools/mess...pe+90005+index
feel free to educate your self
here
http://pages.123-reg.co.uk/eve3-3732...ite/id118.html
here
http://pages.123-reg.co.uk/eve3-3732...ite/id119.html
here
http://www.dream-tool.com/tools/mess...pe+90002+index
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...09/ixhome.html
MoD knew sackings could be challenged
By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 09/08/2004)
The Ministry of Defence knew six years ago that a system used to sack soldiers was open to legal challenge as unfair dismissal.
A newly obtained document, written in May 2002, a few weeks after the Telegraph revealed the way in which the "manning control" system was being used, said the Army was "concerned" that it could be challenged under the Employment Rights Act.
It detailed talks between ministers and MoD civil servants on how to prevent soldiers taking the Army to employment tribunals for "general unfair dismissal".
The briefing paper, to be revealed on Channel 4 News tonight, shows civil servants telling ministers that exemption from the Act could be obtained via an order-in-council but this could only happen with Parliament's consent.
The alternative was to seek an exemption under EU legislation. "This would have the advantage of not drawing attention to the fact that the unfair dismissal provisions of the Act were not being activated," the document says.
The manning control system used a clause in soldiers' contracts that allows the Army to get rid of them after 12 years.
Critics say it was misused to save money on pensions. They cite cases of soldiers who were "manning controlled" to take them off a long-term contract, that qualified them for an immediate pension, and then re-employed on short-term contracts.
Hundreds of soldiers who say they were victims of "manning control" are preparing to take the Army to court.
MoD knew sackings could be challenged
By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 09/08/2004)
The Ministry of Defence knew six years ago that a system used to sack soldiers was open to legal challenge as unfair dismissal.
A newly obtained document, written in May 2002, a few weeks after the Telegraph revealed the way in which the "manning control" system was being used, said the Army was "concerned" that it could be challenged under the Employment Rights Act.
It detailed talks between ministers and MoD civil servants on how to prevent soldiers taking the Army to employment tribunals for "general unfair dismissal".
The briefing paper, to be revealed on Channel 4 News tonight, shows civil servants telling ministers that exemption from the Act could be obtained via an order-in-council but this could only happen with Parliament's consent.
The alternative was to seek an exemption under EU legislation. "This would have the advantage of not drawing attention to the fact that the unfair dismissal provisions of the Act were not being activated," the document says.
The manning control system used a clause in soldiers' contracts that allows the Army to get rid of them after 12 years.
Critics say it was misused to save money on pensions. They cite cases of soldiers who were "manning controlled" to take them off a long-term contract, that qualified them for an immediate pension, and then re-employed on short-term contracts.
Hundreds of soldiers who say they were victims of "manning control" are preparing to take the Army to court.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And to think, this exposure of a shabby policy abuse, all came about Because of this little lad, I bet the Politicians feel real proud of them self,
http://pages.123-reg.co.uk/eve3-3732...ite/id134.html
http://pages.123-reg.co.uk/eve3-3732...ite/id134.html
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Beyond the last Blue Mountain
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From today's Herald in Scotland:
MoD in move to curb rights of personnel
IAN BRUCE, Defence Correspondent August 10 2004
THE Ministry of Defence has been exploring ways of secretly depriving servicemen and women of their employment rights to prevent financial claims for unfair dismissal.
A leaked briefing paper obtained by The Herald shows that studies are being carried out to find ways of circumventing European and British regulations on grievances which might result in legal action by military personnel.
More than 900 serving and former soldiers are already poised to take legal action against the MoD this year in a landmark case that could cost the government hundreds of millions of pounds in compensation payments and open the floodgates to further claims.
The mass joint class action is being taken on the basis that the MoD breached individuals' employment rights by misuse of an administrative process known as manning control.
It follows the revelation in the leaked document that defence ministers were advised as long ago as 1998 that the system employed to sack personnel to save money on pay and pensions left the MoD wide open to unfair dismissal claims. The document recommends that steps be taken to exclude members of the Army, Navy and RAF from the Employment Rights Act as "there is a strong likelihood of an increase in legal challenges against the armed forces' employment policies such as administrative discharge through manning controls and the contractorisation of service posts".
Allowing personnel access to employment tribunals raised "serious concern about the effect this could have on combat effectiveness by undermining the services' essential disciplinary and management framework".
The manning control policy (MCP) was originally designed to review soldiers' careers at six, nine and 12-year points of service and to free up the promotional logjam in the junior NCO ranks of corporal and lance-corporal.
Those involved in the class action say MCP was instead used illegally to reduce manpower to bring the Army's wage bill within budget, something the MoD has always denied.
Hundreds of men were manning controlled as they reached their 12-year point, eliminating their right to an immediate pension. Many were then offered short-term contracts on reduced pension terms.
Hundreds more, insiders claim, opted to leave the Army voluntarily rather than have the perceived stigma of being sacked on their records.
As The Herald revealed earlier this year, more than 200 men and women who had been medically downgraded because of injury or illness since 1996 were dismissed under section 9.414 of Queen's Regulations as "services no longer required", rather than being granted medical discharges.
