Room
for
some
on
top:
The
modern
day
Conductor
RLC
By
WO1
(Cdr)
Mike
Coyle,
RLC(V)
Regimental
Warrant
Officer
of
Volunteers,
HQ
RLC
TA
1999
-
2003
(Updated
5
Feb
03)
The
letter
from
the
Brigadier
went
something
like,
'I
am
pleased
to
inform
you
that
you
have
been
selected
to
the
appointment
of
Conductor
RLC…
This
as
you
are
aware,
is
the
senior
appointment
for
soldiers
not
only
in
the
RLC
but
in
the
Army.'
It
went
on
…
'the
appointment
is
limited
to
a
small
number
of
Warrant
Officers
Class
One
and
carries
certain
privileges.'
The
key
words
here
are
selected,
appointment
and
privileges.
For
my
own
piece
of
mind
I
needed
to
establish
how
was
the
selection
made,
a
little
more
about
the
appointment
and,
more
to
the
point,
what
were
those
privileges
mentioned?
But
first
a
little
background.
The
appointment
of
Conductor
is
an
ancient
one,
some
600
years
old.
The
authoritative
writings
began
in
around
1958
in
the
RAOC
Gazette,
when
Lt
Col
WHJ
Gillow
MBE
produced
a
much
quoted
article
describing
the
development
of
the
appointment.
The
bulk
of
that
article
has
been
developed
further
by
McKenzie
(1998)
and
can
be
found
on
the
World
Wide
Web
and
is
copied
on
this
site).
Further
insights
can
be
found
in
RASC
Journal
for
Nov
1960,
by
Lt(QM)
RK
Cooley
RASC.
The
search
for
more
information
about
the
appointment,
particularly
about
the
'certain
privileges'
led
me
a
number
of
other
documents
and
articles
held
at
the
The
historical,
military
function
of
Conductors
was
in
provision
of
logistical
support
for
the
Royal
Artillery
and
Royal
Engineers.
During
the
1700's,
with
increasing
dependence
of
the
Army
on
Artillery
on
the
Battlefield,
the
need
to
move
guns,
ammunition
stores
and
consumables
became
paramount,
at
the
same
time
with
the
movement
of
pontoons
and
field
stores,
the
role
also
provided
logistical
main
effort
for
the
Engineers.
It
wasn't
until
1859
that
the
function
of
the
Conductor
became
a
military
imperative.
Prior
to
that,
it
had
been
a
civilian
commissariat
activity
under
the
control
of
the
Master
General
of
Stores,
an
appointment
of
the
Board
of
Ordnance.
Civilians
they
may
have
been,
however
they
were
awarded
campaign
medals,
wore
uniform
and
draw
a
salary
from
the
Army.
Interestingly,
responsibilities
included
supervision
of
contracts.
No
change
there
then!
In
those
early
days,
pay
and
allowances
for
soldiers
and
officers
was
supervised
by
the
Conductor.
There
are
many
that
wish
the
same
were
true
now!
The
Royal
Warrant
for
Appointment
didn't
arrive
until
The
appointment
of
Conductor
of
Supplies
was
abolished
in
1892
and
substituted
with
'SSM'.
Since
there
are
official
records
of
Conductors
in
1897,
it
is
reasonable
to
assume
that
the
Conductor
of
Stores
remained
and
the
pedigree
of
the
current
appointment
stems
from
there.
This
view
is
reinforced
by
the
decision,
just
10
years
earlier,
on
There
now
follows
a
number
of
serious
debating
points!
According
to
Gillow
(1958)
and
Cooley
(1960),
on
the
abolition
of
the
appointment
in
1892,
Conductors,
Master
Gunners
1st
Class
and
SSM's
1st
Class
'rank
with
one
another'.
However,
because
there
is
some
evidence
that
the
appointment
of
Conductor
(of
Stores)
continued
throughout,
it
is
reasonable
to
assume
that
the
1879
definition
stands.
In
modern
times
there
are
sufficient
vested
interests
in
keeping
this
senior
appointment
in
equivalence.
If
I
was
to
ask
the
Academy
Serjeant
Major
(yes,
Serjeant
Major)
the
Royal
Artillery
Sergeant
Major
or
indeed
the
Garrison
Sergeant
Major,
London
District,
who
had
seniority,
a
vocal
debate
would
be
sure
to
ensue.
All
the
received
wisdom
and
Maj
NP
Dawnay,
in
his
authoritative
text
on
‘The
Badges
of
Warrant
and
Non-commissioned
Rank
in
the
British
Army,
1949,
states
‘As
early
as
1779,
there
existed
subordinate
Officers
styled
‘Conductors’
who
were
assistants
to
the
Commissaries
of
Stores,
but,
in
the
British
Army,
the
title
seems
to
have
fallen
into
disuse
early
in
the
19
century….’
He
goes
on
‘At
the
beginning
of
1879
the
title
was
resuscitated,
and
a
new
rank
superior
to
all
Non-Commissioned
Officers
and
inferior
only
to
commissioned
Officers,
was
created.
Members
of
this
grade
were
styled
Warrant
Officers:
those
in
the
Commissariat
and
Transport
Corps
having
the
title
of
Conductor
of
Supplies;
those
in
the
Ordnance
Store
Corps,
that
of
Conductor
of
Stores.
During
their
first
year
of
probation,
these
Warrant
Officers
were
appointed
Sub
Conductors.’
Importantly,
it
concludes
‘The
THREE
classes
of
Warrant
Officer
which
now
exist
are
a
direct
descendent
of
the
rank
created
in
1879.’
This
leaves
no
doubt
as
to
the
probity
of
the
appointment.
