# "If you're not signed in, you're not covered" - Class A injury compensation



## chrisf (1 Oct 2010)

So I was thinking about the age old reserve adage of "sign in so you're covered" and it's corollary "if you're not signed in, you're not covered". Now I'm not a lawyer by any means, but bare with me, follow my logic train, and if anyone has anything of a concrete legal nature to add, I'd love to hear it.

It's my understanding that we aren't covered by workman's comp, however, similar benefits are supplied, as such, we wouldn't be allowed to sue our employer (the CF). I've repeatedly heard the words "sign in so you're covered" and "if you're not signed in you're not covered", and the great grand fear seems to be that if I (or anyone else for that matter, and this may be a it of an exageration, but again bare with me) ever happen to be knocked into a coma, or worse yet, killed, and happened to have forgotten to sign the paysheet that morning, that I would be out of luck as far as compensation goes.

Now, it seems to me that, if there are (and likely would be) witnesses that can say yes I was working, and that yes, I had been authorised to be in for such such work, and, should I, or my estate, not be entitled to compensation, that I regain my rights to sue... and it shouldn't be to hard to convince a judge that i'm entitled to, at the very least, that compensation.

Where I'm going with this, is it seems to me that it would be in the best interest of the CF to provide such compensation, as long as I had been working, regardless of whether I had gotten around to scribbling my name and initials for the day... if not, they're likely going to be sued, and with a good chance of success...

Does anyone know of any case where an individual was denied compensation, as an employee of the CF, because they had neglected to sign in despite having been working and authorized to do so? Or is the old adage of "if you're not signed in you're not covered" just the result of confusion and fear mongering?


----------



## Jorkapp (1 Oct 2010)

Signing the pay sheet is not the only way to verify your presence:

If you're injured in the course of duty, you should fill out a CF-98. If you fill out a CF-98, you're covered. VAC will use CF-98's, not paysheets, in determining if you can draw benefits or compensation as a result of injuries/illnesses attributable to service. Almost anytime I've ever seen a CF-98 at unit level, it usually has a witness statement(s) attached to it, but never a paysheet. Serious injuries and deaths typically have investigations by Chain of Command and/or Military Police.

There's lots of checks and balances to ensure that you're covered in the event the worst happens. Signing the paysheet is a very weak way of verifying your presence (someone could have signed for you). That said, the unit admin staff do use paysheets for other purposes (determining Cl.A budgets, etc), so not signing in can have an impact on unit operations. Plus, if you don't sign in, you don't get paid - who would want to work for free?


----------



## dapaterson (1 Oct 2010)

The CBI for disability compensation is a bit more expansive.  For fitness training, for example, as long as you complete the Army fitness form you are covered, even if not paid.


----------



## OldSolduer (1 Oct 2010)

I can only echo these thoughts. The CF 98 is an underutilized document IMO. Fill it out for every injury - no matter how insignificant it may appear at the time -and retain copies.


----------



## PMedMoe (1 Oct 2010)

And don't forget that a CF98 is an administrative document, not a medical one.


----------



## logmore (2 Oct 2010)

It is not so much as you are not covered, but it will make the process far easier for you to justify that any injury you sustained did occur whilst you were on duty. But there are occurrences were you are covered to some extent even while not on duty.

If you are not signed in they (DCBA and the lawyers) or whomever is responsible will go through great expense to deny your claim.

 Case in point, a Reservist from the eastern part of Canada was in B.C. fighting forest fires 18 hours a day. He was crossing a road, and struck and killed by a truck. The governments position was because this happened during the other 6 hours of the day, or his recreational time, that it was not due to military duty and refused to pay. I took i believe 10 years and the Supreme Court of Canada, to point out to the Government that it was military duty that put him in B.C., in the place that he was killed in the first place, and had he not been on duty he would have likely still been in Eastern Canada.    

 so that is the fight you could be up against...


----------



## HollywoodHitman (3 Oct 2010)

ALWAYS SIGN IN...Yes, notice the caps....

