"Army investigating members allegedly involved in 'abhorrent' Facebook group"

[Furniture]

Good man or not, this is a failure of command. Im sick and tired of the culture in the CAF of "oh so and so is a good person we should cut them some slack", we have lost to many good soldiers because leadership seems to have a different set of rules. If the unit did a UDI and completely botched to protect their own from real consequences. Thats 100% on the CO, and the leadership team.

Its also quite possible the unit did the right thing, but the CAF is now embarrassed, so someone has to pay.

None of us know for sure, so let's see what comes of the current investigation.

 

[brihard]

Good man or not, this is a failure of command. Im sick and tired of the culture in the CAF of "oh so and so is a good person we should cut them some slack", we have lost to many good soldiers because leadership seems to have a different set of rules. If the unit did a UDI and completely botched to protect their own from real consequences. Thats 100% on the CO, and the leadership team.

I would maybe give this some time to play out and for facts to emerge before shitting on the guy. The MPs punted it to the unit, and given the fact set - the datedness of most of what was there, the challenge in asserting CSD applicability to much of it, the evidentiary challenges of a third party complainant pulling screenshots from a private Facebook group, concretely putting specific individuals behind keyboards… Whoever caught this UDI as the investigating officer was fed a shit sandwich and I don’t know how they would have choked it down. Even a succesful UDI would leave significant challenges of how best to apply the CSD given the age of some of the posts we’ve seen.

I know the CO in question. Yes, a good guy which is nice, but also an excellent soldier, and a very experienced executive level leader outside of the PRes. I would be surprised if a full look at the facts were ultimately to conclude that the failure was his.

Anyway, I’m sure this isn’t done with. I hope that, having symbolically and temporarily relieved the CO, CAF now feels it has the time to slow down slightly and really properly assess just what this all is.

 

[GK .Dundas]

I feel for the both the Colonel and the RSM . It's an incredibly Sh**ty thing to happen to them .
But at the end of the end of the day. The Colonel is responsible for the actions or inactions of those under his command. And the RSM is responsible for the discipline of those troops
It's still incredibly lousy for them.

 

[McG]

If the unit did a UDI and completely botched to protect their own from real consequences.

And if that is not what happened? You are assuming not only a specific behaviour but also a malefic motive here.

There are far too many unknowns to be forming strong opinions about the CO’s response to the group.

 

[MilEME09]

And if that is not what happened? You are assuming not only a specific behaviour but also a malefic motive here.

There are far too many unknowns to be forming strong opinions about the CO’s response to the group.

Absolutely, thats why I say if

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I feel for the both the Colonel and the RSM . It's an incredibly Sh**ty thing to happen to them .
But at the end of the end of the day. The Colonel is responsible for the actions or inactions of those under his command. And the RSM is responsible for the discipline of those troops
It's still incredibly lousy for them.

Let’s examine that statement.

In a Reserve unit, where does the National Defence Act/CSD begin and end with respect to unit member conduct?

Is it a simple question of on DND property/signed in/in uniform? Or are we we expect Reserve Unit COs to police the conduct of their folks 24/7? I can see, maybe, a remedial measure or an AR if A Reservist’s civvy life conduct embarrasses the CAF, but military legal consequences for doing things that are completely legal for civilians to do, if you cannot 100% establish a military nexus?

It is not even a question specifically about this situation, but more broadly what the CAF expects of Reservists. I often see NDHQ responses to crisis involving Reservists or or direction to Reserve Units, which assume that everyone involved is on full-time service or that the Reserve Unit has all the resources of a Regular Force unit.

 

[Gunplumber]

Its also quite possible the unit did the right thing, but the CAF is now embarrassed, so someone has to pay.

None of us know for sure, so let's see what comes of the current investigation.

Well said!

 

[Gunplumber]

I feel for the both the Colonel and the RSM . It's an incredibly Sh**ty thing to happen to them .
But at the end of the end of the day. The Colonel is responsible for the actions or inactions of those under his command. And the RSM is responsible for the discipline of those troops
It's still incredibly lousy for them.

How is the CO responsible for actions of their troops in their private lives? Slippery slope.

 

[McG]

How is the CO responsible for actions of their troops in their private lives? Slippery slope.

I suspect that group would be recognized as a workplace environment. It was closed except to invited workplace members. It was apparently used to communicate workplace information. It branded itself with workplace symbols. Lots of employers have been held responsible for things that happen in social settings away from work property (including things on the internet).

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I suspect that group would be recognized as a workplace environment. It was closed except to invited workplace members. It was apparently used to communicate workplace information. It branded itself with workplace symbols. Lots of employers have been held responsible for things that happen in social settings away from work property (including things on the internet).

Is there case law on this subject?

 

[Gunplumber]

I suspect that group would be recognized as a workplace environment. It was closed except to invited workplace members. It was apparently used to communicate workplace information. It branded itself with workplace symbols.

It was not a workplace environment. The CH of O has its own Facebook page. That is where information was passed. The Blue Hackle Mafia was a separate private group.

 

[MilEME09]

How is the CO responsible for actions of their troops in their private lives? Slippery slope.

When their taking photos in uniform, its not their private lives

 

[McG]

Is there case law on this subject?

I am neither lawyer nor law clerk, so I am not going to cite case law. But, I seem to recall that precedent exists to allow employers to hold employees accountable (and also where employers were held accountable for failing to correct employees) for acts that were off-work and including acts that were online. A lot of workplace harassment happens in such environments, and employers can (and must) correct it. But I also seem to remember cases of employers being responsible for incidents that happened in unofficial and off-site work parties when those parties were assessed as an extension of the workplace based on who attended. An employer can also protect itself from reputation harm, and a collection of employees do stupid/embarrassing things while wrapping themselves in the company brand is absolutely the sort of thing that can be shut-down.

Maybe the code of service discipline does not apply, but the CAF has other corrective tools and is within its authorities to leverage those tools where investigation determines they are warranted.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

When their taking photos in uniform, its not their private lives

Sure.

But then we have to establish that the (a CO- we could be talking about any number of hypothetical situations involving reservist conduct) CO actually knew about it and failed to act. Even if a CO did act, let us not over look the incredible difficulty in conducting a UDI in a Class A environment. Investigations that could take hours in Reg F unit could take days/weeks/months on a Class A schedule.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I am neither lawyer nor law clerk, so I am not going to cite case law. But, I seem to recall that precedent exists to allow employers to hold employees accountable (and also where employers were held accountable for failing to correct employees) for acts that were off-work and including acts that were online. A lot of workplace harassment happens in such environments, and employers can (and must) correct it. But I also seem to remember cases of employers being responsible for incidents that happened in unofficial and off-site work parties when those parties were assessed as an extension of the workplace based on who attended. An employer can also protect itself from reputation harm, and a collection of employees do stupid/embarrassing things while wrapping themselves in the company brand is absolutely the sort of thing that can be shut-down.

Maybe the code of service discipline does not apply, but the CAF has other corrective tools and is within its authorities to leverage those tools where investigation determines they are warranted.

I don’t know the precise answer myself. I think there is an institutional bias towards “hanging the guilty bastard” when things hit the front page of the Globe & Mail.

We have seen several cases in recent years where the CAF rushed to judge, just to be seen to “be doing something” and then ended up paying out big settlements to people whose reputations were destroyed.

 

[markppcli]

It was not a workplace environment. The CH of O has its own Facebook page. That is where information was passed. The Blue Hackle Mafia was a separate private group.

The pictures posted in the article that broke this have members advertising class B and class A work opportunities - that makes it a work environment. My understanding is that members were added as soon as they joined the JRs.

 

[Gunplumber]

The pictures posted in the article that broke this have members advertising class B and class A work opportunities - that makes it a work environment. My understanding is that members were added as soon as they joined the JRs.

I will take your word on this and agree. It was always casual in the past but I suppose it has been corrupted. I still dont think the CO and RSM should be punished for it but it will be interesting to see what info comes out.

 

[Gunplumber]

When their taking photos in uniform, its not their private lives

But the CO should still not be responsible for it. The troops should be the ones to be punished. Maybe they already have, we dont know.

 

[markppcli]

But the CO should still not be responsible for it. The troops should be the ones to be punished. Maybe they already have, we dont know.

You are responsible for the conduct of your soldiers.

 

[Gunplumber]

You are responsible for the conduct of your soldiers.

So the CO has to patrol all sites that their troops frequent? That's unfair to them.