# Ex-soldier says army fired her for requesting mat leave



## PMedMoe (6 Jan 2012)

Article Link

A former army reservist claims the Canadian Forces fired her in 2010 after she requested maternity leave.

The 34-year-old woman, who identifies herself as Danielle, has filed a human rights complaint. She says the army discriminated against her because she's a woman.

"I submitted my request for leave and the next day they told me it was refused," Danielle told QMI Agency.

"Less than 24 hours after my request for maternity leave, they said, 'Thank you, good night, we're cancelling (your contract),'" she said. 

More at link

I'm thinking there's more to this story than what's in the article.


----------



## aesop081 (6 Jan 2012)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I'm thinking there's more to this story than what's in the article.



Of course there is. There always is.

Interesting choice of lawyer.......... :


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Jan 2012)

I agree, and the choice of lawyer is interesting as well.

IF (and that is a big if) the CO cancelled the contract for no good reason.....other than her being pregnant..... :facepalm:


----------



## Journeyman (6 Jan 2012)

> [Drapeau] "But the military never offered to take her back. To me, this dismissal violates human rights and women's rights."


 There you have it; official legal opinion that women are not human.


----------



## PMedMoe (6 Jan 2012)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> There you have it; official legal opinion that women are not human.



And don't you forget it.   >


----------



## ArmyRick (6 Jan 2012)

This will be an interesting one to see unfold.


----------



## Jammer (6 Jan 2012)

Michel Drapeau??? Really?

The same talking head that CTV pulls out whenever they need an "expert" opinion on tactics and strategy whenever there is a story on the CF.
Arrrgggghhhh...so much I want to rant about how much this guy doesn't know...(but profess' to).
Agreed....much more to this than meets the eye.


----------



## Haggis (6 Jan 2012)

Why a human rights complaint?  Did she file an unsuccessful redress of grievance?  Did she unsuccessfully engage the CF Ombudsman?  If so, then a Human Rights complaint would be warranted - not before.

Clearly, there are far more details that have yet to come out.


----------



## Robert0288 (6 Jan 2012)

> A former army reservist


I think it might depend on what kind of contract she was on.  If it was just a Class B 89 day'er I don't think you qualify for benefits.  Then again I've never  had a reason to look at mat leave.



> "For her to retain the benefits she received during maternity leave, she would have to return to her work," he said.
> "But the military never offered to take her back. To me, this dismissal violates human rights and women's rights."


And I'm very certain that the military isn't obligated to offer Class Bs to anyone except maybe if you are injured while on duty and are unable to work your civy job.


----------



## Stoker (6 Jan 2012)

Robert0288 said:
			
		

> I think it might depend on what kind of contract she was on.  If it was just a Class B 89 day'er I don't think you qualify for benefits.  Then again I've never  had a reason to look at mat leave.
> And I'm very certain that the military isn't obligated to offer Class Bs to anyone except maybe if you are injured while on duty and are unable to work your civy job.



Sounds like she was on a short term Class B, wanted to go on Pata early. Pata ended IAW her contract and that had no new contract for her.

I'm sure the real details will eventually come out though.


----------



## dapaterson (6 Jan 2012)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Why a human rights complaint?  Did she file an unsuccessful redress of grievance?  Did she unsuccessfully engage the CF Ombudsman?  If so, then a Human Rights complaint would be warranted - not before.
> 
> Clearly, there are far more details that have yet to come out.



A redress can be effective, but I've also seen a large number that lag and drag.  The Ombudsman has no legal authority.  So pursuing through a quasi-legal body has some merit - it also forces the issue into the open, which is preferable from a public policy perspective (if not from a public relations perspective).


----------



## tree hugger (6 Jan 2012)

One question I have is whether or not she ended up being replaced by someone else on a Class B....


----------



## Stoker (6 Jan 2012)

tree hugger said:
			
		

> One question I have is whether or not she ended up being replaced by someone else on a Class B....



Where I work we will try and get a back fill if possible, however often the job goes unfilled until the per comes back off Mata. Is Mata back fill common in the Army reserve?


----------



## Robert0288 (6 Jan 2012)

I think it depends on the unit, and if they have money in the budget for replacement class B.  Depending on the job they might be able to fill with random people on class A days as well.  However thats if the contract was with an actual reserve unit.  If the contract was to fill a position within a reg force unit or NDHQ, who knows.  Your back down to bugetary constraints, also there might be a DND civy who can fill the job, contractor, or they might just leave a blank file and let other people in the department fill the void.

edit:
I'm sure other people on here are more familiar with the hiring process of reservists and can give a better answer.


