PVR & RoS
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Oop North
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Failing your fitness test to get out is not the easy option. Do you really want to have to explain to your current Boss that this is your master plan, "Yes Boss I am failing it deliberately to get out". Doesn't really sound that good a plan to me.
Darlingest Bossy-poos,
I have the honour to request that, owing to the decision to scrap the Nimrod MRA4, the RAF offers me one of the following options:
1. The specific job for which I was 'encouraged' to amend my employment, requiring me to agree to a 6-year Return of Service obligation.
2. If this job, through no fault of mine, is no longer available, then my RoS agreement is clearly null and void. In which case I ask for your support in releasing me from a Service which no longer enjoys my interest.
I have the misfortune to be,
Sir,
Your obedient but highly pissed-off servant,
letsgoandfly
XX
I have the honour to request that, owing to the decision to scrap the Nimrod MRA4, the RAF offers me one of the following options:
1. The specific job for which I was 'encouraged' to amend my employment, requiring me to agree to a 6-year Return of Service obligation.
2. If this job, through no fault of mine, is no longer available, then my RoS agreement is clearly null and void. In which case I ask for your support in releasing me from a Service which no longer enjoys my interest.
I have the misfortune to be,
Sir,
Your obedient but highly pissed-off servant,
letsgoandfly
XX
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEags, love it! Thanks for giving me a laugh, just brightened up my day. 
I'm not going down the route of failing things / being naughty to get out, that helps neither myself or my colleagues, all of whom are in a similar position. Will have another chat with the DO when I get written confirmation of job offer and see what he says - although he has already said that they are looking to hold people to the 6-year RoS as they might have jobs for us in the future......
Cheers guys, take it easy!
I'm not going down the route of failing things / being naughty to get out, that helps neither myself or my colleagues, all of whom are in a similar position. Will have another chat with the DO when I get written confirmation of job offer and see what he says - although he has already said that they are looking to hold people to the 6-year RoS as they might have jobs for us in the future......
Cheers guys, take it easy!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,563
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
LG&F
The fail your fitness test was not meant to be serious... although my favourite way out of the forces was taken by film actor David Niven. He was a career officer in the Highland light Infantry in the 1930s (I use the word career loosely). He was under house arrest following some misdemeanour during a machine gun course: he escaped from the mess by getting his escorting officer drunk; ran away to Hollywood to become an actor and sent the immortal telegram back to the UK, "Dear Colonel, Request permission to resign commission. Love Niven." he was successful. Mind you, he returned to UK when WW2 broke out and re-gained a commission in the Rifle Corps. He commanded the SAS "Phantom" net for a while and ended the war as a Lt Col.
If you get the chance, read "The Moon's a Balloon" - its a good read.
The fail your fitness test was not meant to be serious... although my favourite way out of the forces was taken by film actor David Niven. He was a career officer in the Highland light Infantry in the 1930s (I use the word career loosely). He was under house arrest following some misdemeanour during a machine gun course: he escaped from the mess by getting his escorting officer drunk; ran away to Hollywood to become an actor and sent the immortal telegram back to the UK, "Dear Colonel, Request permission to resign commission. Love Niven." he was successful. Mind you, he returned to UK when WW2 broke out and re-gained a commission in the Rifle Corps. He commanded the SAS "Phantom" net for a while and ended the war as a Lt Col.
If you get the chance, read "The Moon's a Balloon" - its a good read.
Chaps sorry beg to differ but from my experience a RoS doesn't hold water. Anyone who's questioned one properly with their desky has ever been held to it and I'm sure that an employment lawyer would have a field day.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: lincs
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not to mention if a Sgt with 5 or so years to do is kept in against his will while a FS or Master with between 5 - 10 years to do is shown the door then again an employment lawyer would surely have a case.
After all it's not the fault of the FS/MAcr that the RAF/MoD/Government made a cock of the manning structure and ultimately they can all do the job that the desky is holding the Sgt for (on the off chance we have a maritime future).
After all it's not the fault of the FS/MAcr that the RAF/MoD/Government made a cock of the manning structure and ultimately they can all do the job that the desky is holding the Sgt for (on the off chance we have a maritime future).
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Home
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry WWW but RoS are legally defensible (and have been defended on many occasions). As for your comment (and others) regarding employment lawyers etc, again I am afraid that Service Personnel are not subject to the full raft of employment law and our TACoS are governed by administrative law. Consequently, all you would do by going to an employment law specialist is waste your money on an area few employment lawyers know anything about. The Deskie holds the keys and it is him whom you should speak to.
It would appear (and I chose that word deliberately) to me that the RAF are being very inflexible in their approach to the current redundancy round.
