Class A service and AWOL

[Oldgateboatdriver]

EITS is correct: We do things that way for a reason.

And Kratz basically explained that, as on every ship in the fleet, the Duty watch in the Navy is NOT just a security organization. It's primary role is ensuring that all daily routines (the schedule by witch we live our lives on a ship and by witch all activities of the various departments are coordinated - and reserve units ARE ships) and all required ceremonial are carried out properly and at the appropriate time. The duty watch also acts as the Captain's representative and point of contact to keep the command team praised of any unusual situation and the execution of various function.

Remember: Ship's are not lodger units with single focus, as an Infantry battalion, or tank squadron, etc. might be on a base. We are a self-contained mini-base, and multiple trades and sub-groups need their activities using the common equipment coordinated. That's part of the duty watches function. For instance, the duty watch usually coordinates the use of unit's vehicles and boats (yes, NRD's have boats available to them), an item Kratz forgot to mention.
 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

This is unrelated to the training merits of duty shifts in a concrete frigate, but I am curious about the section in bold below.

I serve as a reservist in a PRes Sqn of a RegF Regt.  I believe that the "unit" would, in fact, be the Regt and not the Sqn.  Is that correct?  Does this mean that I am always subject to the Code of Service Discipline?

I think that would be determined by what UIC you belong to. 

 

[klatham]

I think that would be determined by what UIC you belong to.

It is an interesting situation.  My MPRR shows my UIC as that of the RegF Regt, but my pay docs, presumably because the pay systems are different, shows the old UIC of a unit that doesn't exist anymore.  So, technically I guess that means we are subject to the Code of Service Discipline 24/7?

Thanks!

 

[Haggis]

It is an interesting situation.  My MPRR shows my UIC as that of the RegF Regt, but my pay docs, presumably because the pay systems are different, shows the old UIC of a unit that doesn't exist anymore.  So, technically I guess that means we are subject to the Code of Service Discipline 24/7?

In short, no.  Your Class of Service determines if you are subject to the CSD.  As a Class A Reservist posted to a Reg F UIC you are subject only during those times when you are deemed on duty (i.e. signed in, or physically at the unit). As a Class B Reservist, you are deemed on duty during scheduled working hours only.  Once "dismissed" (e.g. your work day ends as scheduled or you are no longer required to be at your place of duty), you are not on duty for CSD purposes.  As a Class C Reservist you are deemed to be equivalent to Reg F for CSD purposes.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

According to the AJAG recently, anyone on CL B with a Reg Force unit is subj 24/7, another thing I learned on UDI/CL trg.  I thought CL B was Cl B but, if you're CL B at your home unit or any Res unit, you're only subj during 'duty periods', not 24/7.

I didn't think a Res unit could have a Reg Force UIC.  Learn something new every day.  So, if you are a Res sub-unit under a Reg Force unit directly, I wonder how they draw the line for this?  Look to the route letter?

Vol 2, Chap 102 Disciplinary Jurisdiction, Art 102.01:

"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,
ii.in uniform,
iii.on duty,
iv.[Repealed, S.C. 1998, c. 35, s. 19],
v.called out under Part VI in aid of the civil power,
vi.called out on service,
vii.placed on active service,
viii.in or on any vessel, vehicle or aircraft of the Canadian Forces or in or on any defence establishment or work for defence,
ix.serving with any unit or other element of the regular force or the special force, or
x.present, whether in uniform or not, at any drill or training of a unit or other element of the Canadian Forces;

 

[Ostrozac]

I didn't think a Res unit could have a Reg Force UIC.  Learn something new every day.  So, if you are a Res sub-unit under a Reg Force unit directly, I wonder how they draw the line for this?  Look to the route letter?

This has become a bit of a trend lately, Reserve sub-units of Regular units. I can think of three examples off the top of my head: the Army Intelligence Regiment, 21 Electronic Warfare Regiment, and the Military Police Regiments. In some cases, the reserve sub-unit has retained a separate UIC, but UIC doesn't necessarily equal Unit status -- there are geographically dispersed regular force units with multiple UICs, one for each geographic location. In all cases, the unit has a single CFOO that states that it is embodied in the Regular Force.