----------



## dapaterson (6 Jan 2012)

Robert0288 said:
			
		

> I think it depends on the unit, and if they have money in the budget for replacement class B.  Depending on the job they might be able to fill with random people on class A days as well.  However thats if the contract was with an actual reserve unit.  If the contract was to fill a position within a reg force unit or NDHQ, who knows.  Your back down to bugetary constraints, also there might be a DND civy who can fill the job, contractor, or they might just leave a blank file and let other people in the department fill the void.
> 
> edit:
> I'm sure other people on here are more familiar with the hiring process of reservists and can give a better answer.



(1) For Reg F members going on MATA/PATA, Reserve backfill is paid out of the Reg F pay account, so there is no cost to the unit.

(2) For Res F members going on MATA/PATA, the individual is primarily paid through EI, with only a top-up coming from DND/CF, so there should be funds available to hire a backfill.

This, of course, assumes that you can find someone to fill the position.


----------



## Stoker (6 Jan 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> (1) For Reg F members going on MATA/PATA, Reserve backfill is paid out of the Reg F pay account, so there is no cost to the unit.
> 
> (2) For Res F members going on MATA/PATA, the individual is primarily paid through EI, with only a top-up coming from DND/CF, so there should be funds available to hire a backfill.
> 
> This, of course, assumes that you can find someone to fill the position.



Unfortunately that's very true in MARLANT we rarely get back fills for the small ships. No problem filling shore based positions but nobody wants to go to sea it seems.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Jan 2012)

What is not mentioned in the article is whether or not there was a valid, real, medical reason to support the request for the early mata.  Sometimes what is not  being said is as important/more important, than what is being said.  I.E. draws folks into conclusions based on _perceptions_ rather than _facts_.  A fact in this case is the direction in QR & O WRT to maternity leave.

AFAIK, only a MO/Dr/BSurg (depending on length of medical leave required) could grant medical leave for valid, real medical reasons before the commencement of maternity leave as detailed in QR & O, Vol 1, Art 16.26(4).  It _could_ be the individual tried to get on mata early thru the medical system, the medical professionals saw no real reason for it/didn't support that, so the mbr requested it thru her unit, which was also denied because the QR & O/CF Policy state when mata leave commences in normal circumstances (max 8 weeks from due date).   

Quick look at our policy:

*CF Leave Policy Manual, Section 8.3 Maternity and Parental Leave:*

8.3.01 - Authoritative references
The policy guidance for maternity and parental leave benefits is pursuant to:
• QR&O 16.26, Maternity Leave;
• QR&O 16.27, Parental Leave;
• QR&O 9.09, Exemption From Duty and Training – Maternity Purposes
• QR&O 9.10, Exemption From Duty and Training – Parental Purposes
• CBI 205.461, Maternity and Parental Allowances;
• DAOD 5001-2, Maternity and Parental Benefits; and
• A-PM-245-001/FP-011 Chapter 17 Maternity and Parental Benefits Administration.

Internet link and content of QR & O directive from the CF Leave Policy Manual (highlighted in yellow, 9.09 does not apply as mbr was on Cl B) on maternity leave is below for info:

http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/qro-orf/vol-01/doc/chapter-chapitre-016.pdf

16.26 – MATERNITY LEAVE

(1) (Application) This article applies to an officer or non-commissioned member of the Regular Force or the Reserve Force on Class “B” or “C” Reserve Service.

(2) (Definition) In this article, "maternity leave" means a period of leave without pay and allowances granted to an officer or non-commissioned member for maternity purposes.(20 July 2006)

(3) (Eligibility) An officer or non-commissioned member who has been pregnant for at least 19 weeks is entitled, on request, to maternity leave for a period of up to the sum of the applicable periods of entitlement referred to in CBI subparagraph 205.461(4)(a) (Maternity and Parental Allowances) and paragraph 205.461(7). (20 July 2006)

(4) (Start and End of Period) Subject to paragraphs (5), (7) and (8.), the period of maternity leave shall not start more than 8 weeks before the expected date of birth and shall end not later than 18 weeks after the date of the end of the pregnancy. (20 July 2006)

(5) (Extension) The end date of the period of maternity leave shall be extended by any of the following periods:
(20 July 2006)

(a) any period during which one or more new-born children are hospitalized, if the officer or non-commissioned member has not yet started the period of the maternity leave; and (20 July 2006)

(b) any period during which the officer or non-commissioned member, having started but not ended the period of the maternity leave, returns to duty while one or more new-born children are hospitalized. (20 July 2006)

(6) (Military Requirements) When an officer or non-commissioned member has started but not ended maternity leave, a commanding officer may direct that the member return to duty because of imperative military requirements.

