FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => General Interest => Topic started by: johnno on June 14, 2005, 11:06:08 AM
-
I work on a wholetime / retained station in Derbyshire which is to be closed down and a new station is to be built on the other side of town making it impossible for any retained to reach the station in 5 mins. Even if the attendance time was increased to 10 mins it would be impossible to get a crew there. As the land has not been purchased yet the brigade will not make a decision on what they are going to do with us and I was wondering what options they have opened to them. They have been to the fire authority 2 years ago and have been granted an order to disband us. Will they have to pay redundecy or what are their options.
Cheers
Johnno
-
ask the fbu brigade secretary!
-
Whats the station.
-
Chesterfield
-
If they are re-locating in the same town i'm sure that they MUST offer all personnel the oportunity to continue with thier job by providing moving expenses ect.. Dont let them get away with it speak to the FBU.
-
dont let it go with out a fight
-
Surely in the long run it will cost the Brigade far more to disband you and loose all your knowledge, experience and training?
Good luck with your fight!
-
Johnno - what is the intended new location and is it to be WT/RT staffed?
-
Statutory max redundancy is £280 per year of employment plus supplement according to age. Up to a max of 20 years.
-
Is it not a question that could be put to your local council? it is afterall them who will be funding all this and they need to consider the financial implications of 'getting rid of' so many RT personnel i.e. Redundancy costs, retraining for new crews I am sure if they weigh this up they may well find it easier (and more financially benefical) to either relocate their exsisting FF's or better still reconsider the location of the new station!
-
Andy we still await the answer as to whether there is to be a RT complement at the new station. The existing is 2p WT 1p RT, maybe the new one is not to have any retained?
-
To my knowledge no decision has been made yet weather or not it will have a retained section, but if you bear in mind Chesterfield is a 3 pump station at the moment and that 1 wholetime pump moves to a new station north of chesterfield in January leaving 1 wholetime and 1 retained pump at the old station it seems a bit much to lose 2 pumps in the area, having said that the brigade has ordered some new appliances that have an 8 personnel cab on them and one is to be stationed at Chesterfield
The decision to relocate the station to the oposite side of Chesterfield has been done because historically thats where there have been the most domestic fire deaths. As far as relocation goes i'm not a snob but if you new the area it was moving to you would not want to live there I dare say your brigades have the same areas whre historically there are people most at risk.
If the decision to disband us does go ahead do you think that we should be offered a job in the wholetime before redundency, being as we are all deemed competent and a Firefighter is a firefighter etc etc, and they are recruiting wholetime to do retauined duties.
-
If there are vacant wholetime posts then I would support the notion of you being considered for them, though the fact that WT are being recruited to RT does nothing to support your claim, merely that there are RT vacancies that cannot be otherwise filled, or that WT fill these posts more efficiently as they require no training and probation and can offer around 50% daytime cover?
So reading the reply there is a new station (in an area where there wasn't one previously?) whdere 1 pump will be moved to and another new station at the south of the town? Do you know whether the new station will be 1 or 2 pump? The new appliance with an 8 person crew cab may allow 1 pump to turn out with the full first attendance that 2 did previoulsy. I note that the existing station has an aerial, foam and ET too (no doubt alternately staffed) and a watch strength of 19, so the transfer of 1 pump to the new N stn will likley drop the watch strength to 12 - still enough to crew 2 appliances with WT personnel (2nd alternately staffed with specials - as is the case in manmy FRS).
With a new station to the north and another to the south of the centre replacing the former central one how do you come to 'losing 2 pumps in the area'? Seems that there will be the same coverage only moved to the edges and thus covering the town better? Also, as you say, the new location is where the risks appear to be.
Would still be a help if you could tell us what the locations are as we are not locals and will have to examine the maps to get a true picture. From what I can see the town is only 5kms from N to S and has a dual carriageway running directly through it (again N to S), so the travel times may be short from end to end and the 2 stations well able to support each other, when required? There are also another 5 RT staffed pumps within the 10km circle around Chesterfield - quite well served in comparison with many other areas of the country.
I would have thought, sorry to be so harsh, that if I were the management I would be seeking to have the new stations WT crewed with the specials alternate with 2nd pumps and that the existing RT would then not be required. The new N stn (or is this the Staveley one - which is being greatly upgraded from what I can see) has quick transport corridors to the south of the town and also to Dronfield and Staveley.
-
crikey you have certainly done your homework. Yes The new station is in Staveley and will be operational from January it will be 1WT pump from Chesterfield and the existing RT pump from staveleys old station. The other new station which impacts on our future will be built on derby road opposite the cinema complex and at the moment the only plans are for 1 WT pump an ariel and the ET as we staff the water/foam carrier. We are fighting to keep the Ariel, and ET could go to Staveley because its near to M1 (although nothing decided yet). Not sure about vacancies in brigade at moment, although there is a recruits course running at moment to fill some posts but same as you say RT could fill these these more efficiently as they require no training or probation.
Yes the WT pump at Staveley could reach Chesterfield in 5 mins but that's defeating the object of putting it up there in the first place.
All I am saying should we be given a chance in this new modern fire service or just discarded after 15 years service.
-
Jonno - you should be given a chance and where there are vacancies elsewhere in the organisation for the same job - Firefighter - then these should be offered and not redundancy. I am fairly sure that the rep body would have a very good legaql argument here. especially as there are examples of Rt being transferred direct to WT posts elsewhere, so no excuse that the jobs are no the same, also RT is just a DUTY SYSTEM.
