Ex-soldier says army fired her for requesting mat leave

[Eye In The Sky]

From the link PMedMoe posted:

At the end of her two-year term, a selection process was held to fill the same position for another three-year term, to which the grievor applied. Of the two candidates interviewed, including the grievor, neither was offered the position.

At the time of her interview, the grievor was known to be two months pregnant. The unit Employment Board members asked her if she was deployable, to which the grievor argued the question was meant to bring out her medical status.

Maybe I am missing something here.  The unit went thru a selection process, and offered neither the position (I've seen that done before as well, and then the position be competed to the 'larger audience' IAW the directive we were under (LFAADs).  So what?

I realize the report is a summarization of a complete and likely complicated file, but she wasn't awarded the position.  So what, then right before Christmas Block Leave she requests MATA and is denied early MATA.  Sounds to me like she was playin' the game of "more than one way to skin a cat".  I've seen people get pretty irrate when their Cl B was in jeopardy.

I'd like to clarify this one point;  is the mbr in question a mbr still or a former mbr??

 

[Eye In The Sky]

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...

Perhaps not the "can apply" part, but what about the "is awarded the position" part?  This is alittle outside the norm here, as she did apply for the position, and did not win the competition.  She is suggesting it was because she was pregnant;  perhaps it was not because of that.

Other things we will never see, of course, are her PDRs, PERs, etc, any RM she might have been on, etc. 

Maybe she just wasn't performing and in reality, never had a chance at the position after the end of her 2 yr contract.

Suffice to say, because of Privacy Act rules etc, we likely never will know, BUT I think the fact that the CFGB sided with the grievor should be given its due consideration and weight here.  They would have seen all the relevant documents and facts.  It would appear that the unit was not able to provide documentation to support NOT awarding the mbr the 3 yr contract.  They are a policy driven org, including procedurial fairness/due process aspects.

 

[PuckChaser]

She seems like she feels entitled to a Cl B contract, which is a major attitude problem. If the other member who was interviewed was deployable, and she's not due to pregnancy, and they both didn't get the job, how is that discrimination?

 

[CountDC]

  It would appear that the unit was not able to provide documentation to support NOT awarding the mbr the 3 yr contract. 

or simply did not.  Sometimes with request for compensation or redresses getting things out of units and the member is akin to the needle in the haystack. One of my favourites was the redress on the timeline given to respond to the reply to a redress that the member had missed even after an extention had already been granted.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

or simply did not.  Sometimes with request for compensation or redresses getting things out of units and the member is akin to the needle in the haystack. One of my favourites was the redress on the timeline given to respond to the reply to a redress that the member had missed even after an extention had already been granted.

If they could have but didn't...well thats their own stupidity.

The problem in the grievance system is there is no accountability.  What happens if an IA blows past an extension date?  Nothing. 

Speaking from experience here...

 

[dapaterson]

The problem in the grievance system is there is no accountability.  What happens if an IA blows past an extension date?  Nothing. 

Speaking from experience here...

In that case, I have been known to email Bloggins, the IA (read receipt on, on of course) to alert them that they have missed the deadline, and inform them that their reply is expected on (today's date plus one week).

The day after the reply is due (per my earlier email), I email Bloggins' boss, cc'ing Bloggins, informing him that I will no longer deal with Bloggins, and that he (let's call him Schmozzle) has two weeks to resolve the issue.

Lather, rinse, repeat if Schmozzle fails to do anything.  In one case I found that by the time it hit the BGen's email inbox (with the nice, long trail of emails below showing that I had made every effort to engage those below, and that they had made numerous promises of dates and repeatedly failed to act, and never informed me if they were having difficulties and needed more time) I received a very prompt reply and pleasant resolution.  The folks between us on the food chain - not so much fun for them, I was lead to believe...


Chain of Command can work both ways...

 

[GAP]

Oh.....$hit rolls downhill?............. ;D

 

[OldSolduer]

Oh.....$hit rolls downhill?............. ;D

And it gathers momentum and the $hitball often gets larger.  ;D

 

[armyvern]

From the link PMedMoe posted:

At the end of her two-year term, a selection process was held to fill the same position for another three-year term, to which the grievor applied. Of the two candidates interviewed, including the grievor, neither was offered the position.