I seem to remember reading in some offical document lately that if the criteria for redundancy was a minimum of 3 years in rank then it was no use applying if you had 2 years 364 days in rank, it actually specified it in those exact terms, implying there was no leeway for discretion. The situation of the OP on this thread is another case in point. His 6 years ROS is up in early 2013, so presumably we are talking 24 months or less, and his DO is keeping him on because he "might" have a job for him! First of all I consider it highly unlikely that a post, for which the OP will also have received the necessary training, will be filled in that sort of timescale, especially since the OP will no doubt not be posted until the ISK Sqns formally close in late May. Secondly, is not the DO just setting himself up for a fall, by putting a diseffected OP into a job he doesn't want, with the prospect of him simply PVRing in early 2013, requiring the DO to find someone else to fill this "might have" post.
Surely a fairly high degree of discretion is required by the selection process for redundancy, on the basis that a volunteer is worth 10 pressed men. Or would this create such a deluge of extra work for the DOs, as there is a massive demand out there for people seeking redundancy. If there is, that in itself tells a story....
I seem to remember reading in some offical document lately that if the criteria for redundancy was a minimum of 3 years in rank then it was no use applying if you had 2 years 364 days in rank, it actually specified it in those exact terms, implying there was no leeway for discretion. The situation of the OP on this thread is another case in point. His 6 years ROS is up in early 2013, so presumably we are talking 24 months or less, and his DO is keeping him on because he "might" have a job for him! First of all I consider it highly unlikely that a post, for which the OP will also have received the necessary training, will be filled in that sort of timescale, especially since the OP will no doubt not be posted until the ISK Sqns formally close in late May. Secondly, is not the DO just setting himself up for a fall, by putting a diseffected OP into a job he doesn't want, with the prospect of him simply PVRing in early 2013, requiring the DO to find someone else to fill this "might have" post.
Surely a fairly high degree of discretion is required by the selection process for redundancy, on the basis that a volunteer is worth 10 pressed men. Or would this create such a deluge of extra work for the DOs, as there is a massive demand out there for people seeking redundancy. If there is, that in itself tells a story....
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's individual people that are flexible or inflexible...even within an organisation as structured as the RAF. There are two factors to the outcome.
One, the attitude and qualities of the person being approached.
Two, the attitude and qualities of the person with the request.
If I was a desk officer (which I might have been...or similar) and a good egg came to me with an honest cause and a polite request I would (and on many occasion may have) gone into bat on their behalf. Nine times out of ten with the right result for all concerned.
On the other hand if I was ever approached with the "do this or else...." option, being a bl**dy minded SOB who never really gave a toss about his career, my answer would have been...."bring it on" (and on more than one occasion.........it was!)
One, the attitude and qualities of the person being approached.
Two, the attitude and qualities of the person with the request.
If I was a desk officer (which I might have been...or similar) and a good egg came to me with an honest cause and a polite request I would (and on many occasion may have) gone into bat on their behalf. Nine times out of ten with the right result for all concerned.
On the other hand if I was ever approached with the "do this or else...." option, being a bl**dy minded SOB who never really gave a toss about his career, my answer would have been...."bring it on" (and on more than one occasion.........it was!)
TOFO speaks wisely. There are too many in the Service (and on this forum) who are quick to act the barrack room lawyer. If you want to take on the system formally (and there are times when it is necessary), then be aware that an adversarial approach will lead to a very formal and adversarial response. That may not be the wisest poicy - the words 'See you in Court' are often the most expensive and grief-laiden words an individual will ever say (along with, potentially, 'I do'!)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Here and there, occasionally at home.
Age: 56
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slight Thread Drift but.......
What do Pruners consider would constitute constructive dismissal?
Would being told that "there is no longer a current job for you, there isn't likely to be another job for you for at least another 3-4 years but no, we are not going to make you redundant" be considered as grounds for constructive dismissal, assuming that the affected individual decides that sitting around for 3-4 years is somewhat nugatory to a fulfilling career?
Interested to know your thoughts.
Would being told that "there is no longer a current job for you, there isn't likely to be another job for you for at least another 3-4 years but no, we are not going to make you redundant" be considered as grounds for constructive dismissal, assuming that the affected individual decides that sitting around for 3-4 years is somewhat nugatory to a fulfilling career?
Interested to know your thoughts.
What do Pruners consider would constitute constructive dismissal?
Wiki seems to suggest that a unilateral contract change such as a dramatic change to duties or if the OP is told he is being posted to the other end of the country to do job Y, having signed up to do job X, that might be a breach in terms of flexibility as it is implied that the flexibility required of the employee relates to his original role.