Several years ago, one of our soldiers was running late for arrival. PT had already begun, so rather than sign in, he ran to catch up with the rest of the troops. He made it, but while on the road he was hit by a drunk driver. He suffered some significant injuries - significant enough that he was medically released from the CF. He got tons of cash from ICBC, but a promising young soldier had his contributions to the Army cut short.

You MUST sign in, or the system will consider you 'not at work'.


----------



## the 48th regulator (3 Oct 2010)

HollywoodHitman said:
			
		

> ALWAYS SIGN IN...Yes, notice the caps....
> 
> Several years ago, one of our soldiers was running late for arrival. PT had already begun, so rather than sign in, he ran to catch up with the rest of the troops. He made it, but while on the road he was hit by a drunk driver. He suffered some significant injuries - significant enough that he was medically released from the CF. He got tons of cash from ICBC, but a promising young soldier had his contributions to the Army cut short.
> 
> You MUST sign in, or the system will consider you 'not at work'.




You contradict yourself, if he was medically released, they must have considered his injuries attributed to his service.  Therefore signed in or not, he was covered.

dileas

tess


----------



## Journeyman (3 Oct 2010)

HollywoodHitman said:
			
		

> ....but while on the road he was hit by a drunk driver. He suffered some significant injuries - significant enough that he was medically released from the CF. He got tons of cash from ICBC, but a promising young soldier had his contributions to the Army cut short.
> 
> You MUST sign in, or the system will consider you 'not at work'.


Maybe I'm even more thick than usual today, but I don't understand the point your example is trying to make -- how would signing in have kept him from either being hit by the drunk driver or being medically released?


----------



## Jorkapp (3 Oct 2010)

HollywoodHitman said:
			
		

> ALWAYS SIGN IN...Yes, notice the caps....
> 
> Several years ago, one of our soldiers was running late for arrival. PT had already begun, so rather than sign in, he ran to catch up with the rest of the troops. He made it, but while on the road he was hit by a drunk driver. He suffered some significant injuries - significant enough that he was medically released from the CF. He got tons of cash from ICBC, but a promising young soldier had his contributions to the Army cut short.
> 
> You MUST sign in, or the system will consider you 'not at work'.



Incorrect. The PAY system may consider you not at work, but the legal system says otherwise.

IAW QR&O Vol I Ch 9.06



> 9.06 – CLASS “A” RESERVE SERVICE
> 
> (1) A member of the Reserve Force is on Class “A”
> Reserve Service when the member is performing training
> ...



Further, IAW NDA Section 60



> 60.  (1) The following persons are subject to the Code of Service Discipline:
> (c) an officer or non-commissioned member of the reserve force when the officer or non-commissioned member is
> 
> (i) undergoing drill or training, whether in uniform or not,
> ...



Nowhere is it mentioned that one must sign in to be considered on duty, just that you must be there. In the case of the young soldier who was hit by a drunk, he is LEGALLY entitled to all benefits as a result of being injured on duty. 

Signing in is merely an administrative measure, not a legal one. Being denied benefits because of a single missing signature is pure bollocks. I'll agree that always signing in is a good habit to get into, but being punished in the event of the worst is not appropriate at all. Even if the worst should happen and they're not signed in, any half-decent OR should know how to fudge the paperwork in the favour of the injured person.


----------



## HollywoodHitman (4 Oct 2010)

Sure thing all. Just citing an example of a real world scenario that faced one of our former troops. He was released as unfit for infantry. The letter signed by the BGen is posted all over our armoury (with pertinent info) blackened out, so as to re-inforce the reasons we insist that soldiers sign in prior to the commencement of any training at all.

The results of the investigation conducted by various levels of staff, left the soldier without significant military benefits and a release from the CF.


----------



## Michael OLeary (4 Oct 2010)

Having a signed paysheet is like having a CF98 on file for a past injury - the absence of either one may not stop a legitimate claim from being put forward, but having them will certainly make the entire process a lot simpler.


----------



## SevenSixTwo (4 Oct 2010)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I can only echo these thoughts. The CF 98 is an underutilized document IMO. Fill it out for every injury - no matter how insignificant it may appear at the time -and retain copies.