At the time of her interview, the grievor was known to be two months pregnant. The unit Employment Board members asked her if she was deployable, to which the grievor argued the question was meant to bring out her medical status.

Maybe I am missing something here.  The unit went thru a selection process, and offered neither the position (I've seen that done before as well, and then the position be competed to the 'larger audience' IAW the directive we were under (LFAADs).  So what?

I realize the report is a summarization of a complete and likely complicated file, but she wasn't awarded the position.  So what, then right before Christmas Block Leave she requests MATA and is denied early MATA.  Sounds to me like she was playin' the game of "more than one way to skin a cat".  I've seen people get pretty irrate when their Cl B was in jeopardy.

I'd like to clarify this one point;  is the mbr in question a mbr still or a former mbr??

The instant the BHosp determined that she was pregnant, she was issued a medical chit stating that she was "unfit air, land ops, sea, operational deployment. Regular work, meal and sleep hours. PT own pace and design."  That is a medical order. She had a duty to disclose as it does indeed limit her employment in the CF.

Perhaps the Unit was in competition process for the position, but then did not hire either. I can see two absolutely legal and legitimate reasons for that (and there could be more):

1) It was a B Class posn that was competing, that was identified as one of the hundreds of "cut" positions during the selection process. This would negate any requirement to carry on with the selection to hire anyone (either of the two) into the position; and

2) The posn was a Reg F position, that had been filled with a B Class pers (ie the Complainant) originally to backfill an operationally deployed Reg F member (work-up trg, deployment and post-mission leave can take upwards of two years - explaining the original 2 year B Class contract); due to mission closure and drawdown in TFA, it was determined that the Reg F could once again fill this position as it's ~ 2500 RegF pers returned to Canada thus negating the requirement to hire either one of the two applicants into the job.


"Due to changes in circumstances, she requested a cash payout as compensation" instead ... this tells me that she Voluntarily Released from the CF in the meantime... a process during which she would have been made fully aware of the fact that she's have to repay her top-up allowances (her MATA) that the CF paid her over and above the unemployment that she collected during this time. When someone wants to collect UIC and receive additional money on top of that UIC paid out of CF coffers --- then one must return to work after their maternity leave to work it off; that work does not have to be full-time and can be class A; she chose to release anyway.

 

[armyvern]

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...

Depends what the job description for that position is. If it is a deployable (domestic or other) posn, then she must meet the criteria. I belong to a high readiness Unit, all or positions are determined to be "deployable". You interview to come in to our Unit (and it is a Reg F Unit) and, during the screening, if you are "non-deployable", you don't get posted in to us --- you must meet the criteria of our positions upon application for them.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I don't like the vague wording in the report much either, but understand why.

And in your scenario, it sounds like she is looking for a way to get out of paying back benefits.

That fits why the CF is not willing to enter mediation, and IF that is true, as a taxpayer and serving mbr, I would have to agree.

Excellent point on the 2 year contract, I was wondering "why 2 years" but couldn't guesstimate even.  It sounded to me like a position that wasn't an ARE.  I also think different LFAs have slightly different processes WRT B/As so...

 

[Journeyman]

Oh, give her a QDJM and be done with it.

 

[armyvern]

Perhaps not the "can apply" part, but what about the "is awarded the position" part?  This is alittle outside the norm here, as she did apply for the position, and did not win the competition.  She is suggesting it was because she was pregnant;  perhaps it was not because of that.
...

It MUST have been because she was pregnant ( :); the other person who didn't get it MUST have been pregnant too I guess. Sarcasm off.

This article doesn't actually state that the CF hired anyone into that position. And, I've already gone through a couple of legitimate reasons why that could have occured a couple of posts ago --- which makes sense to me given the hundreds of B Class positions that were "cut" at the time period in question and the sheer volume of RegF pers drawndown in Afghanistan who were then returning to Canada and no longer had to be deployed themselves.