• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Hypothetical situation

BKells

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
The majority of the Reservists slated to deploy on 3-08 are on Class C until the middle of the summer. The intent is to have them sign new contracts to see them through their deployment, assuming they pass their training. There's about 400 reservists in this situation. What would happen if they all just 'rejected' the new contracts being offered to them? They're not under the NDA, there couldn't be any repercussions. When a Class C contract expires the reservist would revert to Class A, who is only responsible to the NDA when they are signed in on a pay sheet.
 

RHFC_piper

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
Junius said:
The majority of the Reservists slated to deploy on 3-08 are on Class C until the middle of the summer. The intent is to have them sign new contracts to see them through their deployment, assuming they pass their training. There's about 400 reservists in this situation. What would happen if they all just 'rejected' the new contracts being offered to them? They're not under the NDA, there couldn't be any repercussions. When a Class C contract expires the reservist would revert to Class A, who is only responsible to the NDA when they are signed in on a pay sheet.

Things may have changed since, but during TF3-06, our contracts weren't renewed, they were extended... We were told we would be signing new contracts, but we just had ours extended... are they not doing this again? 

If not, and they are just resigning, then it does seems logical that they may be able to 'reject' the contract... but why would they?  Interesting thought, though.
 

George Wallace

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
4
Points
430
Junius said:
The majority of the Reservists slated to deploy on 3-08 are on Class C until the middle of the summer. The intent is to have them sign new contracts to see them through their deployment, assuming they pass their training. There's about 400 reservists in this situation. What would happen if they all just 'rejected' the new contracts being offered to them? They're not under the NDA, there couldn't be any repercussions. When a Class C contract expires the reservist would revert to Class A, who is only responsible to the NDA when they are signed in on a pay sheet.

Hypothetically, that may be considered 'mutiny' and punishable as such.
 

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
1,294
Points
1,110
How can it be considered mutiny if there is no concensus and every individual just do what they are entitled to do??  They don't owe anything to the military once their contract is over with, or am I wrong?
 

George Wallace

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
4
Points
430
::)

Hypothetically, all 400 acting in the same manner would constitute just that.  The "Herd" has spoken.
 

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
1,294
Points
1,110
George Wallace said:
::)

Hypothetically, all 400 acting in the same manner would constitute just that.  The "Herd" has spoken.

Can you really charge someone on assumptions like that, the assumption that they talked about it and decided, as a group, not to sign a contract?  Or do you need actual factual informations?

Max
 

Nfld Sapper

Army.ca Fixture
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
14
Points
580
Also remember that a Reservist is subjet to the CSD:

undergoing drill or training (whether in uniform or not)
in uniform
on any military duty
at all times during any period of full time service (class B or C service)
present on defence property
in a vehicle, ship or aircraft of the CF

So even though their Class C Contract has expired they can be charged.
 

Shamrock

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1
Points
430
If a "certain person" or "element" is running around encouraging all 400 people to not resign, then I suspect there would be repercussions.

However, I heard the MP's just lost a considerable amount of their branch to the RCMP and not a single one of them was charged with mutiny.
 

TCBF

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
360
Shamrock said:
...
However, I heard the MP's just lost a considerable amount of their branch to the RCMP ...

- Talk about out of the pan and into the fire!  if there is a police force in need of finding it's way again, it is the RCMP (Royal Canadian Mexican Police  ;D).

 

George Wallace

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
4
Points
430
Shamrock said:
If a "certain person" or "element" is running around encouraging all 400 people to not resign, then I suspect there would be repercussions.

However, I heard the MP's just lost a considerable amount of their branch to the RCMP and not a single one of them was charged with mutiny.

However, I have heard that these are very "special" people, and not all located in one place.  However, we are just venturing into the realms of 'Rumour' and 'inuendo' here.

Back to the 4400.  Not only are members of the CF accountable under the CSD (Code of Service Discipline), but they are accountable under the NDA as well as other Security Instructions as laid out in other Acts and Regulations.  
 

TCBF

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
360
And back to the original as well, I would let all of them decline the mission, ban them from leadership courses/class B for five years, then consider amalgamating/disbanding/re-roling their parent reserve units, as obviously, there was a "climate of command" issue in their initial developmental period as soldiers.
 

Shamrock

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1
Points
430
George Wallace said:
Not only are members of the CF accountable under the CSD (Code of Service Discipline), but they are accountable under the NDA as well as other Security Instructions as laid out in other Acts and Regulations.  