I made this mistake. Something that was minor after the fact (hurt like hell when it happened) I never got a CF-98 for because I was too embarassed to ask for it especially since it was not serious when our Warrant asked after exercise if anyone was injured doing "dumb sh**". I also felt embarassed because of the nature of the injury.

I was carrying the baseplate for the radio and lost my grip and dropped it (this is a pretty expensive piece of equipment). My body took over with reaction and I caught it but my hands had caught it in one part and my knee cap had caught it in the other part. My knee sometimes "creaks" and hurts during squats.

Also, all the CF-98s I do have I don't have copies of.


----------



## daftandbarmy (4 Oct 2010)

Intersting...

I've recently heard that ther rules were changed to allow COs to charge people they've issued orders to by email for non-compliance with those orders.

So, if I get an order from my CO on a Monday night at 11.00pm while I'm at home watching the news, becasue there is no scheduled parade, can I sign in? Please say yes, because that will triple my mole-itia income!


----------



## dapaterson (4 Oct 2010)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Intersting...
> 
> I've recently heard that ther rules were changed to allow COs to charge people they've issued orders to by email for non-compliance with those orders.
> 
> So, if I get an order from my CO on a Monday night at 11.00pm while I'm at home watching the news, becasue there is no scheduled parade, can I sign in? Please say yes, because that will triple my mole-itia income!



When Reservists are subject to the Code of Service Discipline is outlined in the NDA, and is not altogether intuitive.  For example: Transferred from the Regular Force to the Supplementary Reserve and standing on Parliament Hill watching the Ceremonial Guard?  Subject to the CSD (though I can't see any prosecutor pursuing it). 

Orders issued by email are orders (just a different method of transmission).  Whether you as a Reservist can be prosecuted for ignoring/disobeying them depends on whether you're subject to the CSD at the time.

For an interesting take on this situation, look at the two court-martials for _Byrne_.  A Reserve Major, he did not attend his court-martial (CM #1).  The judge ordered him arrested, and he was charged with failing to attend his court martial (CM #2).  At CM#2, the judge ruled that at the time of the offence he had not been subject to the CSD, and thus the charge of failing to attend his court martial was dismissed as the court martial lacked disciplinary jursidiction.

[ tangent to the thread ] 

This does not speak to the larger issue of Reserve compensation regulations faling to keep pace with modern communications systems.   Is a Reservist on class A service issued a Blackberry entitled to pay every time he/she checks an email?  If a class A section commander sends an email to their subordinates other than on a parade evening, are they entitled to compensation?  Current pay is based on assumptions of parade nights plus weekend exercises; there's nothing in the compensation plan that covers work after hours / on your own time.  A Reg F member is paid 24/7.  One day of class A pay is equal to the Reg F monthly rate, multiplied 12, divided by 365, then multiplied by 85%.  It's not a rate based on a "working day", but rather based on a calendar day.  (The value of a "working day" is significantly more - just under 40% more).  The "any time, any place" elements of Reg F compensation are not paid to part-time Reservists, yet we're increasingly expecting (and requiring) the same sort of flexibility of part-time service members, without providing any compensation for it.

[ / tangent to the thread ]


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Oct 2010)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Intersting...
> 
> I've recently heard that ther rules were changed to allow COs to charge people they've issued orders to by email for non-compliance with those orders.
> 
> So, if I get an order from my CO on a Monday night at 11.00pm while I'm at home watching the news, becasue there is no scheduled parade, can I sign in? Please say yes, because that will triple my mole-itia income!