As
early
as
20
years
ago
in
1978,
worries
were
beginning
to
emerge
about
the
number
of
Conductors
being
appointed.
Clearly,
how
can
this
be
the
most
senior
appointment
if
a
large
number
are
being
appointed?
A
quote
from
the
time
suggested
that
the
situation
'Diminished
the
special
nature
of
the
appointment.’
and
'the
appointment
had
lost
status
and
prestige
that
it
should
rightfully
enjoy
and
the
Senior
Warrant
Officer
in
the
British
Army.'
Briefing
notes
for
the
April
1981
Conductors
Promotion
Board
clarifies
the
number
of
appointments
to
be
made
should
not
exceed
'25%
of
one
third
of
entitled
Warrant
Officers
Class
One
less
all
RSM's.
The
plan
was
to
reduce
the
number
of
appointments
by
75%
in
1979,
50%
in
1980,
20%
in
1981
and
10%
by
1982.
In
the
year
2000
Conductor
Appointment
Board
the
number
had
been
cut
to
5%
of
entitled
WO1's
(less
all
RSM's).
By
1981,
Maj
Gen
Brown,
Log
Exec
(Army)
was
involved
in
a
great
deal
of
correspondence
on
another
matter:
How
should
this
senior
appointment
be
addressed?
On
WO1 Conductors are to be referred to, in verbal address as 'Conductor'.
WO1 SSM are to be referred to as 'Mr'. WO2's should be addressed by appointment, E.g. CQMS, Sgt Major, etc. I would prefer the courtesy address of 'Mr' restricted to WO1's other than Conductor.'
Gen
Sir
Michael
Gow,
C
in
C
BAOR,
endorsed
this
protocol
in
June
1981.
In
a
letter
to
Gen
Brown
he
refers
to
‘the
senior
appointment
in
the
entire
Army’
and
goes
on
to
say
'The
holder
of
such
an
ancient
title
should
be
addressed
as
such.'
Incidentally,
according
to
defence
writing
protocol,
the
written
for
of
address:
WO1(Cdr)
Name.
Not
as
is
often
seen
WO1(CDR)
Returning
to
the
issue
of
privilege,
the
General
Order
94
of
July
1879
which
declared
and
confirmed
the
superiority
of
the
Conductors
appointment
went
on
to
state
'When
numbers
are
not
sufficient
to
form
a
mess
for
themselves,
they
are
at
liberty
to
become
Honorary
Members
of
the
Sgt's
Mess'.
GO94
also
introduces
the
rule,
still
extant,
that
Conductors
should
take
place
on
all
parades
as
officers
but
would
never
salute
and
that
when
required
should
‘act
in
the
place
of
a
subaltern
officer
when
required’
(QR’s,
Ch
9.169).
This
clearly
gives
rise
to
the
opportunity
for
Conductors
to
be
invited
to
use
the
Officers
Mess,
although
I
can
find
no
clear
guidance
or
instruction
for
this.
The
Modern
Perspective
The
Conductors
appointment
is
not
a
foregone
conclusion
for
all
WO1's.
Now
a
days
it
is
regarded
as
recognition
of
a
set
of
particular
qualities
of
a
particular
individual.
Currently
Conductors
in
the
RLC
are
fulfilling
challenging
roles
in
all
the
trades
across
the
Corps.
In
my
case
I
am
a
Caterer,
a
Territorial
Army
Caterer,
without
Regular
experience.
My
letter
of
appointment
states
clearly
that
my
own
ability,
experience
and
conduct
were
recognised
by
my
promotion
to
WO1.
The
appointment
as
a
Conductor
now
shows
to
all
members
of
the
Army
the
special
esteem
in
which
I
am
held
in
the
Corps
and
marks
not
only
the
long
devoted
service
given
but
also
the
broader
aspects
of
my
work
and
involvement
in
service
life.
I
share
this
not
as
an
ego
trip
for
myself
but
in
a
bid
to
understand
what
the
‘Ancient
Appointment
of
Conductor’
is
all
about.
In
history
the
role
of
Conductor
was
very
specific
and
prescriptive.
In
the
modern
army
of
the
21st
Century
the
emphasis
is
a
little
different.
It
has
been
made
clear
on
a
number
of
occasions
in
preparation
for
this
article,
that
the
appointment
is
in
recognition
of
an
individual’s
contribution
to
the
life
and
work
of
the
Corps.
It
is
not
a
promotion
to
a
higher
Rank.
It
is
THE
senior
appointment
for
WO1's.
Conductors
are
reminded
that
essentially,
our
contemporary
role
is
to
provide
an
example
to
officers,
NCO's
and
OR's,
the
'training'
of
young
officers
and
to
represent
the
Corps
in
and
at
prestigious
events,
as
well
as
carry
out
their
specialist
employment
responsibilities
and
duties.
Personally,
I
am
immensely
proud
to
be
the
senior
TA
soldier
in
the
British
Army.
Proud
to
be
an
example
proving
that
pure
bred
TA
soldiers
can
aspire
to
the
most
senior
appointment,
not
only
as
Regimental
Warrant
Officer
of
Volunteers,
but
as
Conductor.
But
what
of
the
current
holders
of
the
Appointment
of
Conductor;
at
the
moment
there
are
16
Conductors
in
the
RLC
and
one
in
the
RLC
TA.
Their
names
and
year
of
appointment
are
given
below
for
posterity.
In
a
bid
to
discover
what
21st
Century
Conductors
do
I
have
undertaken
a
survey
attempting
to
establish
the
current
state.
In
Part
2,
the
next
article,
we
shall
review
the
material
from
that
survey
and
try
to
establish
what
it
means
to
be
a
Conductor
in
the
British
Army
of
the
21
Century.
©
Mike
Coyle