All so far so good. However, surely the fact that we serve at HM pleasure, don't have a contract as such, and sign up knowing before hand that we are likely to get stitched up with an inconvenient posting at some point would probably make it difficult to argue constructive dismissal on contract grounds. I would have thought the only way you might get that one to stick is on procedural grounds or a technicality. Just my unqualified guess and speculation, could be totally wrong, so don't take it as gospel!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: u.k.
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If he joined 5 years ago, he joined as a WSOp first then a specialisation second. The old trades of Air Eng, AEOp and ALM were almagamated in order to give Manning the flexibilty to cover shortfalls in specialisation with the minimal amount of cross over training, hence the reason for the common core phase at 55(R) Sqn.
When he joined up it was with the understanding that he is joining a trade that had several specialisations, the one to which he was most suited/ service needs would be the one that he would be initially selected for, and can at any time be transferred to any other of the specialisations when required. This would mean that he would be joining a trade that spanned the country from Chivenor to Kinloss.
When he joined up it was with the understanding that he is joining a trade that had several specialisations, the one to which he was most suited/ service needs would be the one that he would be initially selected for, and can at any time be transferred to any other of the specialisations when required. This would mean that he would be joining a trade that spanned the country from Chivenor to Kinloss.
If he joined 5 years ago, he joined as a WSOp first then a specialisation second. The old trades of Air Eng, AEOp and ALM were almagamated in order to give Manning the flexibilty to cover shortfalls in specialisation with the minimal amount of cross over training, hence the reason for the common core phase at 55(R) Sqn.
When he joined up it was with the understanding that he is joining a trade that had several specialisations, the one to which he was most suited/ service needs would be the one that he would be initially selected for, and can at any time be transferred to any other of the specialisations when required. This would mean that he would be joining a trade that spanned the country from Chivenor to Kinloss.
When he joined up it was with the understanding that he is joining a trade that had several specialisations, the one to which he was most suited/ service needs would be the one that he would be initially selected for, and can at any time be transferred to any other of the specialisations when required. This would mean that he would be joining a trade that spanned the country from Chivenor to Kinloss.
You are not wrong, but your argument has been overtaken by events.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would being told that "there is no longer a current job for you, there isn't likely to be another job for you for at least another 3-4 years but no, we are not going to make you redundant" be considered as grounds for constructive dismissal, assuming that the affected individual decides that sitting around for 3-4 years is somewhat nugatory to a fulfilling career?
What I would say (and I s**t you not) would be along the lines of....
"Roger Copied.
Then you won't mind if my well paid job becomes my well paid hobby while I spend the next three to four years learning, developing and progressing my next career at your expense.
Out"
As I used to say when I was in (who knows, you may have heard me).
"You cannot be fired if you want to be fired, and if you are fired, you can only be fired once."
T.O.F.O
Reference your comments in post 32, I appreciate the fact that individual DOs may, or may not, be flexible, given the factors you outlined. However, I fail to see how this alters my point. Surely DOs can only be flexible within the bounds of their remit? If the instructions given to the DOs on how to carry out a certain task specifically places limits on the flexibility they can apply then are not the DOs, no matter how willing they might be, severly constrained in how they can carry out their task?
Of course, maybe I am being a bit dim? I have been accused before of being over simplistic, which is probably why I never rose to high rank or became a DO....
Edited for spelling!
Reference your comments in post 32, I appreciate the fact that individual DOs may, or may not, be flexible, given the factors you outlined. However, I fail to see how this alters my point. Surely DOs can only be flexible within the bounds of their remit? If the instructions given to the DOs on how to carry out a certain task specifically places limits on the flexibility they can apply then are not the DOs, no matter how willing they might be, severly constrained in how they can carry out their task?
Of course, maybe I am being a bit dim? I have been accused before of being over simplistic, which is probably why I never rose to high rank or became a DO....
Edited for spelling!
Last edited by Biggus; 9th Apr 2011 at 17:11.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It doesn't alter your point...it amplifies it.
You are correct...remits can be restrictive. But the old saying, where there is will there is a way holds good....especially if you have a bit of clout.
The main point I was making was that taking an aggressive approach can often be doomed to failure from the outset, because then you can end up fighting the system and a bl**dy minded DO, Sqn Cdr, Flt Cdr or whatever.
You are correct...remits can be restrictive. But the old saying, where there is will there is a way holds good....especially if you have a bit of clout.
The main point I was making was that taking an aggressive approach can often be doomed to failure from the outset, because then you can end up fighting the system and a bl**dy minded DO, Sqn Cdr, Flt Cdr or whatever.