(7) (Maternity Benefits Extended) If a period of maternity benefits received under the Employment Insurance Act, or a provincial law or scheme, is extended in accordance with the Employment Insurance Act or the provincial law or scheme because the officer or non-commissioned member returns to duty under paragraph (6), the end date of the period of maternity leave granted shall be extended by the period that the maternity benefits are extended under the applicable law or scheme. (20 July 2006)

(8.) (Limitation) A period of maternity leave extended under paragraphs (5) or (7) shall not end later than 52 weeks after the date of the end of the pregnancy.

The article leaves more questions than answers, and almost anyone in the CF can quickly see there is simply not enough fact there to make any reasonable guess at what actually happened (Did the mbr griev the decision to her CO in writing IAW QR & O Vol 1, Chap 7?  When was the original end date of the Cl B?  Was it CL B or B annotated A?  Was her position one of the ones cut with many other Cl B's that were/are supposed to be not renewed with the change of the PRes post-report from LGen (retired) Leslie and regardless of the pregnancy, her CL B was to be not renewed regardless? )  Thats just a start of questions IMO.

Regardless, I am sure any story comments will be filled with the usual abundance of comments from the uninformed, anti Harper, armchair experts calling for the resignation of the MND, CDS and PM   :

 :2c:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Jan 2012)

The whole thing looks engineered by Drapeau to try embarass the military and the government into an early out of court settlement, complete with the obligitory non disclosure agreement.


----------



## Journeyman (6 Jan 2012)

My thoughts exactly.

My initial thought was that the lawyer's case is so weak that he's leading with 'the court of public opinion'  (you know, since we're all throwing out our best unsubstantiated guesses     ).

I'll leave it at that....and not lose any sleep whatsoever waiting for the next media soundbite.


----------



## dapaterson (6 Jan 2012)

From the scant details posted in the article, I'd say the CF should be worried.  Looking at the forms needed to request MATA/PATA, a clerk must certify that the individual going on leave has sufficient time remaining in their period of service to work one day for each day of MATA/PATA they receive.

Thus, in this case, the plaintiff signed a formal document in which the CF confirmed that she would be employed full-time on return from MATA/PATA and thus was entitled to the allowance.  Now, on return from leave, the CF has altered that and said "No, you're not going to work full time" - and now wants her to pay back the allowance.

While the CBI does not address the specific situation of a full-time reservist being reverted to part-time status, it does include consideration for when members are released due to a reduction in strength - in that case, they are not required to repay the allowance.  Arguably this is a similar situation (a reduction in the number of full-time Reserve Force personnel).

In this cast Me Drapeau is acting in his client's best interest - the deadline to repay has been set as 01 Feb.  DND/CF is slow to work things at the best of times; by pushing this into the public, the system will be forced to be somewhat faster in its response.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Jan 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> From the scant details posted in the article, I'd say the CF should be worried.  Looking at the forms needed to request MATA/PATA, a clerk must certify that the individual going on leave has sufficient time remaining in their period of service to work one day for each day of MATA/PATA they receive.
> 
> Thus, in this case, the plaintiff signed a formal document in which the CF confirmed that she would be employed full-time on return from MATA/PATA and thus was entitled to the allowance.  Now, on return from leave, the CF has altered that and said "No, you're not going to work full time" - and now wants her to pay back the allowance.



Maybe I am missing something, and I did re-read the article, but I don't see where it states what paperwork as signed, other than a request for materinty leave that was denied.  There are too many important dates not included in the article, and likely not inclued as they don't support the position of the plantiff.  The rest of it is "he said, she said" and even that is only on the part of the former member.

But as you said, the details are scant.   



> While the CBI does not address the specific situation of a full-time reservist being reverted to part-time status, it does include consideration for when members are released due to a reduction in strength - in that case, they are not required to repay the allowance.  Arguably this is a similar situation (a reduction in the number of full-time Reserve Force personnel).



