HRC Challenge: Medical discharges thinning ranks & forcing unemployment

[George Wallace]

I think you've missed something. The term accomodation within the CF is gone....surely you've been reading your CANFORGENs? They ARE being hired on a priority basis in the Federal Public Service...why do you keep using the term DND? Nothing says they have to be (I'll use your term 'accomodated') 'accomodated' within DND. They are in fact, ALREADY eligable as priority hires in ANY federal department  (VAC, Revenue Canada etc) or federal organization outside of the CF.

So I'm failing to grasp what you are fighting for as injured members released on medical grounds already are priority hires for 'accomodation' within these other federal entities. It's already done. Perhaps because you think it has no teeth, that makes it moot, but the fact is it's already enacted ...so your arguement falls flat and I'm betting the CHRC will rule as such as well.

I think that is about it. 

 

[284_226]

You are very good at putting words in people's mouths. No where in his post was this inferred.

Actually, it was inferred.  Only the CF is protected from challenge under the UOS principle.  If DND is deemed to be the employer of CF personnel, then logically the right exists to be accommodated within DND but outside the CF.

So I'm failing to grasp what you are fighting for as injured members released on medical grounds already are priority hires for 'accomodation' within these other federal entities.

Accommodation != priority hire.

 

[George Wallace]

Well

I have my suspicions as to why this Topic has really been started, as it doesn't seem to be asking for help, but dictating what needs to be done.  Numbers has been good at pointing out facts on Legal Websites, but hasn't done research (with 21 years of Service?) into the hierarchy of the CF and DND.  Seems odd to me.  Incomplete, one-sided, or incompetent, research is Faulty Research.  Being suspicious, I see an agenda coming to the forefront and a person with no ability to accept that their facts may not be correct.  I have seen it before, and it is not pretty.




Now that we are starting to Flame, it is time to LOCK this Topic.

 

[McG]

Canforgen 087-06 and Canforgen 088-06 are the relevant orders.  Specifically

IAW SECTION 15(9) OF THE CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACT, THE UNIVERSALITY OF SERVICE PRINCIPLE IS NOT
SUBJECT TO THE LEGAL DUTY OF ACCOMMODATION. NEVERTHELESS IT HAS BEEN CF PRACTICE TO MAKE
REASONABLE EFFORTS TO RETAIN REG F AND P RES MEMBERS WITH PERMANENT MEDICAL EMPLOYMENT
LIMITATIONS WHO CAN CONTINUE TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE CF. THIS PRACTICE HAS BECOME
UNSUSTAINABLE IN THE FACE OF OPERATIONAL DEMANDS AND CONTINUING SHORTFALLS IN THE TRAINED
EFFECTIVE STRENGTH OF THE REG F AND P RES. AMONG OTHER MEASURES, REDUCING THE NUMBER OF
MEMBERS WHO ARE NOT PHYSICALLY FIT, OPERATIONALLY EMPLOYABLE, AND DEPLOYABLE WILL ASSIST
THE CF IN INCREASING THE TRAINED EFFECTIVE STRENGTH AND OPERATIONAL CAPACITY. THIS IS THE
BASIS FOR THIS POLICY CHANGE.

However, as I understand the argument, 284_226 is not pushing for accommodation within the CF but for mandatory accommodation (as a civilian) in DND.  If this type of accommodation is mandatory for a member of the public service that is injured on duty, then it does not seem unreasonable to expect it for CF personnel (moving them from CF to civilian employment within the government)

All I can tell you is that I've been in for 21 years, and it's only recent news to me that I'm not an employee of DND.

The distinction is understood & endorsed by every soldier that I recall ever having discussed this with.  This fact is an important a part of how we view ourselves in the regular force combat arms & those reserve units that I’ve worked with.  Is it less important (& less understood) to other elements of the CF?  I'd be interested to know your military background if you never knew. 

Then why, if there is distinct separation between the departments (DND, CF, JAG, CSE), is there a "National Defence" logo at the top of the last re-engagement offer you signed?

