Topic: Acting lacking MCpl in charge of a section with qualified MCpl's

[DAA]

Is there a specific ref that states this? CMP 20/04, CFAOs, DAODs... none seem to define what Acting/Lacking is, other than to say that members may, in certain circumstances, be promoted Acting/Lacking.

What differentiates A/L from AWSE, for example?

A/L is a promotion to a higher rank, where the individual lacks either the qualification (occupational or leadership) or the required time in (which is rare).  AWSE is a "temporary" promotion to the next higher rank and only in effect while an individual is performing a specific job (ie; whilst so employed).  To be promoted AWSE, you must be fully qualified and eligible to hold the next higher rank as "substantive", so you must meet ALL the promotion prerequisites, unless a waiver is authorized.

See CFAO 49-4, Anx A - Eligibility Criteria (Reg F) or 49-5, Anx A, App1 (Primary Res).

[stokerwes]

I heard a "rumour" that the ILP was being phased out and the ILQ and SLC would be the only two leadership courses required for NCM`s. Anyone here this or have some reliable information like a DAOD or CANFORGEN?
I have tried the search function and couldn't find anything

[Old EO Tech]

I heard a "rumour" that the ILP was being phased out and the ILQ and SLC would be the only two leadership courses required for NCM`s. Anyone here this or have some reliable information like a DAOD or CANFORGEN?
I have tried the search function and couldn't find anything

The ALP is being turned into DL only.  Other than that the other career courses(ILP, CQC, SAP etc) are unchanged so far. 

Jon

[Nerf herder]

I heard a "rumour" that the ILP was being phased out and the ILQ and SLC would be the only two leadership courses required for NCM`s. Anyone here this or have some reliable information like a DAOD or CANFORGEN?
I have tried the search function and couldn't find anything

I've heard the same rumour....and only a rumour. As far as I know, there is no plans to cancel ILP/ ILQ or whatever they plan on calling it this week.

Regards

[DAA]

ALP/ALQ is in fact being converted over to strictly DL (ie; no residential) from what I understand.  D Mil C/CM's are in the process of contacting pers who have already done the ALQ DL portion and offering them the "Residential" phase prior to the cut-over inorder to obtain the full qual.  If they don't attend, then they will be subject to the full DL program once is comes out.  Just had a member of our unit experience this.

[Haggis]

The CANFORGEN removes the "hard" requirement for Primary Reserve personnel to have met ALL the prerequisites prior to being promoted.  Previously in the Reserves, if you didn't meet ALL the prerequisites, then you could NOT be promoted.

No, this CANFORGEN removes only the hard requirement for the leadership qualification for P Res, bringing P Res NCM promotion policy into line with Reg F NCM promotion policy in CFAO 49-4 for Acting/Lacking promotions only.  In the past, P Res members could be promoted Acting/Lacking as long as they had the leadership qualification.  Occupational quals and time in rank could be waived.

Substantive promotion, either P Res or Reg F still requires that all promotion prerequisites be met.

[Inf Soldier]

Scenario:

Member is in an under-ranked position

Member goes on PLQ and is told following PLQ they will be promoted to MCpl

Member returns from PLQ and is told they now need to attend another "new" course before being promotable (the new infantry DP2 ASA)

Member inquires about Acting/Lacking and is told their unit "doesn't do" A/L

Member cites CDS guidance specifically allowing A/L

Unit persists

... Does this sound like grounds for a grievance or redress of some sort?

[Haggis]

... Does this sound like grounds for a grievance or redress of some sort?

No.  You do not, at this time, meet all the prerequisites.  One of the prerequisites is CO's recommendation and it appears that you lack that.   Therefore, you will not be appointed Acting/Lacking MCpl.

[Awesomedude]

Hello Army.ca

<flame shield up>

I thought I saw a regulation that said an acting lacking MCpl should not be put in charge of other MCpl's who are PLQ qualified. It is the topic of
discussion right now with the boys and now im not sure if its something I dreamed while on a peyote trip.

[dapaterson]

1. MCpl is an appointment, not a rank.  MCpls are Cpls.

2. Order of seniority in rank is as laid out in QR&O 3.09.

[mariomike]

I thought I saw a regulation that said an acting lacking MCpl should not be put in charge of other MCpl's who are PLQ qualified. It

See also,

Substantive Rank [MERGED]
https://army.ca/forums/index.php?topic=50104.0

Definition of Acting/Lacking 
https://army.ca/forums/index.php?topic=111902.0

Acting/Lacking?
https://army.ca/forums/index.php?topic=97718.0

Acting Lacking Corporal 
https://army.ca/forums/index.php?topic=113678.0

etc...

[Awesomedude]

Thank you kindly,

I DID use the search but i didn't see those. Im a read the crap out of those topics and come back

[mariomike]

Thank you kindly,

You are welcome. My pleasure. 

[Awesomedude]

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.page

EDIT2:

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?

[mariomike]

I suppose I will reg-rat around for a better definition of seniority, it might be just a pay thing

Will this help?,

NCM Prgression  ( sic )
https://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,93245.0.html

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.

[Awesomedude]

 

(3) Master corporals have seniority among themselves in their order of seniority as corporals.