I'm not seeing where it says what her release article was, only that she was a 'former' Reservist.  And I personally don't see "your Class B service is over/ends on this date" as "you are being released".  She might have released after her CL B *fulltime employment* was over of her own desire...who knows?

I spent my fair share of time on Class A/B/B(a) service and one thing I always knew on B(a) was the CF could end the contract with 30 days notice, the same as I could.


----------



## bluebelle (6 Jan 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> From the scant details posted in the article, I'd say the CF should be worried.  Looking at the forms needed to request MATA/PATA, a clerk must certify that the individual going on leave has sufficient time remaining in their period of service to work one day for each day of MATA/PATA they receive.
> 
> Thus, in this case, the plaintiff signed a formal document in which the CF confirmed that she would be employed full-time on return from MATA/PATA and thus was entitled to the allowance.  Now, on return from leave, the CF has altered that and said "No, you're not going to work full time" - and now wants her to pay back the allowance.
> 
> ...



Very few details in the article so it's a little difficult to decipher where she stands but,

1. Mata benefits on Cl B  (or C) reserve service would be paid out until when your contract normally would have ended.
2. The EI payments based upon your 12 months of employment prior to mata/pata leave would still be paid in accordance with EI benefits.
3. Reserve Mata benefits can be repaid on Cl A service, ie the clerks determining you have sufficient time remaining in your terms of service only have to ensure you won't reach mandatory retirement age prior to paying back your mata benefits.  (The individual also has an obligation to work that time in order to repay the benefits, if they release voluntarily or NES prior to paying back the benefits they would be required to pay the crown back)

My understanding from the article is not that she was released, only that her cl B contract was cut.  As there is no mention of why in the article it is purely speculation, she may have been cut due to normal cost cutting, she may have been reaching the end of a contract, or she may have been fired because the unit didn't want to pay mata benefits, in which case the CF does have something to worry about


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Jan 2012)

Its not the details of this that will worry those that are supposed to worry about this - its the perception of the public that counts.

And right now the public will perceive this as the CF ( hereafter known as "the big bad meanie") against the poor downtrodden "militia" woman who is being opressed.

The only thing the CF can do is reiterate its policies WRT Class B etc.....which no one will listen to or care about.


----------



## dapaterson (6 Jan 2012)

Permit me to expand:  The article states:



> ...the Canadian Forces initially agreed to pay maternity benefits.
> 
> But after her child was born, she says the department demanded she reimburse the money.
> 
> ...



To get the allowance, a clerk must certify that time remains to work off, day for day, the period for which MATA/PATA was received.   So there's something rotten in the state of Denmark here; if the paintiff must repay, is the CF also pursuing disciplinary action against the clerk who appears to have made a false entry in a document?


And re: release: I apologize for not being clear.  She has not released.  However, the CBI states that you are not obliged to repay the allowance if you don't serve on return if you release due to a change in the authorized strength of the CF.  While not identical, this situation may be sufficiently similar - her period of full-time service was cancelled, likely due to the top-down directed ongoing reductions to the number of full-time Reservists.

(This also highlights the problems with much of our current management of the Reserves, but that's a whole other long list of threads...)


----------



## CountDC (6 Jan 2012)

I would agree recce.

Noticed they do not mention what kind of "contract" she had or the period of it. 

"Thus, in this case, the plaintiff signed a formal document in which the CF confirmed that she would be employed full-time on return from MATA/PATA and thus was entitled to the allowance.  Now, on return from leave, the CF has altered that and said "No, you're not going to work full time" - and now wants her to pay back the allowance."

I don' get that.  It states that her initial request was refused and her "contract" cancelled prior to her MATA.   Could it be that her mata was approved for her to come back on Class A service and she did not show up thus they are now after the benefits back?  How long "after her child was born" did they demand she pay it back?  As far as that goes has her MATA even expired - it appears the baby would have been born in 2011 and mata can be up to year.  If it is a matter of "you're not going to work full time" then they shouldn't be demanding a payback unless she has refused to parade Class A.

it is interesting that they state the military never offered to take her back.  Did she show up for a training night and they told her to go away?