I don’t recall the sheet, but I do recall most of the paperwork at the recruiting centre was marked Canadian Forces with this:

When you say "National Defence logo” do you mean this:

I do not think this needs to be locked just yet.  However, if the flaming does not stop, then this will be closed.

 

[Cloud Cover]

However, as I understand the argument, 284_226 is not pushing for accommodation within the CF but for mandatory accommodation (as a civilian) in DND.  If this type of accommodation is mandatory for a member of the public service that is injured on duty, then it does not seem unreasonable to expect it for CF personnel (moving them from CF to civilian employment within the government)

This is all they are asking for.

I thought the content of CANFORGEN's were not supposed to be posted on the internet?

Cheers

 

[284_226]

However, as I understand the argument, 284_226 is not pushing for accommodation within the CF but for mandatory accommodation (as a civilian) in DND.  If this type of accommodation is mandatory for a member of the public service that is injured on duty, then it does not seem unreasonable to expect it for CF personnel (moving them from CF to civilian employment within the government)

Well put, and entirely correct.

The distinction is understood & endorsed by every soldier that I recall ever having discussed this with.  This fact is an important a part of how we view ourselves in the regular force combat arms & those reserve units that I’ve worked with.  Is it less important (& less understood) to other elements of the CF?  I'd be interested to know your military background if you never knew.

16 years as a 284, and 5 years and counting as a 226...hence the moniker.  The general consensus that I (and others I've spoken with, including some officers of the rank of Major) get is that we aren't directly employed by DND, but rather that we're indirectly employed by DND through enrolment in the CF.  There is still an employer/employee relationship though, however indirect - despite what DND is now claiming.
 

I don’t recall the sheet, but I do recall most of the paperwork at the recruiting centre was marked Canadian Forces with this:

If you mean a CF crest, I don't believe so, but I haven't checked my pers file yet to confirm.

When you say "National Defence logo” do you mean this:

Yes.

I do not think this needs to be locked just yet.  However, if the flaming does not stop, then this will be closed.

There'll be none from me.  I'll be enjoying a weekend at the cottage, but I look forward to the responses when I return.

 

[284_226]

As a parting thought for the weekend, I'd just like to add that I have little to no vested interest in this matter.  As George Wallace may tell you based on information passed to him via PM, this is a matter that affects all CF members - because tomorrow it might be you that's disabled and wondering where your next employment is going to come from.  Also, as George might tell you, I don't stand much to gain from throwing my support behind the MacDonald's challenge - but it seems the right thing to do.

George, feel free to pass on the links or other info I sent you if the discussion warrants interest in them.  The links are in the public domain anyways.

Have a good weekend, everyone.

 

[GUNS]

If anyone is interested look up " Frustration of Contract" as it applies to civilian employment.

Any company in Canada can terminate an employee if that employee is unable to fulfill his job description due to medical or other reasons.

A employer has the legal right under the " Frustration of Contract" clause to terminate you after two years with an option of a third year.

If you are terminated under this clause you will loose everything IE: benefits,pension,insurance.

If you are under 55 when this happens, you are in deep s**t.

If you are over 55 your employer can give you an early retirement.

If you decide to use the Canadian Labour Standards Act to a military issue it may cause more problems than you already have.

I was terminated under the " Frustration of Contract " clause(civilian employer) and I brought it to the Human Rights Commission. I lost.

Good Luck anyway!

 

[armyvern]

However, as I understand the argument, 284_226 is not pushing for accommodation within the CF but for mandatory accommodation (as a civilian) in DND.  If this type of accommodation is mandatory for a member of the public service that is injured on duty, then it does not seem unreasonable to expect it for CF personnel (moving them from CF to civilian employment within the government)

from 284_226

Well put, and entirely correct.

And I ask again then, what are you fighting for as this is already done. And they've gone above and beyond that...injured CF members are already eligible for priority hire and thus 'accomodation' in ALL federal depts, including as civilians employees in DND. They just will no longer be 'accomodated' within the CF. The same rule for accomodating injured is applicable to all federal employees/ers, but now those injured CF members are the PRIORITY hire within those other govt agencies.