As to what it means for Code of Service Discipline purposes? We'll probably have to wait for a court martial to test the waters.

 

[dapaterson]

UIC is a deprecated term.  Strictly speaking, within HRMS, there are DeptIDs; DeptIDs can be subordinate to each other.

 

[FJAG]

In short, no.  Your Class of Service determines if you are subject to the CSD.  As a Class A Reservist posted to a Reg F UIC you are subject only during those times when you are deemed on duty (i.e. signed in, or physically at the unit). As a Class B Reservist, you are deemed on duty during scheduled working hours only.  Once "dismissed" (e.g. your work day ends as scheduled or you are no longer required to be at your place of duty), you are not on duty for CSD purposes.  As a Class C Reservist you are deemed to be equivalent to Reg F for CSD purposes.

It's not the Class of Service that dictates the status but the provisions of NDA 60(1) and, as Eye in the Sky points out, para (IX) specifies you are subject when "serving with any unit or other element of the regular force ...".

I'm starting to wander a bit out of my lane because of how long I've been retired but, in my mind, if you are posted to (on the UIC of) a regular force unit, you would be subject to the CSD 24/7 regardless of the Class of Service you are on.

It strikes me that NDA 60(1) is starting to fall behind the way we are organizing and using reservists. It was built for something where the reg f and res f were kept segregated except in cases of mobilization or attachments such as Afghanistan. One can always do an interpretation of how the provision "serving with" operates (although it may need a court decision to settle it) but one should try to stay ahead of the curve and write the legislation in the way that you want it to work rather than leave it to serendipity. If we are going to change organizations so that some Class A reserve members are part of reg f units and others in res f units, does it make sense that we treat them differently vis a vis the CSD?

:cheers:

 

[daftandbarmy]

It strikes me that NDA 60(1) is starting to fall behind the way we are organizing and using reservists. It was built for something where the reg f and res f were kept segregated except in cases of mobilization or attachments such as Afghanistan.
:cheers:

This.  :nod:

 

[Haggis]

It's not the Class of Service that dictates the status but the provisions of NDA 60(1) and, as Eye in the Sky points out, para (IX) specifies you are subject when "serving with any unit or other element of the regular force ...".

I daresay that the application of 60(1) to a Class A Reservist occupying a position in a Reg F UIC (DeptID) leads to an absurd conclusion that a Class A Reservist is subject to the CSD 24/7.  He is only "serving with" said unit while deemed on duty IAW QR&O 9.06(1).  There are limitations on the length/duration of Class A Service found within CF Mil Pers Instr 20-04 (12 consecutive days) which would imply the member is NOT subject to the CSD once those 12 days have been worked.  Lastly, a member of the Reserve Force must consent to serve with the Regular Force IAW QR&O 9.05.  That consent is given when the member signs in for local training as travel to/from the local training location is not deemed to be "on duty" IAW QR&O 9.06 (2).

I'm starting to wander a bit out of my lane because of how long I've been retired but, in my mind, if you are posted to (on the UIC of) a regular force unit, you would be subject to the CSD 24/7 regardless of the Class of Service you are on.

As dapaterson pointed out, Regular Force units (DeptIDs) often have subordinate units which are within the Reserve Force Structure.  1 MP Regt is a good example where it's MP Platoons are either within the Reg F or P Res but can be occupied by members of wither component.

It strikes me that NDA 60(1) is starting to fall behind the way we are organizing and using reservists. It was built for something where the reg f and res f were kept segregated except in cases of mobilization or attachments such as Afghanistan. One can always do an interpretation of how the provision "serving with" operates (although it may need a court decision to settle it) but one should try to stay ahead of the curve and write the legislation in the way that you want it to work rather than leave it to serendipity. If we are going to change organizations so that some Class A reserve members are part of reg f units and others in res f units, does it make sense that we treat them differently vis a vis the CSD?