Something that I have seen come up in the past is the clerk issue.  I would not count on the fact that a clerk certified as sealing a case.  I can recall a case where a chief tried using that.  It was determined that the clerk was not a legal representative of the Canadian Forces and was only certifying the information to the best of his knowledge at the time (can't remember the exact wording).  The end result was the chief lost.
I would wager the same argument could be used in this case along with that the clerk was not giving any guarantee of future employment, merely stating that member could do the time under their current period of service which was subject to change (30 days notice still?).

Certainly is a lot missing from this story. Be interested in viewing all the documentation on this one but of course we never will.


----------



## dapaterson (6 Jan 2012)

CountDC said:
			
		

> Certainly is a lot missing from this story. Be interested in viewing all the documentation on this one but of course we never will.



Yes, there's a lot of information missing.

I just tend to assume that, if it's possible*, the CF will screw up admin.



*And sometimes when it's impossible, too...


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Jan 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Yes, there's a lot of information missing.
> 
> I just tend to assume that, if it's possible*, the CF will screw up admin.
> 
> ...



And we won't know the details as there is a privacy issue here.

CF screw up admin? Say it ain't so Joe!!


----------



## Occam (6 Jan 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Permit me to expand:  The article states:
> 
> To get the allowance, a clerk must certify that time remains to work off, day for day, the period for which MATA/PATA was received.   So there's something rotten in the state of Denmark here; if the paintiff must repay, is the CF also pursuing disciplinary action against the clerk who appears to have made a false entry in a document?



I'm pretty sure you're talking about form DND 2268.  I think you're onto something...


----------



## George Wallace (6 Jan 2012)

tree hugger said:
			
		

> One question I have is whether or not she ended up being replaced by someone else on a Class B....



2010.......That is the year that the CLS, General Leslie (you know the one), made all the big cuts to Class B 'jobs' across the CF for all Reservists.  Was hers one of them?


----------



## McG (6 Jan 2012)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Did she file an unsuccessful redress of grievance?


Only service members can seek redress through the CF grievance system.  Ex-service members no longer have the option of using the CF grievance system.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> 2010.......That is the year that the CLS, General Leslie (you know the one), made all the big cuts to Class B 'jobs' across the CF for all Reservists.


The CLS never cut Class B across the *CF*.  In 2010, the CLS did cut-back reserve pay in the *Army*, and many of his subordinate commanders swung their scythes even more deeply and ruthlessly.  Though, your question is still valid: was she a victim of the many Cl B reductions that have been on-going the last few years?  And the counter question is: would she have been a victim of these cuts had she not chosen to take MATA/PATA leave?  If the answer to the first question is "no" then the second question is irrelevant.  If the answer to the first question is "yes" then the answer to the second question had better also be "yes."


----------



## armyvern (6 Jan 2012)

Something smells in Denmark for sure.

My take is that this mbr was on a Class B contract, requested to proceed on MATA early as she was experiencing a diffcult pregnancy (whether that was Doc certified or not is not stated). Request was refused (I'm thinking therefore it was not Doc certified). Mbr is approved for MATA benefits (that is given in the article) and it was 'clerk certified'. Note that for MATA and ResF women, cetification on "ample time left to serve day for day" only requires that the individual have "X days" eligible to serve before reaching mandatory retirement age to be eligible as MATA can be paid back in Class A days, they do not have to certify that mbr has "X number of days of Class B or other full-time service waiting for her immediately upon ending MAT leave". She could have served her days as a Class A, the esteemed lawyer only says that they didn't have a job waiting for her upon her wanting to return. Is he talking about a full-time B Class full time job? There's no rule stating that she is entitled to go back to a Cl B contract - especially so if the contract end-date occured before the end of her MAT or her Class B posn was one identified to be cut at the end of it's 'then-end date' as were hundreds of others within the Army at this time.

So, did she refuse to work Class A? If so, she owes the MATA back and she would have signed paperwork for that MATA that stated so. The article does not say the CF refused to pay her MATA, it clearly states that the CF approved her MATA, but now wants her to pay it back. That tells me that it was she who refused to work Class A and instead figured she should have been employed Class B upon her return "as a right"; that also explains why the CF won't participate in mediation. I have my doubts that it was the CF who refused to offer her work as a Class A.