And continue to be accountable for offences they commited while subject to the CSD after release.
 

BinRat55

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1
Points
410
TCBF said:
And back to the original as well, I would let all of them decline the mission, ban them from leadership courses/class B for five years, then consider amalgamating/disbanding/re-roling their parent reserve units, as obviously, there was a "climate of command" issue in their initial developmental period as soldiers.

Wow... TCBF, I like your thinking.  More people here that AREN'T afraid to hold more than one person accountable is, IMHO, the right path.  :warstory:
 

1feral1

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Junius said:
. What would happen if they all just 'rejected' the new contracts being offered to them? They're not under the NDA, there couldn't be any repercussions. When a Class C contract expires the reservist would revert to Class A, who is only responsible to the NDA when they are signed in on a pay sheet.

Why would a large group suddenly reject their contracts.

Hypothetical situations are one thing, but this 'what if' that you have drummed up is really out to lunch. I am sure CF mbrs are above this, and as mentioned above, it's mutiny or worse. Unpatroitic and disloyal on top of it.

Why did you bring this up in the first place?
 

Neill McKay

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
360
Junius said:
The majority of the Reservists slated to deploy on 3-08 are on Class C until the middle of the summer. The intent is to have them sign new contracts to see them through their deployment, assuming they pass their training. There's about 400 reservists in this situation. What would happen if they all just 'rejected' the new contracts being offered to them? They're not under the NDA, there couldn't be any repercussions. When a Class C contract expires the reservist would revert to Class A, who is only responsible to the NDA when they are signed in on a pay sheet.

The first issue to sort out in your question is whether they all refused their new contracts individually (never having agreed to do so amongst themselves -- in other words, it's all one big 400-person coincidence), or collectively after discussion.

Another issue is whether a reservist on a class C contract can simply refuse another contract and walk away (back to the class A world) when the second contract is put in front of him.  That's a question for someone with legal knowledge.

Finally, why are the hypothetical troops doing this?  Did something change for them between accepting the deployment and completing the pre-deployment training, and the actual deployment?
 

Franko

Army.ca Fixture
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
2
Points
430
RHFC_piper said:
Things may have changed since, but during TF3-06, our contracts weren't renewed, they were extended... We were told we would be signing new contracts, but we just had ours extended... are they not doing this again? 

From what I know (second hand information mind you) their contracts are being extended, the same as on your tour. The same as TF01-08.

If there are people thinking about jumping ship at this point from the tour, they had better be ready to live with the consequences of their actions.

Some of which were alluded to earlier in this "hypothetical" thread.

Regards
 

RHFC_piper

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
Recce By Death said:
From what I know (second hand information mind you) their contracts are being extended, the same as on your tour. The same as TF01-08.

Hmm... that's what I thought..  And if it is, for sure, an extension, than getting out of it would entail the same procedure as any other contract termination... and if that's the case for some of these members, then I think there are a few other threads here discussing the possible consequences. 

Recce By Death said:
If there are people thinking about jumping ship at this point from the tour, they had better be ready to live with the consequences of their actions.

Personally, I think anyone who wants to jump ship now, after over a year of work up for some, should just be punted upon returning to home unit (depending on circumstances, of course, but I think we've covered this in other threads.) In my mind, unless it was a reasonable reason, which would have been addressed in the AGG/DAG process, members leaving a tour so late in the game have completely wasted everyones time; their units for nominating them and paying for their initial few months of work up, their adopting unit for, well, everything else, and the battle group in general, since now the TF is down a soldier.  Oh... lets not forget the other 1000 or so reservists who would have done anything to be on that tour... Hell, if someone from my unit came back just because they wanted to bail on the tour, I'd be pissed... then I'd ask to take their place. (I know it wouldn't happen, but I can dream).

Anyway, I agree... Weather they're signing a new contract or just extending their existing one, if they bail they should be prepared to face the consequences.  (Not just admin, but social a well).

As for the contracts themselves; I don't know what they're like now, but my contract offer was more than fair based on my class A time in and Class B/C employment days... I really couldn't find any reason to turn it down even if I wanted to... and I think this is generally how it goes.  So, why would anyone turn down their contract for the reason that it isn't enough money, or isn't fair.  So, that really only means turning down the contract 'cause they want to bail on the tour.

