FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Operational => Topic started by: tim on November 06, 2004, 01:26:39 PM
-
What would be the legal position both for a brigade or individual if in the event of an accident or injury a wholetime station officer was carrying out retained duties as a firefighter? Would there be a 'duty of care' from that individual even though the brigade were paying him as a Ff?
-
Question is too vague, please make it more specific as it doesn't really give much to go on at the moment.
My only opinion, until you clarify the question - is that the accident would be to Ff Soandso and the StnO Soandso would therefore be on sick leave due to an accident in another employment. If you meant would the officer have a duty of care to firefighters he/she was working with then no, he/she would be an employee like all their colleagues. They are not managing these people.
-
I'll try and explain.
If I have a wholetime contract as a station officer, therefore the brigade has recognised my competence in that role and has given the pay grade and responsibilty accordingly.
Now as a secondary contract that same brigade employs me as a firefighter under a retained contract would I be, in anyway, liable for an accident or injury that may occur and could have been prevented if I had been wearing my wholetime rank, yet was not prevented because of the limitations of being a firefighter.
As an example I pull up in the back of an appliance to an incident involving cylinders. The OiC (retained) decides to commit crews, a decision that my experience and competence dictates to be wrong. As a result a cylinder explodes causing death or injury to a number of crew members. If I had been riding as a station officer I could have taken charge of the incident, not commiting crews and therefore preventing the accident.
Who is liable?
-
If your riding as firefighter, ur a firefighter, if your riding as stn officer ur stn officer.
I know a firend in a similar boat, although he is retained at 2 station. Watch manager at one, and only firefighter at the other.
You can guide your oic to make desicions, but at the end of the day he is in charge
-
If you need legal advice you should consult a lawyer.
(I've got to say that.)
In terms of liability for injury (there is so much case law, that it is difficult to generalise, but):
Generally, unless the responsible employee is acting on a "frolic of his own" the employer will be responsible.
This doesn't mean that the employee won't face disciplinary action should they fail to act correctly (I have no knowledge of fire brigades procedures etc.)
But generally, in the UK, the legal duties lie with employers.
I accept no liability for errors or omissions in this posting.
-
Tim
I am intrigued. Is this just a general enquiry or is there some history?
Whole time Stn O/ ret FF will alway be a difficult issue. I have my reservations whether this should ever be allowed. It must be very difficult for you to ride as a FF in these circumstances and also for the retained Stn O having you observing his every move?
I would also wonder whether if you would be liaible in some way (as a competent Stn O in your other life) in the event of an injury to a third party (FB or public) where you allowed a 'dangerous' acivity to take place, knowing or suspecting it could lead to injury, but failed to intervene.
Have you approached you Brigade (legal dept/advisors) for advice?
-
I would also wonder whether if you would be liaible in some way (as a competent Stn O in your other life) in the event of an injury to a third party (FB or public) where you allowed a 'dangerous' acivity to take place, knowing or suspecting it could lead to injury, but failed to intervene.
Very unlikely as long as you are acting in the course of your emplyment. Employers are generally vicariously liable for the actions of their employees. To avoid this liability they would need to prove that the employee was "acting on a frolic of their own" i.e. well outside their job description - all very unlikely.
-
I am another who is of the opinion that you should operate in the same role in the retained as wholetime. However, this would mean that you would not be able to get a retained contract unless there were any WM posts
You would, surely, not be legally liable as a manager, after all that was not your employment at the time. What would be clear, however, is that you had failed to make the correct representation, as should any employee, when realising a potential hazard. The retained IC would then be in the position of having more information and able to act as he/she feels correct, subsequently anything that may occur is their management responsibility. No different to that of any person there knowing a hazard exists and doing nothing about it - you would then be legally repsonsible for your failings. From the IC's point of view they should utilise the skills of their diverse group to their advantage, and your command skills would be part thereof, just as the builder's, electrician's etc would be.
-
Under IPDS it is not the rank that takes charge of the incident but the competent individual. If the ret OiC is competent against the crew manager/watch manager role map and the StnO is performing in a w/t non-ops specialist role such as training or CFS then it is obvious who possesses the risk critical competences for incident command.