She's already out?? Drapeau states that she is a "former mbr". Is this actually true or he is he simply convoluting the "public" discussion and perception by using the word "former" to infer that she's a former full time contract reservist and is not any more? If she is actually a "former CF member" and is now released, then she would also have been advised during that release process that she would be required to pay back her MATA --- a process she MUST have participated in while still COLLECTING it as it has only now just been a year ... something tells me that she VRd because she wasn't going to get a full-time job, only a Class A part-time, upon her return ... There is a rule out there about employers "must" retain jobs for women in their employ who go on MATA and can not summarily dismiss them and I think that is the angle this case is taking, but I'm getting the impression that she was not summarily dismissed --- rather that she just didn't like the fact she wasn't getting "her" Class B job back.

Something else niggling in my mind too about the request for early MATA start date prior to allowed "8 weeks before due date" that was refused ... I'd like to see the following questions answered:

1) What was her actual due date? That date, minus 8 weeks, would give us the date "X" she could have started MATA without requesting an "early start date".

2) What was the start-date she requested to begin early MATA that was refused? I'll call that date "Y".

3) What was her B Class contract end-date? I'll call that date "Z".

4) Did date "Z" fall in between date "Y" and "X"?

I think that date would be most telling; I have a hincky feeling that her contract was due to end prior to the earliest allowable date she could go on MATA and so she requested an early start date so she could "officially" be on MATA while still working in a valid and binding contract with the CF. I think it it was refused because, as per the rules there must be a valid medical reason signed by the OBGyn and she didn't have that. I think she tried to skive her way around the system by attempting to use a loophole, but failed in that attempt when her request was refused.

If that's the case, then it explains the CFs refusal to 'mediate', it explains that she knew she would not have Class B upon return but only class A, it explains why the CF approved her MATA benefits and paid them to her, it explains why the CF is now wanting those MATA benefits paid back if she won't show to work Class A now that her year is over, and it explains why she'd get out of the Cf voluntarily and run to the "esteemed retired high-profile talking head" and is now yelling "human rights!!". If she ever had any intention of staying in the CF and repaying with service, then why did she get out within a year of beginning to collect those very benefits, knowing fulling well that releasing would necessitate her paying them back?



Just my .02 cents wirth of course, but something is indeed smeeling bad in Denmark, but I'n not of the belief that it's the CF in this case === despite what the media will undoubtedly have the public believing ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Jan 2012)

I'm just going to see what falls out in the end.


----------



## ModlrMike (6 Jan 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'm just going to see what falls out in the end.



In my experience it starts with C and ends with RAP.


----------



## aesop081 (6 Jan 2012)

It ends up with more Drapeau on TV...............thats bad enough by itself.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Jan 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'm just going to see what falls out in the end.


I picture a sausage machine when you say that - may be appropriate.


----------



## PMedMoe (11 Jan 2012)

This may shed more light on the subject:  http://www.cfgb-cgfc.gc.ca/english/Reports_AR_2009_4.html

I don't see how it's discrimination to ask if someone is deployable.   ???


----------



## Robert0288 (11 Jan 2012)

If its not a deployable class B position then I can see why you don't need to ask the question.  Its up to the member to ensure that they are deployable such as passports and everything else in order, which is not a requirement of a class B contract.  What is required is under 2.6a is your medical and fitness to be current.  (http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/pd/pi-ip/20-04-eng.asp#ins-02-06)

The question I have is that if you are pregnant do you automatically get assigned MEL? And if you do, wouldn't that instantly prohibit you from applying for a class B contract?

Edit:  Answered my first question; you may or may not depending on this document I can't find. (http://www.forces.gc.ca/health-sante/pd/CFP-PFC-154/AN-Gapp1pg12-eng.asp)


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Jan 2012)

Robert0288 said:
			
		

> If its not a deployable class B position then I can see why you don't need to ask the question.



EVERY Class B position is deployable within Canada/on TD.  What are you talking about?  I worked Cl B for years, and I can assure you, my *contract/SOU* I signed clearly stated that I was deployable on Cl B within Canada as required (can't remember the exact words).  I used to get tired of hearing other Cl B folks complaing because they were tasked away from their desk for the summer teaching "insert Crse name here".  Some of them in the same province, some in Gagetown, some to CFSAL Borden etc.  I used to argue WITH them that TD in Canada IS part of the job of Class B folks.

So, I am not sure exactly WTF you are referring to WRT "a not deployable CL B position".  Have you ever seen a Cl B contract or the TOS or anything before?  If a person is NOT deployable (within the Res TOS and Cl B requirements), should that just not matter?  This is the military afterall...you go where you are told, to what is needed to be done, and not always "when you feel like it".  Christ.

If you are thinking "deployable on operations" such as Afghanistan...thats Class C, and a whole different kettle of fish.

In short, your post makes no sense to me, and I've seen lots of Cl A/B and B(A) service.


----------



## Robert0288 (11 Jan 2012)

Sorry I was refering to class C by 'deployable' 


> I used to argue WITH them that TD in Canada IS part of the job of Class B folks.


 Agreed, and I get random taskings within my current Class B as well.


----------



## Occam (11 Jan 2012)

Robert0288 said:
			
		

> The question I have is that if you are pregnant do you automatically get assigned MEL? And if you do, wouldn't that instantly prohibit you from applying for a class B contract?



You are assigned Temporary MELs IAW DAOD 5003-5.  I don't think that would have anything to do with being able to apply for a Class B contract...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Jan 2012)

From the link PMedMoe posted:

At the end of her two-year term, a selection process was held to fill the same position for another three-year term, to which the grievor applied. Of the two candidates interviewed, including the grievor, neither was offered the position.

At the time of her interview, the grievor was known to be two months pregnant. The unit Employment Board members asked her if she was deployable, to which the grievor argued the question was meant to bring out her medical status.

Maybe I am missing something here.  The unit went thru a selection process, and offered neither the position (I've seen that done before as well, and then the position be competed to the 'larger audience' IAW the directive we were under (LFAADs).  So what?

I realize the report is a summarization of a complete and likely complicated file, but she wasn't awarded the position.  So what, then right before Christmas Block Leave she requests MATA and is denied early MATA.  Sounds to me like she was playin' the game of "more than one way to skin a cat".  I've seen people get pretty irrate when their Cl B was in jeopardy.

I'd like to clarify this one point;  is the mbr in question a mbr still or a former mbr??


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Jan 2012)

Occam said:
			
		

> You are assigned Temporary MELs IAW DAOD 5003-5.  I don't think that would have anything to do with being able to apply for a Class B contract...



Perhaps not the "can apply" part, but what about the "is awarded the position" part?  This is alittle outside the norm here, as she did apply for the position, and did not win the competition.  She is suggesting it was because she was pregnant;  perhaps it was not because of that.

Other things we will never see, of course, are her PDRs, PERs, etc, any RM she might have been on, etc.  

Maybe she just wasn't performing and in reality, never had a chance at the position after the end of her 2 yr contract.

Suffice to say, because of Privacy Act rules etc, we likely never will know, BUT I think the fact that the CFGB sided with the grievor should be given its due consideration and weight here.  They would have seen all the relevant documents and facts.  It would appear that the unit was not able to provide documentation to support NOT awarding the mbr the 3 yr contract.  They are a policy driven org, including procedurial fairness/due process aspects.


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Jan 2012)

She seems like she feels entitled to a Cl B contract, which is a major attitude problem. If the other member who was interviewed was deployable, and she's not due to pregnancy, and they both didn't get the job, how is that discrimination?


----------



## CountDC (11 Jan 2012)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> It would appear that the unit *was not* able to provide documentation to support NOT awarding the mbr the 3 yr contract.



or simply did not.  Sometimes with request for compensation or redresses getting things out of units and the member is akin to the needle in the haystack. One of my favourites was the redress on the timeline given to respond to the reply to a redress that the member had missed even after an extention had already been granted.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Jan 2012)

CountDC said:
			
		

> or simply did not.  Sometimes with request for compensation or redresses getting things out of units and the member is akin to the needle in the haystack. One of my favourites was the redress on the timeline given to respond to the reply to a redress that the member had missed even after an extention had already been granted.



If they could have but didn't...well thats their own stupidity.

The problem in the grievance system is there is no accountability.  What happens if an IA blows past an extension date?  Nothing.  

Speaking from experience here...


----------



## dapaterson (11 Jan 2012)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> The problem in the grievance system is there is no accountability.  What happens if an IA blows past an extension date?  Nothing.
> 
> Speaking from experience here...



In that case, I have been known to email Bloggins, the IA (read receipt on, on of course) to alert them that they have missed the deadline, and inform them that their reply is expected on (today's date plus one week).

The day after the reply is due (per my earlier email), I email Bloggins' boss, cc'ing Bloggins, informing him that I will no longer deal with Bloggins, and that he (let's call him Schmozzle) has two weeks to resolve the issue.