Or is your arguement still that because this is all part of the employment equity act and the new PSE Act that it has no teeth?

 

[McG]

I believe that 284_226's concern is that "priority hire" is less than "obligation to hire".  When a civilian public servant is injured on the job, are they guaranteed a transfer to a suitable job or do they loose their job but get "priority hire"?

 

[Bigmac]

    OK, I have to get my two cents in. Yes, we belong to CF not DND and that was instilled right from basic training. I remember my instructors blasting that fact in our ears when I was in Cornwallis over 22 yrs ago. Actually we were the Canadian Armed Forces back then but the "Armed" part has been dropped now to make us appear more docile.

    The CF has come a very long way in providing for injured soldiers. There was a time when you were medically released and that was it. The CF has accommodated several soldiers who did not meet medical standard over the years. With today's operational tempo that is just not a viable option. The CF cannot give you permanent employment as a disabled soldier.

    The CF is not a civilian entity and have the right to release pers who are not medically fit. The CF can still temporarily retain a member below medical standard in a position for max 3 yrs providing DMCARM is willing and the gaining CO agrees. The CF and DVA are continually looking for ways to improve the lives of medically released personnel.  If the injury was related to military service you may be entitled to a DVA pension. The DVA has many services that can assist you including looking for civilian employment. Also if you are medically released today you have entitlement to 2yrs X 75% of your wage plus full compensation of schooling that can lead to civilian employment. You can now also apply for priority hiring with PSAC. 

    I agree that the CF must give the best quality care for injured soldiers while in and continue to search for partnerships with the civilian community to hire medically released members. I do not agree that the CF is responsible to find a permanent position for medically released pers within the CF.

   

 

[muskrat89]

Sorry, but I don't get all the animosity. For a bunch of people with such attention to detail, and a zeal to correct, browbeat, etc.

The gentleman's very first post included some information he felt we might be interested in, and the statement

I believe Brenda has raised some serious questions, and the issue is one that could affect any CF member who is injured or disabled and faces a medical release - including those that are wounded while deployed.

Please pass on any information/thoughts/opinions directly to Brenda.

If this was the Recruiting section you'd all be dogpiling on each other to completely read the instructions...

 

[McG]

I do not agree that the CF is responsible to find a permanent position for medically released pers within the CF.

That has not been suggested.

 

[284_226]

Yes, we belong to CF not DND and that was instilled right from basic training.

Sure we belong to the CF - no argument there.  But, are membership in the CF and membership in DND mutually exclusive?  Perhaps by the letter of the law (NDA), but certainly not in common practice.  If you look around, there are lots of occasions where policy is dictated or direction is given to the Canadian Forces by DND.  We don't have a "Canadian Forces Headquarters", it's "National Defence Headquarters".  Yes, it's niggling over words, but if DND is so adamant that membership in the two organizations is mutually exclusive, then why are the dividing lines so blurred between the two organizations in real life?  Why is there no "legal" reference (legal meaning usage in the NDA) to a "Defence Portfolio"?

    The CF has come a very long way in providing for injured soldiers. There was a time when you were medically released and that was it. The CF has accommodated several soldiers who did not meet medical standard over the years. With today's operational tempo that is just not a viable option. The CF cannot give you permanent employment as a disabled soldier.

Nobody is arguing that the CF must provide permanent employment.  The argument is whether DND should be obligated to provide guaranteed (not priority) employment.

   

 

[284_226]

If this was the Recruiting section you'd all be dogpiling on each other to completely read the instructions...

Gimme an "Amen!" 

 

[Bigmac]

    My point is that CF and DND are two separate entities. Although I may not totally agree with Mrs. MacDonald I have researched more and she may have a valid case. So I will agree to eat a small portion of crow. Below is a link to a personnel newsletter article from 2003 ref: Employment Equity. The article specifically talks about CF responsibility in Employment Equity. Take a look at the poster.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/cfpn/engraph/3_03/3_03_ee-main_e.asp

 

[TCBF]

Government hirings are a form of 'porkbarreling', and are separate from the CF to spread public largesse around given ridings.  Otherwise, to look after our own, all people hired for public and NPF positions on CFBs would be the dependants of CF members.  However, even in CFE, that was not the case.