The definition of "deemed on duty" has bedeviled the senior Reserve leadership for years as it has implications for pay, compensation for injury and illness, access to medical care and pensions, to name but a few.  One only needs to imagine, for one moment, a Class A Reservist member of a Reg F unit who is seen on civvy street at 1330 on Thursday afternoon wearing his FedEx uniform instead of CADPAT and not being in possession of a duly completed CF100 to see the absurdity of this interpretation of NDA 60 (1)ix. 

 

[dapaterson]

1 MP Regt is a Reg F unit.  That it has subordinate DeptIDs that are mostly occupied by Res F pers does not change the fact that it is a Reg F unit.  (One cannot have a unit within another unit; units have dets, but dets are part of that larger unit).

As written, the NDA suggests that Cpl Bloggins of the Res F who is a member of a Reg F unit is subject to the CSD 24/7.  It may not be intended, but I am not convinced that any great deal for forethought went into the creation of units like 1 MP Regt or the CAIR or 21 EW or... from the perspective of the legal implications of O&E.

 

[FJAG]

I daresay that the application of 60(1) to a Class A Reservist occupying a position in a Reg F UIC (DeptID) leads to an absurd conclusion that a Class A Reservist is subject to the CSD 24/7.  He is only "serving with" said unit while deemed on duty IAW QR&O 9.06(1).  There are limitations on the length/duration of Class A Service found within CF Mil Pers Instr 20-04 (12 consecutive days) which would imply the member is NOT subject to the CSD once those 12 days have been worked.  Lastly, a member of the Reserve Force must consent to serve with the Regular Force IAW QR&O 9.05.  That consent is given when the member signs in for local training as travel to/from the local training location is not deemed to be "on duty" IAW QR&O 9.06 (2).

As dapaterson pointed out, Regular Force units (DeptIDs) often have subordinate units which are within the Reserve Force Structure.  1 MP Regt is a good example where it's MP Platoons are either within the Reg F or P Res but can be occupied by members of wither component.

The definition of "deemed on duty" has bedeviled the senior Reserve leadership for years as it has implications for pay, compensation for injury and illness, access to medical care and pensions, to name but a few.  One only needs to imagine, for one moment, a Class A Reservist member of a Reg F unit who is seen on civvy street at 1330 on Thursday afternoon wearing his FedEx uniform instead of CADPAT and not being in possession of a duly completed CF100 to see the absurdity of this interpretation of NDA 60 (1)ix.

As I said, because of the length of time that I have been retired, I'm straying a bit out of my lane.

What you have to take into account though is that the NDA is the legislation. QR&Os are subordinate regulations and Pers Instrs are even further down the chain. S60(1) will be analyzed and interpreted on it's own words. "Serving with" connotes being a member of a certain military organization. I don't think we'd have any problem in saying that a Class A reservist on strength with the CScotR is "serving with" the CScotR even when he isn't present at drill or training. The fact that the various paras of s60(1) are alternative conditions gives rise to an inference that it covers something more than simply being "present at drill or training" or any of the other conditions.

My point is simply that, at best, s60(1)(IX) is ambiguous but more likely may create a legal liability that we did not intend within some of these new organizations.

With respect to QR&O 9.05, I doubt that reservists that are now engaged in a hybrid unit have ever been asked to give their consent to serve with the reg f. I presume that these were/are organizational changes that happened without input from individual members. (I should note that during my time we had no such organizations and I'm not aware of how they were created or what the internal organization is nor what discussions or considerations were at play during their development)

QR&O 9.06(1) and (2) (or for that matter 9.07, 9.075, or 9.08) are of no moment for this interpretation. They only define what Class A, B and C service is but does not define what "serving with" means IAW NDA s60(1)(IX).

:cheers:

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Interesting discussion. I wonder how this all affects the reservists embedded within the various RACF Wings and Sqns around the country. As far as I know, those reservists occupy line serials within a Regular Force unit.

 

[Blackadder1916]

. . . I should note that during my time we had no such organizations . . .

Were you not around when "10/90 battalions" were briefly in vogue?

 

[Haggis]

QR&O 9.06(1) and (2) (or for that matter 9.07, 9.075, or 9.08) are of no moment for this interpretation. They only define what Class A, B and C service is but does not define what "serving with" means IAW NDA s60(1)(IX).