Sacking them this way saved the MoD an average £18,000 per soldier per year, despite the fact that the regulation expressly forbids shedding those deemed medically unfit.
Adam Ingram and Ivor Caplin, junior defence ministers, have repeatedly told the House of Commons since 2002 that manning control is no longer being used.
Army sources say orders to battalions have gone out regularly since then telling commanding officers to ensure that their men are aware of manning control.
An MoD spokesman said: "It is not our policy to comment on leaked documents. Manning control has not been used since 2002 and servicemen already have a statutory right of redress via the Army's chain of command."
MoD in move to curb rights of personnel
IAN BRUCE, Defence Correspondent August 10 2004
THE Ministry of Defence has been exploring ways of secretly depriving servicemen and women of their employment rights to prevent financial claims for unfair dismissal.
A leaked briefing paper obtained by The Herald shows that studies are being carried out to find ways of circumventing European and British regulations on grievances which might result in legal action by military personnel.
More than 900 serving and former soldiers are already poised to take legal action against the MoD this year in a landmark case that could cost the government hundreds of millions of pounds in compensation payments and open the floodgates to further claims.
The mass joint class action is being taken on the basis that the MoD breached individuals' employment rights by misuse of an administrative process known as manning control.
It follows the revelation in the leaked document that defence ministers were advised as long ago as 1998 that the system employed to sack personnel to save money on pay and pensions left the MoD wide open to unfair dismissal claims. The document recommends that steps be taken to exclude members of the Army, Navy and RAF from the Employment Rights Act as "there is a strong likelihood of an increase in legal challenges against the armed forces' employment policies such as administrative discharge through manning controls and the contractorisation of service posts".
Allowing personnel access to employment tribunals raised "serious concern about the effect this could have on combat effectiveness by undermining the services' essential disciplinary and management framework".
The manning control policy (MCP) was originally designed to review soldiers' careers at six, nine and 12-year points of service and to free up the promotional logjam in the junior NCO ranks of corporal and lance-corporal.
Those involved in the class action say MCP was instead used illegally to reduce manpower to bring the Army's wage bill within budget, something the MoD has always denied.
Hundreds of men were manning controlled as they reached their 12-year point, eliminating their right to an immediate pension. Many were then offered short-term contracts on reduced pension terms.
Hundreds more, insiders claim, opted to leave the Army voluntarily rather than have the perceived stigma of being sacked on their records.
As The Herald revealed earlier this year, more than 200 men and women who had been medically downgraded because of injury or illness since 1996 were dismissed under section 9.414 of Queen's Regulations as "services no longer required", rather than being granted medical discharges.
Sacking them this way saved the MoD an average £18,000 per soldier per year, despite the fact that the regulation expressly forbids shedding those deemed medically unfit.
Adam Ingram and Ivor Caplin, junior defence ministers, have repeatedly told the House of Commons since 2002 that manning control is no longer being used.
Army sources say orders to battalions have gone out regularly since then telling commanding officers to ensure that their men are aware of manning control.
An MoD spokesman said: "It is not our policy to comment on leaked documents. Manning control has not been used since 2002 and servicemen already have a statutory right of redress via the Army's chain of command."
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I doubt the aspiration to remove the right to employment tribunals is possible. We now have access to ETs (after initiation of redress) for working time directive breaches ie. more than an average 48 hour week. There are exemptions in the Human Rights Act for armed forces, but for further exemptions, primary or secondary legislation is required - ie an act of Parliament. This can't be done using prerogative powers!
It won't stop them from trying, and it will be overturned in Strasbourg, at a significant cost!
We should assert our rights! For example, the bar on armed forces playing an active part in union membership is cobblers. it may be career suicide, but such prohibitions in QRs don't have a solid legal basis!
It won't stop them from trying, and it will be overturned in Strasbourg, at a significant cost!
We should assert our rights! For example, the bar on armed forces playing an active part in union membership is cobblers. it may be career suicide, but such prohibitions in QRs don't have a solid legal basis!
Clucking Anchors!
Chutley
Well said mate! You and me both plus a Jag mate in my office. Had enough of the joke now and I guess I shouldn't have joined...Still it was fun and now it's time to grow up at the ripe old age of 37.
Mr Stelios if you're reading this...save me a job, the future's bright, the future's orange (mostly on the tailfin!).
LJ
PS Mr Hoon...
Well said mate! You and me both plus a Jag mate in my office. Had enough of the joke now and I guess I shouldn't have joined...Still it was fun and now it's time to grow up at the ripe old age of 37.
Mr Stelios if you're reading this...save me a job, the future's bright, the future's orange (mostly on the tailfin!).
LJ
PS Mr Hoon...
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alas, due to the principle of Direct Effect (established in the European Court of Justice case Ratti in 1978), the government have no choice in whether or not they implement directives - they have to, under EU law. How they implement it is up to the government in question, but they have to implement it and achieve the desired intent of the directive (i.e. no sneaky stuff to get out of it). If they don't (within two years of the directive being made) they can either be sued in their national courts by individuals affected by the directive (in this case, disabled people could sue our government if an EU directive were made requiring disabled people to be allowed into the Armed Forces), or another member state or the EU itself may institute the Article 234 procedure, which can lead to mega-fines.