Where the StnO does possess the required competences due to them having a w/t operational role then i see it as being impossible for them to revert to the role of Ff whilst performing under a retained contract. They still have a duty of care by virtue of their enhanced skills, knowledge and experience which should undoubtedly be superior to that of their retained counterpart performing in a lesser role.
How many full-time Generals perform in the role of TA Private on their days off just because various units have problems with recruitment or availability?
-
In my brigade where w/t Firefighters have secondary contracts as retained firefighters in the same brigade, if they are promoted in the w/t job they are automatically promoted to the same rank on the retained contract currently up to the rank of Sub, but with IPDS this could now go higher. So with this in mind you would not have the situation arise because the w/t station officer could not sit in the back as a firefighter he would be at least a sub officer.
However I do take on board the comment about the desk pilot and appreciate the concerns. :?
-
getting away from the original post slightly, i applied for a position in my brigade last year but they have still not set up the wholetime/retained system yet,
I have asked on mnay occasions what the hold up is and keep being informed that they are in discussions with the union on this matter.
The latest story i have been fed is that the union are not happy with this as regards your pension rights.
If (god forbid) you had an injury on a retained shout which would result in a medical discharge, what kind of pension benefits would you recieve, would they be any different to a medical discharge from a wholetime shout?
-
Given that the matter is under discussion there may well be an issue here.
Although, currently retained staff discharged due to accident and injury on fire service duty do have a pension provision within the existing Fire Service Pension Scheme. I am aware of a retained Sub who i worked alongside who the FBU campaigned on behalf of in respect of a long standing back problem. The back problem affected his ability to carry out his role and as a such when it was attributed to an injury in the line of duty he was subsequently pensioned out on ill health. Even although retained personnel do not contribute into the scheme.
The exact nature and size of the pension provision is not something i am party to although i was informed by a 3rd party that the provision made would most likely have been that commensurate with a w/t Sub discharged under the same circumstances with the same length of service.
If any of the above is inaccurate i would greatly appreciate any opinions or facts to the contrary.
-
In my Brigade you can not be both a w/t and retained fireman simple as that. In my opnion a w/t SO should also be given same rank in retained service if such association is allowed . Not a simple as that of course not but even still its a kick in the teeth for the W/t So to be riding under the command of the less experienced S.O. (and thats no disrespect to the retained OIC) I could not consider being a FF again, just couldn't, I wouldn't be able to stop telling my fellow crewmates what to do or interfeering with the STnO/SubO of that watch.
Must be a very awkward and frankly frustrating situation for you to be in my friend!.
-
To the guest above, being a retained officer myself, I take offence at the fact that you assume the whole time station officer the more experienced man.
At our station (24hr wholetime divisional HQ) the Stn Commander is barely out of nappies. My men from the most time served to least are providing 24 hr cover 24/7, 365 days a year and that is where the experience lies my friend. A retained f/f will attend 4x more incidents than his wholetime colleague for obvious reasons. The retained initial training course may be shorter, but bolt on BA,RTA,First Aid,specials courses etc and the retained training course easily equals the wholetime, taking into account wholetime recruits wasted weeks marching & other bull****.
The retained system proves that incidents nationwide are handled more efficiently by well trained & highly experienced men that are able to bring additional skills into an incident assisting in the successful conclusion in most cases. This is where your experience is mate! Not your 1 in 4 shiftworker.
-
MC
I think there is some merit in your argument, however you have missed a few very important facts:
1. The MAJORITY (not all I know) of WT stations are somewhat busier than the MAJORITY of RT and thus may attend MORE incidents. That the RT may attend more of those at their station (in comparison with their WT colleagues) due to their commitment is not denied.
2. The job of a Ff is not just attending fires, indeed this is less than 10% of the role, that remaining areas are those that their RT colleague may not be doing at present. CFS, Comm Ed, Admin being some. These are now within the NOS and demonstrating competence will be essential.