Interesting


----------



## daftandbarmy (4 Oct 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> This does not speak to the larger issue of Reserve compensation regulations faling to keep pace with modern communications systems.   Is a Reservist on class A service issued a Blackberry entitled to pay every time he/she checks an email?  If a class A section commander sends an email to their subordinates other than on a parade evening, are they entitled to compensation?  Current pay is based on assumptions of parade nights plus weekend exercises; there's nothing in the compensation plan that covers work after hours / on your own time.  A Reg F member is paid 24/7.  One day of class A pay is equal to the Reg F monthly rate, multiplied 12, divided by 365, then multiplied by 85%.  It's not a rate based on a "working day", but rather based on a calendar day.  (The value of a "working day" is significantly more - just under 40% more).  The "any time, any place" elements of Reg F compensation are not paid to part-time Reservists, yet we're increasingly expecting (and requiring) the same sort of flexibility of part-time service members, without providing any compensation for it.
> 
> [ / tangent to the thread ]



I estimate that most NCOs and Officers are subsidizing the reserves to the tune of at least 15-20%. Many give more, just to be professional in the delivery of training etc. This uppaid planning and communications activity is crucial to the preparation and delivery of 'parade square' and weekend exercise training. Should they be able to sign a paysheet for this? What happens if someone gets injured when doing a recce of a training area (off the paysheet), as many of us have had to do in the past?

The tangent continues.....


----------



## Journeyman (4 Oct 2010)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> What happens if someone gets injured when doing a recce of a training area (off the paysheet), as many of us have had to do in the past?


...or a vicious paper cut, preparing handouts from the PowerPoint! :nod:


----------



## Haggis (4 Oct 2010)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> What happens if someone gets injured when doing a recce of a training area (off the paysheet), as many of us have had to do in the past?



One would hope that the system would "do the right thing" and not just "do things right".  However, when lawyers get involved the probability of that occuring drops sharply.


----------



## daftandbarmy (4 Oct 2010)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> ...or a vicious paper cut, preparing handouts from the PowerPoint! :nod:



Whoa... the horror and increased probability of that happening has just sunk in!  :'(


----------



## PuckChaser (4 Oct 2010)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Intersting...
> 
> I've recently heard that ther rules were changed to allow COs to charge people they've issued orders to by email for non-compliance with those orders.
> 
> So, if I get an order from my CO on a Monday night at 11.00pm while I'm at home watching the news, becasue there is no scheduled parade, can I sign in? Please say yes, because that will triple my mole-itia income!



Please don't tell me there's rules in place that sanction leadership via Blackberry.


----------



## daftandbarmy (5 Oct 2010)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Please don't tell me there's rules in place that sanction leadership via Blackberry.



Oh, it's been happening way before the Crack-berry,

I once received orders from my OC for an operational deployment to protect an airfield (a no notice, no duff op) via his pocket tape recorder. He, of course, had to leave on a long weekend with his family that he'd pre-booked at a resort, so all of us: Coy 2IC, Pl Comds, CSM & CQ, sat around this thing on his desk listening to his disembodied voice. We then spent the weekend doing battle prep for the deployment with the troops. 

The only problem was, at the end of the tape, that clown of an OC didn't self-destruct.  :clown:


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae (5 Oct 2010)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Intersting...
> 
> I've recently heard that ther rules were changed to allow COs to charge people they've issued orders to by email for non-compliance with those orders.


I don't believe this is new.  Email is no different than any other communications medium.  Posting messages etc are issued via email and email is saved in RDIMS as a corporate record.  I've had to print out my emails on several occasions for ATI requests as well.


----------



## lethalLemon (5 Oct 2010)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I estimate that most NCOs and Officers are subsidizing the reserves to the tune of at least 15-20%. Many give more, just to be professional in the delivery of training etc. This uppaid planning and communications activity is crucial to the preparation and delivery of 'parade square' and weekend exercise training. Should they be able to sign a paysheet for this? What happens if someone gets injured when doing a recce of a training area (off the paysheet), as many of us have had to do in the past?
> 
> The tangent continues.....



It makes sense why ResF wouldn't be covered for Comp/Benefits unless signed in during parade/training night and weekend training; however one would think that if you had to do work outside of those standards days/hours that you would be compensated for your time and efforts... kinda like RCMP - although I only have a vague idea of how it works for them?


----------



## Neill McKay (5 Oct 2010)

lethalLemon said:
			
		

> however one would think that if you had to do work outside of those standards days/hours that you would be compensated for your time and efforts...



The way I look at it is this: we get paid, nominally, for six hours on a training night but work something less than that (if we were there for more than six hours we'd be getting a full day's pay for it).  That bit of "gravy" looks after part of the off-the-clock work we do.