We both know that regulations serve as disambiguations of legislation and polices serve the same purpose in support of regulations.  QR&O Chapter 9 and CF Mil Pers Instr 20-04 exist because of the, now obviously, unintended consequences of broad and unguided interpretations of NDA 60(1).  Nowhere in the NDA have I been able to find a clear definition of "serving with".  NDA 33(2)a uses regulations (QR&O Vol 1 Ch 9), to define Reserve services and the classes thereof and CF Mil Pers Instr 20-04 and the Military Human Resources Polices and Procedures Manual further articulate how that service is to be controlled and administered.  Although it's tempting, it is disingenuous to read NDA 601(1)ix in isolation to reach a defensible conclusion that a Class A Reservist serving with a Reg F unit is, at all times, subject to the CSD.

 

[klatham]

It seems the answer to my question is not clear-cut and there might be some disambiguation required in the future.  I am finding the discussion very interesting though, so I appreciate everyone's responses.

I am guessing that there is a presumption, within the unit, that the CSD does not apply 24/7 to the reserve members, but that presumption might be in error.

Thanks!

 

[garb811]

We have the ludicrous situation where it appears, technically, our highest ranking civilian in DND is subject to the CSD when she walks in the door to work as her biography states she currently holds a commission with the Naval Reserve. How about the family members who have joined the local reserve unit while living with his/her parents/spouse in a RHU?

The hybrid units are another excellent case in point.  When I was at a MP Regt we were very clear in continuing to treat our PRes members as if they were members of any other PRes unit, notwithstanding the fact they belonged to a Reg Force UIC.

I'd submit that contrary to FJAG's observation that NDA 60(1) is starting to fall behind, I'd say it has totally been over taken by events a long time ago and the reality is, fortunately, there is a lot of "common sense" currently being practiced on the ground to make sure we aren't putting folks into legal jeopardy simply because of that fact.

 

[dapaterson]

I'd submit that contrary to FJAG's observation that NDA 60(1) is starting to fall behind, I'd say it has totally been over taken by events a long time ago and the reality is, fortunately, there is a lot of "common sense" currently being practiced on the ground to make sure we aren't putting folks into legal jeopardy simply because of that fact.

The Government did strip a member of the Supp Res of a patent because he was a Supp Res member when he came up with the invention, so it's dangerous to assume bad law away - all it takes is one person to decide to follow the law and not common sense and the entire enterprise may collapse on itself.

 

[Loachman]

1 Wing's Squadrons and Headquarters have been Total Force for over two decades, and I am unaware of any such problems experienced by Class A pers.

Perhaps klatham, though, would be willing to engineer a test case so that we can sort this one out properly...

 

[FJAG]

The Government did strip a member of the Supp Res of a patent because he was a Supp Res member when he came up with the invention, so it's dangerous to assume bad law away - all it takes is one person to decide to follow the law and not common sense and the entire enterprise may collapse on itself.

That's an excellent case in point that I had forgotten about. Note that while DND tried to strip Brown of the patent, the Federal Court of Appeal later ruled, in part, in Browns favor and while upholding that his Supp Res service made him a "Public Servant" at the relevant time, ruled that his failure to disclose that status did not invalidate the patent. The court left open the question of whether the patent vested in the Crown. I'm not sure about the final resolution of Brown's situation with DND but the case certainly showed how far DND would go when it gets its a** in a twist.

See here:

https://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/135341/index.do

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/veteran-reserves-public-servant-patent-1.3660867

To Haggis: Disingenuous? Really?

The manner of the interpretation of a statute, such as the NDA, can follow several different theories but primarily it is an exercise in determining what the legislature intended the text to mean when the statute was written. Regulations and orders and policies are written not by the legislature but by civil servants who themselves are interpreting the statute within the scope that the legislature allows them to. That said a civil servant's opinion of what the statute means (as interpreted in regulations etc) is worth nothing to the court when the court is asked to make the interpretation. See here eg for a primer: http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~resulliv/legdr/siinscc.html

:cheers: