Ex-soldier says army fired her for requesting mat leave

[Eye In The Sky]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

...

Drapeau said the department has placed his client in a catch-22

"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 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]

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]

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]

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...

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

 

[ModlrMike]

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

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

 

[aesop081]

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

 

[The Bread Guy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...