----------



## chrisf (5 Oct 2010)

Lex Parsimoniae said:
			
		

> I don't believe this is new.  Email is no different than any other communications medium.  Posting messages etc are issued via email and email is saved in RDIMS as a corporate record.  I've had to print out my emails on several occasions for ATI requests as well.



Provided you can prove they received the orders, and in a timely fashion. Anything time sensitive done through e-mail can be a double edged sword. Network outages, software errors, user errors, and the fact that not all troops spend 24 hours per day at their desk all lend a fairly good defence against such as charge.


----------



## dapaterson (5 Oct 2010)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> The way I look at it is this: we get paid, nominally, for six hours on a training night but work something less than that (if we were there for more than six hours we'd be getting a full day's pay for it).  That bit of "gravy" looks after part of the off-the-clock work we do.


By that same logic, we're cheating the system if we work less than 24 hours a day if signed in for a full day.

Reg F are paid of weekends when they do not work (and yes, ACK that there are times when trhey do work weekends, but it's not routine for every weekend for every Reg F member).

Reg F daily working rate of pay can be calculated by what a leave day cashout is worth (Monthly rate x 12 / 2087.04 x 8 is the formula, translating monthly to annual, to hourly, to daily rate).  If we used that as the basis for Res F compensation (85% of Reg F) pay rates would leap by 39.9% overnight (except for Pte, Ocdt 2Lt and Lt, who are paid more than 85% of the Reg F rate to provide competitive entry level pay).

However, a fundamental rethink of military compensation is needed - if we want enhanced readiness or availability, that should be compensated, whether Reg or Res, full or part time.  If you aren't physically fit you should be paid less.  Fail to maintain qualifications, you should be paid less.  That is beyond the scope of this thread, though (and has been "vigorously discussed" on the past on this board).


----------



## chrisf (5 Oct 2010)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Intersting...
> 
> I've recently heard that ther rules were changed to allow COs to charge people they've issued orders to by email for non-compliance with those orders.
> 
> So, if I get an order from my CO on a Monday night at 11.00pm while I'm at home watching the news, becasue there is no scheduled parade, can I sign in? Please say yes, because that will triple my mole-itia income!



As a reservist? Orders are not binding when you're not subject to the NDA (This came up a while back locally, an RSM was rather irate after he "ordered" a class A reservist to come in while in a telephone conversation. The reservist was at home, and not signed in, not in uniform, and as such, not subject to the NDA, so the order was not binding, no matter how much it angered the RSM).

On top of that, if you didn't respond, can anyone prove you received and read the e-mail?


----------



## lethalLemon (5 Oct 2010)

Thank you N. McKay and dapaterson for that insight. I learned something today


----------



## Neill McKay (6 Oct 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> By that same logic, we're cheating the system if we work less than 24 hours a day if signed in for a full day.



That's not an unreasonable point (leaving aside the limitations on human endurance).  Presumably part of the definition of "work" here includes time when you're not actually working but are subject to having to turn to at a moment's notice.

I'd note that, for purposes of EI calculations relating to Class B service, The System has refused to credit more than 35 (+/-) hours a week, so a Class B day for some purposes is defined as much less than 24 hours.  But that's only tangential to the discussion.

I'd estimate that I spend about as much time working for my unit off the clock as I do on; it's all part of the fun.


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Oct 2010)

This sounds just like the purposely spread rumor "If you wear non-issued kit and you get hurt you won't be covered"


----------



## Michael OLeary (6 Oct 2010)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> This sounds just like the purposely spread rumor "If you wear non-issued kit and you get hurt you won't be covered"



That enters a completely different "grey area". If your injury is directly associated with the failure of non-issue kit you chose to wear in lieu of issued kit that was designed to protect you, you may in fact have difficulty with your claim. It may not be denied outright, but there could be additional questions you will have to answer. But, if someone chooses to believe that no decision made by a chain of command can ever be right, then I guess they should also  be ready for any extra administrative hurdles they potentially set up for themselves.


----------

