P.a. Spine And Medical Downgrading
 

what is the employment law legality of removing somebody from the pa spine due to medical downgrading

Temporary or permanent downgrade?

Employment law and the military..........................:(

its a permanent downgrade but with the particular individual holding down a flying post,the reason i asked is because i believe their is civil legislation that prevents an employer reducing your pay either due to sickness or a disability in each case the employee can be offered redundancy( medical discharge ) on the pay rate that they currently receive, not like the air force presently do which is to cut your pay then offer you a discharge.

As someone who is sweating under a temporary med cat at the moment, my understanding is.....

Perm loss of flying med cat means removal from the PAS. You will be offered employment in another suitable ground branch (Ops Support?) together with the subsequent loss of pay, or you can opt for medical discharge. If the med cat is also unsuitable for ground duties then you will get the medical discharge. I am unsure as to what happens to your pension if you choose medical discharge over a ground branch. Is it the same rules as PVR, leading to part pension until age 65 then another lump sum, or do you get the full pension from leaving? But that's another question.

thx... but there was a change in the qr in reference to the time spent on downgrading and having read this it doesnt half look like its being made up as it goes along leaving my guy in a bit of a quandry, i ve advised him to take this to a civil court as i,m not in any way a guru on employment laws within which the military falls in about all aspects ( excluding such other things as union membership, refusal to carry out a job due to health and safety and the right to withdraw your labour) which are all fair enough but penalising anybody because they have become ill or partially disabled seems a no brainer and i was after a bit of solid info on what civilian laws applied,

Don't look at the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 for assistance as the Act specifically excludes the Armed Forces (in Part VII 64(7)) from the Act's employment provisions (Part II).

Further details here.

MOD Rules KO
 

Rule 1. All civilian employment laws do not apply to the MOD.

Rule 2. In the event of any legislation being passed that might make any civilian employment laws apply to the MOD, Rule 1 applies throughout.

I haven't made that up. MOD's belief is that it is simply above the law.
:=

TG

Yes, it would certainly be worth testing in the courts, at least our judiciary on the whole are still sufficiently independent to look at a case on its merits in law.

I'm slightly wary of the linebecause it clearly, repeatedly and understandably happens in civvy street. For example, it is common to have your driving license removed if you develop class 1 diabetes. If you were a driver for a living (HGV or taxi) then you would no longer be capable of doing the job. There would be no requirement to have you kicking around the dispatch office being paid the same wage you were on when driving unsocial hours.

Is it right to pay people for jobs they are not capable of doing? If so, we'll have to keep paying those poor hard-done-by premiership footballers all the way until their pensionable age even though they become physically incapable at achieving the job requirements in their 30s.

for your own information, a TYPE 1 diabetic insulin treated person in most cases will keep their driving license. It is when they have poor control it is revoked from them. Im 19 and was diagnosed at 17 and didnt have mine revoked. I also still hold a pilots license and can fly passengers legally as the sole pilot of the aircraft. Also in Canada there are diabetic airline pilots which fly internationally..

Just my 2 cents.

I am sorry to say, employment law is VERY much on the side of the employer-I know from personal experience that persuing your rightful claim is expensive-currently £195 per hour plus of course VAT--lose and you may face paying their costs also as well as your own. So I am afraid that unless you are either very rich or very principled, my advice is to think long and hard about taking the legal route--it can end in tears. Sorry to be the harbinger of doom--just my own experience of Employment Law.

I could be wrong but I think it has something to do with pay being made up of basic pay and additional pay for 'special' skills - your basic pay is not allowed to be reduced but if you are not able to 'provide' your special skills anymore then they can get away with not paying you for them.