TA Employer Notification ???

Discussion in 'Army Reserve' started by Hootch, Jun 28, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I recall seeing this topic discussed some time ago, but was unable to find it .

    Today I had a heated discussion with my unit about my failure to fill in a document called Certificate For Early Employer Notification on a Voluntary Basis.

    I was more than a little taken aback - why does the MOD Need to Know my 'Line Managers' name and telephone number?

    My unit threatened all sorts but could not anwser when I asked them where this thing was driven from and what was the legal authority.

    - Is this really a 'legal' requirement of service? If so, is it MOD regulations or Parliamentry stuff i.e Legislation?

    - Is this some mong from Sabres way of getting a mailing list together? ( BTW look at their website, the Morons have even got a Para with his beret on the wrong way !!! And these idiots represent us to our employers, no thanks. http://www.sabre.mod.uk/output/Page1.asp

    - Does it pass the 'Need to Know' section of the Data Protection Act?

    - If I give any information to a third party (like the MOD) without authorisation from my employer, I am liable to disciplinary action and if I don't , I face disciplinary action from the MOD.

    - What right does the MOD have under contract Law to interfere with the employment contract I negotiated with my employer?
  2. You'll think I'm crazy, but phone up the Citizen's Advice Bureaux re. anything to do with employment law.

    The only reason I suggest this is because Mrs. Veg needed to find out some information about her rights to maternity leave and part-time working. The CAB really were brilliant: if they don't know they will find someone who does. They have lawyers etc. who might be at least able to steer you in the right direction.

    You'll often find your nearest bureaux at the local town hall, their website OTOH is here.

    Good luck. I'm reasonably conversant with the Data Protection Act, however, and I think that the information the MoD has asked from you is probably reasonable from a legal POV. IIn a similar way that your civvie employer, for example, might be able with your consent to see your medical records if it was relevant to your employment.

  3. Have just had a look at Sabre site. It says:

    Now, when you join the VRF, or seek to re-engage, you must give permission for the MOD to write to your employer directly.

    It sounds like there is no law, just MoD policy. However, if you still don't want to inform your employer when your 3 years is up, looks like you won't be able to reengage. (Do TA have any employment rights, or could a unit get rid of us if we decided to exercise a right not to inform?)

    Must admit I don't like the idea of my unit contacting my line manager directly. I appreciate that my employer needs to know when I'm away on annual camp - like they need to know when I'm on leave - but what I'm doing, or where, isn't really their business - they just need to know I'm not around.
  4. Know what you mean, could be rewritten to mean 'can I phone your boss to ensure you'll loose your job'
  5. If you're in a large organisation then give them a central HR contact, apparently it's all I'm alowed to give out anyway as my line manager isn't paid to look after that side of things. Problem is that it takes about six months for anything to filter down from HR, if at all.
  6. Porkpie, from your previous posts you said you were NRPS, surely the TM you work to is a regular and would notice you were not there?? :?: :evil:
  7. Hey Guys,

    Understand the concerns about EN but my understanding is that SABRE won't use the info unless we agree that they can - apparently it's all to do with their job of providing help with employers for those who need it.

    I've had a few dealings with them and they have been very helpful so don't write them off!
  8. scaryspice

    scaryspice LE Moderator

  9. Sorry, didn't that form have "Voluntary" in the title ? To me that means you don't have to if you don't want to. Am I missing something ?
  10. scaryspice

    scaryspice LE Moderator

    O_O_T_S it was initially voluntary. It becomes compulsory for ORs when they next re-engage after 1 April 2004. As officers don't re-engage every three years there was a specified date after which you would be deemed to have accepted the terms unless you had specifically applied for a waiver. (can't remember when off the top of my head and don't want to guess :oops: )

    It's not voluntary now, it's compulsory. No employer notification, no re-engagement. That's the theory - in practice I don't know if anyone's pushed it that far yet. Note the option to apply for a 12 month waiver. Anyone tried it yet?


  11. This is the bit that grips me. In other words, no matter what arrangement you have with your employer "we" will interfere with that relationship.

    I am not convinced that this has any legal backup. If it is just another MOD regulation, I am unsure how robust it would be in an Employment Tribunal.

    Can't remember my contract law that well but I would like to see the legal back up for the above statement.

    This stuff is the thin edge of the wedge. Presented all friendly like " We are here to help you" - what happes if you wish to keep your service discrete?

    What next ?Will the MOD write to all my mates and say " Don't invite Hootch for a beer on Tuesday nights cos he should be at Army and that would be really naughty"

  12. I think the MoD don't want soldiers who have to keep their service discreet - they want employers to know and be on board so they won't cause them problems when you get mobilised.

    This may be true, however it does mean that a significant chunk of existing and potential soldiers are now effectively barred from serving. Those that are left will be more deployable, but I guess we need to wait and see whether that's enough.

    Personally I can't see it being good for the TA - what employer is going to want someone with a second job that will take them away every 3 to 5 years ? Perhaps not a problem for the 18 year old who wants an op tour while they're young enough, but from most people's mid twenties onwards it will be an issue.
  13. Delete 'with a second job that will take them away', insert 'that might get pregnant'. Now re-read the sentence.

    No employer in their right mind would dare discriminate against a woman who chose to take her legal right to maternity benefits, because all the necessary legislation is in place, and there is a massive legal precedent for challenges in Employment Tribunals.

    SABRE and the MOD take note. If you are going to keep using us like this i.e. mobilisation every few years (and in principle those of us still serving are happy with this) we need proper legal protection. IT CAN BE DONE!!! Stop farting around and being touchy-feely and sort it out.
  14. Bits,

    I disagree agree with your point. Whilst it would be good to hear, in chapter and verse from someone, conversant in "Equal Oportunities" legislation, on these comparable (?) situations.

    There is no doubt that for small businesses maternity benefits can be a killer. Should the temporary replacement, herself, fall pregnant within her contracted period of employment she too is entitled to maternity benefit. (And her replacement & so on & so on).

    For any business employing a serving TA soldier would seem like a safer bet than employing women of child bearing age or people under the age of 18 ( who require individual risk assessments for their job descriptions).

    However this is obviously not the case, judging by other posts.

  15. OldSnowy

    OldSnowy LE Moderator Book Reviewer

    On your last point, it raises again one that I have made already. What sort of Soldiers do they want to mobilise? I know this is a broad-brush statement (and if anyone in Wilton/Upavon has the Stats, I'd be most interested to see them!) but I am convinced that the Infantry, with their 'relatively' short training cycles, and generally younger and less skilled make-up, will be able to accept regular mobilisation much better than the Corps, who need people in general who are already trained when they join, and who are, also in general, much older.

    Employers of skilled tradesmen (and in this I include professionals) will be much less likely to let them go at frequent intervals that other employers.

    So, if you need frequent Coy sized Inf Groups, it's a possibility (and before the Inf attack me, I know it's not easy for you either). If you regularly need Field Hospitals, or Plant Troops, or Recovery Platoons, it's a very, very different story.

    Also, strange that, just as we are tild that it has gone from 1 year in 3 to 1 year in 5, we are also warned off for a Mob to support Op Herrick - and almost everyone who gets mobilised will have to voluntarily waive their 1 in 3, let alone 1 in 5, rights!

    Wait until the Mob for Afganistan gets confirmed, and then we'll see.....