3. You say "The retained system proves that incidents nationwide are handled more efficiently by well trained & highly experienced men that are able to bring additional skills into an incident assisting in the successful conclusion in most cases. " Whilst I am not denying the professionalism of the RT staff I do not consider that they handle incidents more efficiently, nor that there is any evidence to support this rather rash claim. Indeed there may be some who would argue that your point of 'well trained & highly experienced men' suggest the WT staff! I agree that additional skills, such as electrician, builder etc are useful at incidents, however it is not unusual to find that Ffs of either duty system are, or have been, of these professions. A good manager/IC, whatever their duty system, makes use of these skills.
In my experience there are some excellent RT personnel, and some awful WT. I cannot, however, fully defend a position that the training given to both is equal. There are elements of the WT courses that are wasteful of resources - such as many days of hose running (PS marching and 'bull****' are generally gone now - not fully but in my opinion they are importnat as the present loss of discipline is lamentable), but the opportunity to give a greater depth of knowledge and skills is not to be ignored. That the RT gain skills through add-on courses is true, however they do not, generally, receive the same level of development. This is not the FAULT of either set of personnel, rather a result of their duty systems and the managements inability to resource. This has to change with IPDS and the ways of ensuring equal development are challenging IPDS practitioners as we speak. One solution is to make the RT course modular over say three months, with self-study. The WT course is likely to reduce with the remaining develpment for both being 'in-service'. To give all employees the same training time this is a possible way of achieving 25, or so, initial Ff development days then a BA course.
For RT to develop to the same NOS then both the organisation and the individual will be expected to devote more time than has previously been the case, it will be interesting to see how this pans out. I know of few RT staff who could commit to MORE devlopment time, they already give us one training evening and a tremendous availability, how can they give more time to personal development whilst keeping a personal life and a main job? Time will tell.
PS I have little experience of a station with 24x7 RT, in y experience the vast majority are restricted and so equal about half that. More than that few of the WMs are really carrying out that role (see the NOS) yet are being paid more than their WT equivalents (all our stations had SubO in charge of RT stn or WT watch). I would trust them all in charge at fires but would doubt some in their management roles - not their fault either more an expression of their skills versus the expectation within the NOS. Just points of note.
-
Master?Commander?
You said - "The retained system proves that incidents nationwide are handled more efficiently by well trained & highly experienced men that are able to bring additional skills into an incident assisting in the successful conclusion in most cases. "
Presumably you exclude the successful extinction of chimney fires in that comment?
Just a thought..................
Ponders NYFRS RT Ffs.......... or are they the exception to the 'most cases'?
-
hmmmm just another thought ..................
ponders NYFRS WT Ffs......Whitby fish and chip shop good job lads NOT
-
Juts thought I would investigate - however it is either so long ago, or so small an incident that there is nothing on the web about it.
I did find plenty about the chimney fire that may not have been put out, please tell us more so we may make up our own minds?
What happened that could have been avoided at the chip shop? Presumably you are saying that something did, rather like stop4 is about the chimney?
-
lots of things its now used by NYFRS to show what not to do, but im not trying to make them look stupid but point out every one makes mistakes wholetime and retained
-
look I attended chase terrace school in staffs,numerous pumps specials from staaffs & west mids.It burnt to the ground .W/t& ret ff & jo worked hard but v.poor leadership(&firemanship) from oic principal officers!!!!!!!
-
any chance of getting back to the real question in this thread, there are good and not so good fireys on every system, mistakes are made, but they are only mistakes with hindsight, we never go to false alarms, we only come back from them blah blah my dog has a waggier tail than your dog (i wont mention the 'pc' or perhaps lack of it by some posters) - the question was a valid one, perhaps someone at the odpm should be asked - they wrote the bloody legislation after all - oh, no, not something else they forgot in their haste to detroy the F&S's
-
"Master and Commander",
you seem to be yet another Retained person who has been the victim of our spineless senior management and the handed down village retained mentality.
please dont insult our intellegence by comparing fire calls, management and generations of retained personell have,and it does not hold water.if you must compare make it balanced not the busiest ret station in the country against a rural day manned or w/t station in cornwall/west wales etc.
Please dont fall into the trap thinking that two hours training a week and a two/three week initial course is sufficient, we both know it isnt.
as for you being a "Retained officer",that statement is an insult in its self, to help explain why please see the amount of training i have had to pass/go through to get to Subo Level,then compare with your own.