Where I am/was having issues is basically I know:

MCpl > Corporal

But, im not really sure if 

MCpl substantive > MCpl Acting lacking.

Im starting to think its MCpl with more corporal time > MCpl with less corporal time (regardless of substantives)

 

[Pusser]

You may be over-complicating this.  If the CoC has designated the A/MCpl as the supervisor in the Sgt's absence, that pretty much seals the deal.  This is a command prerogative.  I suppose the other MCpls could complain, but I don't think it would do much good.

[Awesomedude]

However,

if the Wo said, random Cpl is the supervisor and the Sgt reports to him. Im sure there would be a legitimate complaint. So, where does a AL/MCpl and a substantive MCpl fall into this if at all

EDIT: im thinking it don't btw, MCpl wise, I always thought it did but more I read into it, im not finding anything. 

[MARS]

However,

if the Wo said, random Cpl is the supervisor and the Sgt reports to him. Im sure there would be a legitimate complaint. So, where does a AL/MCpl and a substantive MCpl fall into this if at all

That would be true, I think, because there is an actual difference in rank in your Cpl/Sgt example.  But the Acting MCpl and the substantive MCpl are both the same rank: Cpl.  I haven't been a LS in over 20 yrs, but what currently separates the two other than some coursing, specifically PLQ?  To answer your question, I don't think the A/MCpl situation falls into it at all.

It isn't pretty, but if the A/MCpl is a better junior leader and administrator than his peers who have said courses completed, then yes, I would have made the same decision as the CoC in this case. 

[Eye In The Sky]

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 believe MM hit the nail on the head above.

I recall my first time being a Crse WO (as a Sgt).  I was 3 years in rank, and the Sgt who held the position of Trg Sgt on the course had 10 or more years in rank more than me.  Despite that, I had the authority and responsibilities of the Crse WO position.

Another consideration when people are the same rank is having authority over others by way of position or appointment.  There can be 4 or 5 Captains on a long range patrol crew;  not all of them will have 'command' authority that comes with being either the Crew Commander or the Aircraft Captain (who have different authority on different aspects of the crew and mission).

Maybe assigning this position was done for PD reasons and not to slight anyone?  In my job, we often give people the position of Acting Crew Lead, to expose them to the job requirements and 'develop the leadership potential in our subordinates'.  Lots of possible reasons, that might be one of them.     

[PuckChaser]

So, where does a AL/MCpl and a substantive MCpl fall into this if at all

EDIT: im thinking it don't btw, MCpl wise, I always thought it did but more I read into it, im not finding anything.

They're both MCpls. If the course mattered in attaining the promotion/appointment, you'd be required to complete PLQ before being appointed.

I really think it comes down to this: If you're going to be a good leader, you need to be a good follower. If someone junior to you (but same appointment) is placed in charge over you, you should be supporting that person as much as you would your Sgt. You should also ask the Sgt politely why its happening, as its either due to professional development of the junior member, or the job performance of that "substantive" MCpl being subpar.

[Eye In The Sky]

 

They're both MCpls. If the course mattered in attaining the promotion/appointment, you'd be required to complete PLQ before being appointed.

I really think it comes down to this: If you're going to be a good leader, you need to be a good follower. If someone junior to you (but same appointment) is placed in charge over you, you should be supporting that person as much as you would your Sgt. You should also ask the Sgt politely why its happening, as its either due to professional development of the junior member, or the job performance of that "substantive" MCpl being subpar.

   Yup, we don't operate like a union.  Well, not EXACTLY like one, at least...

[CountDC]

I think people have to spend more time getting the job done than worrying about who has seniority.  I have had occasions where I supervised more senior ranks and been supervised by more junior ranks simply because of position and/or work knowledge.  One time I did have to explain to the Cpl that he was the sect comd I was assigned to for a weekend ex so he was to issue me directions the same as everyone else (keeping in mind respectably as he was a couple ranks lower).  Seniority has never been a factor when I assign leaders of a work party, I always pick on more important factors such as real skill observed in past performance, job knowledge or occasionally the desire to observe performance. 

A Substantive MCpl should understand that it is not always seniority as this is part of completing small party tasking on the JLC (or at least use to be), deciding who would be your 2IC based on skill not rank or seniority.  Cpl Bloggins over MCpl Bloggins because the Cpl is a MSE Op and the task is veh recovery.

[Awesomedude]

FYI, this was an entirely theoretical discussion.

I remember someone pulled this card on deployment (this guy cant be my supervisor because he dosn't have PLQ) and its where I originally heard the topic, and it came up in the shop. I always thought it to be true but now digging into it I can't find any proof, therefore I was probably mistaken.  Now get your touque and gloves on with your winter coat ****ers its the RULES! (its not really)

[CountDC]

Now get your touque and gloves on with your winter coat ****ers its the RULES! (its not really)

Should have been with me years ago when I had a discussion with a chief that felt I should be wearing gloves with my all weather overcoat.  I was wearing the coat because it was raining but it was his opinion that if it was cold enough to wear the coat it was cold enough to wear gloves as per the dress regulations.  Wasn't cold either, it was actually hot that day.