Either way, bailing on a tour is BS.  Everyone knows what they're getting into, and I don't think any reservist could ever say "I didn't know" when there are vets in every PRes unit who should/would have told them about, well, everything.  No excuses.

 

George Wallace

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
4
Points
430
Well, RHFC_piper, for the most part I may agree with you, but I know several people who are deploying on 03-08 and they have very strict timelines by which they can deploy.  They have taken Lve from their full-time jobs in Policing, Federal Government, etc. for a "Fixed" period of time.  They can not afford to have the CF change their contracts on any "whim" from NDHQ or the Government, without serious consequences.  Someone who has a 50K plus job and taken a Leave of Absence agreed upon by his/her employer can not later renegotiate that Lve.  They face the serious consequence of loosing their civilian employment, because the Government and CF have changed their contract dates.  There is no Job Protection Legislation to protect them.  They are not students or unemployed who can roll with the changes in policies and contracts, but 'professionals' with high end jobs, who are very concerned with last minute changes to their contracts.
 

RHFC_piper

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
George Wallace said:
Well, RHFC_piper, for the most part I may agree with you, but I know several people who are deploying on 03-08 and they have very strict timelines by which they can deploy.  They have taken Lve from their full-time jobs in Policing, Federal Government, etc. for a "Fixed" period of time.  They can not afford to have the CF change their contracts on any "whim" from NDHQ or the Government, without serious consequences.  Someone who has a 50K plus job and taken a Leave of Absence agreed upon by his/her employer can not later renegotiate that Lve.  They face the serious consequence of loosing their civilian employment, because the Government and CF have changed their contract dates.  There is no Job Protection Legislation to protect them.  They are not students or unemployed who can roll with the changes in policies and contracts, but 'professionals' with high end jobs, who are very concerned with last minute changes to their contracts.

This is something that should have been considered in advanced... I left a job which paid more than what I was making over seas.. a job I won't be going back to, ever..
So, does this leave from a 50K a year job cover injury?  This is why I say it should be something to be considered before deployment... very carefully. 
As for the "contract changes"... if you know you're going to be doing pre-trg from X Feb 07 until deployment on X Aug 08, that's not going to change... then your deployment from X Aug 08 til X Feb 09... you might want to add on a month or so just in case.  Everyone from my tour knew the timeline and it didn't change... so it's not an issue of change of timeline.

The point I'm trying to make is; Anyone who deploys, voluntarily as a reservist, better know what they're getting into... It's not a secret. There are plenty of people out there who have been there and can pass on the info.  If they're taking time off of another job, they'd better realize they're putting themselves in a situation where they may not be able to return to said job due to injury, and when it comes down to it, once you sign the dotted line it becomes 'Mission before man'. 
I sympathize completely with people who, at the last minute, don't feel they can fulfill their obligation to the tour, but, if that's the case, then they may want to reconsider their career in the reserves, and should have considered their part in the deployment before signing up. 
These issues are something all us part-timers should, and for the most part do, understand before signing up for a tour. Ignorance is no excuse... especially for more recent tours. 
There are legitimate reasons for not going even during work up, and that's what the AAG/DAG process is for, but anything beyond that is a personal choice and there are always consequences; admin and social.

 

armyvern

Army.ca Myth
Mentor
Reaction score
34
Points
530
RHFC_Piper,

I'm thinking situations where the PRes member may already be deployed into theatre and finds their roto tour dates extended beyond that which was originally forecast for. PRes personnel, in this situation, have already considered their work-ups etc & their Roto dates and have factored all of that into their Leave of Absence from their civilian work place.

If it is just a simple matter of "extend their C Class contracts" because someone decides to extend the roto by a month or two for whatever reason (hey -- it's happened!!) -- what will happen to ensure that those PRes pers have the option to "not extend" without any reprecussions? NOT allowing them that option does itself present serious reprecussions on the civilian side of the house ... especially for those who obtained a fixed period LoA to cover the original pre-deployment trg & original roto dates and thus may be subject to permanent loss of their civilian employment in this case.

So, yes, while I also agree with your original post, there are indeed circumstances where simple "contract extensions" or CFs extension of tour dates etc ... have severe reprecussions on PRes members (AND their loved ones at home). In the scenario laid out above, the consequences of such a move extend well beyong the auspices of the CF and affect civilian employers/other fed employers as well whose PRes employees may not be returned to their employment "on time" due to the CFs extension of a mission and/or extension of C Class contracts.

 
Top