If we plug up the DND civ hiring with broken CF members, CUPE will go ape on the Feds, and they will not fight CUPE over broken soldiers getting jobs.

Labour peace, or jobs for broken soldiers?

This doesn't stand a snowball's chance in Hell.

Tom

 

[Bigmac]

Quote from Human Rights Act para 15 sub para 9 under exemptions

Universality of service for Canadian Forces
(9) Subsection (2) is subject to the principle of universality of service under which members of the Canadian Forces must at all times and under any circumstances perform any functions that they may be required to perform.

R.S., 1985, c. H-6, s. 15; R.S., 1985, c. 32 (2nd Supp.), s. 41; 1998, c. 9, ss. 10, 15.

    Although this quote look good for the CF we adopted the regulations of Employment Equity Act in 2003 which means Human Rights Commission could relook into this exemption for the CF.

 

[Long in the tooth]

I'm in somewhat of the same boat.  I've been doing the battle fitness test (13 km ruck etc) for the last five years, and now find I can't do the express test due to my knees.  I have had my med cat changed as I blew my knees on duty, but with the new regulations DND seems to have changed the rules mid game.  I've got my 20+ in, so I'm very interested to see what compulsory release item I'll be released under.  A 3B with immediate indexing will be fine by me!!!

 

[Bin-Rat]

Well just read this thread, and then I went for some searching, curiosity I guess and came across this.. Now I dunno if it will make some sence or not, or maybe cause some more contraverse..... I hope not, but it was a interesting read for me.... Anyhow......

Department of National Defence (Canada)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_National_Defence_(Canada)

Department of National Defence

Canadian Department of Defence
Established: January 1, 1923
Minister of Defence: Gordon O'Connor
Parliamentary Secretary: Russ Hiebert
Budget: $14 billion (2004 official)
Employees: 22,000 civilian
85,000 military (2004)

The Department of National Defence, frequently referred to by its acronym DND, is the department within the government of Canada with responsibility for Canada's military, the Canadian Armed Forces. DND is the largest federal department in terms of personnel/employees and budget; there are 62,000 members of the Canadian Forces regular force, 23,000 members of the Canadian Forces primary reserve force, and approximately 22,000 civilian DND support employees. Departmental spending in 2004 was about C$14 billion.

Until a December 2003 reorganization of the federal government, DND was in charge of emergency preparedness and response in Canada, through the Office of Critical Infrastructure and Emergency Preparedness. DND also holds responsibility for the Communications Security Establishment which is an organization staffed by a mixture of civilian and military personnel.

DND is led by the Minister of National Defence and is headquartered at National Defence Headquarters (NDHQ) in Ottawa.
[edit]

History

DND was created on January 1, 1923 through an amalgamation of the Department of Naval Services with the Department of Militia and Defence and the Air Board. DND was intended to reduce administrative costs among the three services, as well as improve the coordination of national security policies. DND brought under a single department, the Royal Canadian Navy, the Militia and Canadian Army, and the Canadian Air Force (later the Royal Canadian Air Force).

Early efforts at integrating the services failed and the RCN, army, and RCAF maintained separate headquarters. During the Second World War, a Minister of National Defence for Air and a Minister of National Defence for Naval Services were appointed in May and July 1940 respectively. In 1946, DND reverted to having a single minister, whereby efforts were renewed at reducing duplication among the services.

In 1964, the position Chief of Defence Staff was created, replacing the heads of the individual services as the nation's top military officer, and on February 1, 1968, the three services were merged to form the Canadian Armed Forces. In a controversial October 1972 DND reorganization, the previously separate civilian and military branches in Ottawa were merged to form the single Department of National Defence Headquarters (NDHQ), with appointments being filled by both civilians and Canadian Forces officers. In 1974 the Defence Research Board was absorbed by the DND. In 2006, Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced 15 billion dollars in military spending. The DND also funds a national program called Cadets Canada.