Digging around in that QR&O im seeing this
(1) Officers and non-commissioned members
who hold acting rank have no seniority in that rank. They have seniority among themselves in their order of seniority in their substantive rank.
So im reading this as an acting lacking MCpl has less seniority then a substantive MCpl
(2) When any part of the Canadian Forces is on active
service, substantive and temporary ranks shall be regarded as equal for purposes of determining seniority.
I read this as substantive and temporary ranks are treated the same. I am under the understanding that acting rank =/= temporary rank.
So a more accurate question would be does seniority matter? (in so far as the Sgt making an acting lacking his 2ic over substantive MCpl's )
I suppose I will reg-rat around for a better definition of seniority, it might be just a pay thing
EDIT:
This is making me think that a MCpl means nothing in regards to seniority cause its not part of the hierarchy at all.
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-queens-regulations-orders-vol-01/ch-03.pageEDIT2:
3.08 - MASTER CORPORAL APPOINTMENT
(1) The Chief of the Defence Staff or such officer as he may designate may appoint a corporal as a master corporal.
(2) The rank of a master corporal remains that of corporal.
(3) Master corporals have seniority among themselves in their order of seniority as corporals.
(4) Master corporals have authority and powers of command over all other corporals.
I guess MCpl's are special snow flakes. I think where im not clear is:
- Acting rank = no seniority in that rank just your substantive rank.
- Acting appointment to MCpl = Corporal seniority?
So their is no real difference between MCpl appointed, and MCpl Substantive IRW seniority as they are both basically corporals? (substansive rank)?
Im assuming Corporal(B) is a pay thing and means nothing for seniority?