15 week intial Fm's recruit course(residential)
2 week Ba course
2 year probation period(incl quaterly assessment/visits)
4x Probationer 1 week courses +exam prac/written
Qualified F/m's exam
Lfm exam, pt1 4xpapers,pt2 1 std drill, 1 Fire ground incident/scenario,30 min lecture on Stn grd risk. (3 days)
Subo exam,pt 1 4x papers,1std drill(2 pump),1 op incident(2 pump), 30 min lecture (Brigade special risk etc).(3 days)
lfm assessment centre, 2 days
subo assessment centre ,2 days
Crew command course fsc (3 weeks)
Watch command fsc,(4 weeks)
Watch Command 2 fsc( 5 weeks)
internal j/o courses, x3 2 weeks, 1 day
iosh 1 week
That is what is required by my brigade for me to become a W/t Subo on a shift,i am an ex training instructor with all Fsc instructor courses completed ,plus others.
Cant be bothered to list but lets just say between 10 and 15 weeks.
Next there is god knows how many F/S modules and then the Joa etc etc.
My point is this being "on call" 24/7 365 is a big commitment,but a 2 week course and 2 hours training a week doesnt make you a competant F/F ,let alone a "master and commander" type Retained officer even if you were at New Yorks busiest Station .
-
Cideredup,
Be careful there, many have gone before who have had similar type statements deleted from the record for fear of causing offence to those who make such comments as you are seeing fit to redress. In spite of all this you shine like a beacon of light in the grey fog of IPDS pc where many are fearful of offending others by stating what some believe to be common sense. Basically that it takes more than 24/7/52 coverage in order to transfer sideways from ret to w/t. You are quite correct to point out the distinction between w/t and ret in terms of professional qualifications and training undertaken. This however will do little to alter the mind-set of some who view us as being no more than tea drinking, snooker playing water squirters. If however a ret member of staff can prove they are of the same standard as their w/t counterpart through the production of ample quality workplace performance evidence against all the units and element of the rolemap then potentially they might transfer. But in considering the practical obstacles to this particularly the lack of volume of workplace experience and development opportunities on an average retained station this will be the exception and not the rule.
Being a ret firefighter in reality might mean that the individual might by pass the initial sift and entrance criteria but they would still require a shed load of development to reach the level of their w/t counterpart.
-
ps
Given the tone of M&C's contribution most of this will probably go over his head.
-
I have to say, I've only been in the RT for a few months now. There is the perception that the WT personnel are far more experienced and far better at their jobs than the RT. To a degree I believe this to be the case. Whilst I accept that the competencies of a WT compared to that of an RT are usually far higher I know guys who have been in the RT a long time and have exactly the same if not more competence than that of a WT. Unfortunately whilst in theory we do the same job, we do not. WT are involved in far more areas of Firefighting than RT. I'm not exactly sure of the averages for a WT being called out but I am certain that RT ffs are used a hell of a lot less during a day.... it's been six days since my alerter went off and i'm giving 24/7 cover.
We have two WT ffs on our RT station and they are teaching some of our more experienced personnel, let alone myself who isn't even up to the standard of a Trainee WT ff.
M&C i'd be very suprised if you are more busy than a WT station, your full time employers must be pretty lenient...?
The training can never be the same, it will always take far longer for a RT to train due to other commitments. However when we are doing the job, 99% of the time, it's impossible to tell who is who....
Both are two very different jobs and as such I can see no possible way to draw a comparison between them other than we save lives.... or at least try to.
-
wats this
-
The SO (WT) should have a duty of care such to the extent an off duty nusrse has at a say car accident or injury having a duty of care. Beining RetFF in Australia all Permananent Staff out rank RetFFs.
This means a captain of 30yrs experiances is outranked by a Permanaent Recruit green from out of collage.
On paper the collage stutent has more qualifications but qualifications mean nothing without experiance.
Having said that WT officers (permanents) should be accountable because they are trained they are paid a salary and if the mistake was gross negligance then they should suffer the consequences but on the same token if the mistake was of gross negligance from a RETFF than they should pay the consquences.
As hard as this seems.
In Australia we are protected by law against negligance (ie trying the best doing what you could and under the training you have recieved I think it is in section 76 of the NSW fire brigades act)