Lather, rinse, repeat if Schmozzle fails to do anything.  In one case I found that by the time it hit the BGen's email inbox (with the nice, long trail of emails below showing that I had made every effort to engage those below, and that they had made numerous promises of dates and repeatedly failed to act, and never informed me if they were having difficulties and needed more time) I received a very prompt reply and pleasant resolution.  The folks between us on the food chain - not so much fun for them, I was lead to believe...


Chain of Command can work both ways...


----------



## GAP (11 Jan 2012)

Oh.....$hit rolls downhill?............. ;D


----------



## OldSolduer (11 Jan 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> Oh.....$hit rolls downhill?............. ;D



And it gathers momentum and the $hitball often gets larger.   ;D


----------



## armyvern (11 Jan 2012)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> From the link PMedMoe posted:
> 
> At the end of her two-year term, a selection process was held to fill the same position for another three-year term, to which the grievor applied. Of the two candidates interviewed, including the grievor, neither was offered the position.
> 
> ...



The instant the BHosp determined that she was pregnant, she was issued a medical chit stating that she was "unfit air, land ops, sea, operational deployment. Regular work, meal and sleep hours. PT own pace and design."  That is a medical order. She had a duty to disclose as it does indeed limit her employment in the CF.

Perhaps the Unit was in competition process for the position, but then did not hire either. I can see two absolutely legal and legitimate reasons for that (and there could be more):

1) It was a B Class posn that was competing, that was identified as one of the hundreds of "cut" positions during the selection process. This would negate any requirement to carry on with the selection to hire anyone (either of the two) into the position; and

2) The posn was a Reg F position, that had been filled with a B Class pers (ie the Complainant) originally to backfill an operationally deployed Reg F member (work-up trg, deployment and post-mission leave can take upwards of two years - explaining the original 2 year B Class contract); due to mission closure and drawdown in TFA, it was determined that the Reg F could once again fill this position as it's ~ 2500 RegF pers returned to Canada thus negating the requirement to hire either one of the two applicants into the job.


"Due to changes in circumstances, she requested a cash payout as compensation" instead ... this tells me that she Voluntarily Released from the CF in the meantime... a process during which she would have been made fully aware of the fact that she's have to repay her top-up allowances (her MATA) that the CF paid her over and above the unemployment that she collected during this time. When someone wants to collect UIC and receive additional money on top of that UIC paid out of CF coffers --- then one must return to work after their maternity leave to work it off; that work does not have to be full-time and can be class A; she chose to release anyway.


----------



## armyvern (11 Jan 2012)

Occam said:
			
		

> You are assigned Temporary MELs IAW DAOD 5003-5.  I don't think that would have anything to do with being able to apply for a Class B contract...



Depends what the job description for that position is. If it is a deployable (domestic or other) posn, then she must meet the criteria. I belong to a high readiness Unit, all or positions are determined to be "deployable". You interview to come in to our Unit (and it is a Reg F Unit) and, during the screening, if you are "non-deployable", you don't get posted in to us --- you must meet the criteria of our positions upon application for them.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Jan 2012)

I don't like the vague wording in the report much either, but understand why.

And in your scenario, it sounds like she is looking for a way to get out of paying back benefits.

That fits why the CF is not willing to enter mediation, and IF that is true, as a taxpayer and serving mbr, I would have to agree.

Excellent point on the 2 year contract, I was wondering "why 2 years" but couldn't guesstimate even.  It sounded to me like a position that wasn't an ARE.  I also think different LFAs have slightly different processes WRT B/As so...


----------



## Journeyman (11 Jan 2012)

Oh, give her a QDJM and be done with it.


----------



## armyvern (11 Jan 2012)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Perhaps not the "can apply" part, but what about the "is awarded the position" part?  This is alittle outside the norm here, as she did apply for the position, and did not win the competition.  She is suggesting it was because she was pregnant;  perhaps it was not because of that.
> ...



It MUST have been because she was pregnant ( :); the other person who didn't get it MUST have been pregnant too I guess. Sarcasm off.

This article doesn't actually state that the CF hired anyone into that position. And, I've already gone through a couple of legitimate reasons why that could have occured a couple of posts ago --- which makes sense to me given the hundreds of B Class positions that were "cut" at the time period in question and the sheer volume of RegF pers drawndown in Afghanistan who were then returning to Canada and no longer had to be deployed themselves.


----------