-
Fireftrm
Im not sure if you are being deliberatly contrversial, but I know that you know your above statement will, to say the least 'raise eyebrows'.
Im not prepared to go down the WT/RT comedy cul-de-sac, but what I will say is:
The RT people should be considered for WT jobs. (as oppose to being offered positions)
-
As Firetrm has said other Brigades have already started taking transfers from
Fire fighters working the retained duty system into the W/T duty system.
Why not put a transfer in and find out? If you do not formally show an interest how does your employer know you are interested.
-
Rips
yes, why not.
I have considerable experience working with FF's on both (if not all) duty systems. It is true to say that many RT people I know would be an asset to the WT Service.
So yes, apply and see where you get.
Problems begin to arise when we talk about 'no questions asked' straight transfers, without probation. This leaves me feeling uncomfortable.
It may be an economic way to get bums on seats, but is safety taking a back seat?
Every time we discuss this matter, the same old chestnuts will come out.
Some RT people will be offended by the fact that some WT people dont think a straight 'no questions asked' tranfer is appropriate, and so on.
It is important not to get bogged down with specifics and not to talk of individuals.
The RT system is not the WT system, there are differences in standards, experiences and skill levels. In a word competentcies.
I have, as a Fire Service Manager direct experience of this, both on and off the fireground.
We need to tread very carefully here, there are loads of quality people working the RT system, and if they want to join, we should help them, in fact we should activly encourage them. Then we need to bridge their skills gap.
But there is an obvious flip side to this coin.
-
Lee I am not being controversial, deliberate or otherwise. That is except to those who still bury their heads in the sand when presented with the truth about the RT now being merely a duty system - RDS as it should now be termed. The RDS personnel should be offered WT posts if there are any vacant, then or in the future. Otherwise it would (surely) be illegal to make them redundant. It is not legal to replace a redundant persons position, so if you make x number of Ffs redundant you may not employ any more. As the RDS is a duty system and not a different job then I would suggest that a good legal case could be made to show that if they were not offered vacancies then those vacancies are illegal.
Other services have made straight transfers so there is a precedent and the role is not of RT Ff it is of Ff on RDS. There is no difference only the duty system that the role holder works. That is the case, there may be those who don't approve or agree, but they can argue away till the cows come home, the facts remain.
I agree that there are some who lack the expected levels of competence, due to lower experience or skill (training/development) but these would be addressed in any PDP they receive on transfer.
-
I agree with all you say, and would like to say that I am the last person who might be tempted to criticise those on the RDS(as we will now call it).
Generally speaking, I am not oppose to the idea of utilising the skills and experience of selected people.
The Derbyshire case is one I wouldn't like to go into, as you say there may be some difficult legal arguments to be had, and im not competent enough in that area to give an informed opinion.
So if we could speak more generally, then I think it might be prudent to accept applications from RDS people, and if employed then they might be given training to bridge the gap to a point of 'safe to ride'.
Following this, their PDP would act as a probation type period.
This said, it can never be a 'free for all'. Standards must be maintained, but I agree that oportunities should be given to quality RDS people with something to offer.
The only reason for granting a straight transfer would be financial, not good enough for me im afraid.
-
Lee I have something of an issue with the idea that RDS personnel would require training to brideg a gap to the point of 'safe to ride'. We already employ and utilise them as operational firefighters, they ride now. What may be required after a TNA is development to the full Ff competences, if any. With the changes to the Grey Book and pay strcutures someone on the RDS system is a Ff on a different duty system, they have to have the same competences and we require them to demosntrate exactly the same as those on the 2-2-4 shift, or day duty. Ther eis no difference.
RDS personnle have already transferrred to 2-2-4 shift system and will continue to do so, this is not a might it is already happening. FRAs that do not accept this may face challenges and should be setting up the systems to allow them to operate a fair and equitable transfer system, with some allowance for persosn to join from outside. This avoids the 'you can only become a shift Ff if you live within 5 mins of a RDS station and join that first. Which would not be fair. We propose an allocation of future posts to RDS staff, 'off the street' and other FRA transfers.
Note that the ADC process will allow anyone to apply for any management position, a RDS member may move straight ot shift CM, so may someone from outside the service. This is reality not controversial ideas.
-
mmmm.ok
I said i wouldnt, but we have now gone down this horrible cul-de-sac.
I accept all that you say, but I suspect you know and probably agree with what im thinking.
-
An interesting debate guys and I take on board what you are saying about standards and training and I agree that if needed then RT Ffs should be brought up to scratch although i think this would come naturally through training more often instead of 2hours a week and through experience gained when turning out on a regular basis. I cannot speak for each individual but only put my own case accross which is 15 years service 12years as L/Ff, IFE premilinary exam, and still pleanty of enthusiasm.
P.S how do you put in for a transfer would it be on a P2.
-
Not knowing what a P2 is, apart from a pump drill, I woudln't know. I presume it is osme form that Derbyshire use - remember that such things are service specific.
First thing is to contact the FBU and enquire about those FRAs that have already been through the procedure and have them discuss with DFRA about instigating the same.
-
Tyne & Wear have carried out TNA on all their FF under the RDS, for two reasons.
1. To find out what if any, are the needs of the RDS FF as a whole group.
2. Any individual has expressed an interest in transferring to the 2-2-4 system. Then when accepted for transfer any skills and knowledge gap can be addressed.
-
At our recent W/T Recruitment over 2/3 of the RDS FF who applied failed the selection tests.
RDS FF are recruited on their availability to serve THEIR local community and not automatically the BEST candidates for WT posistion
That said our RDS FF do an excellant job,with many recruited to WT posts.
If they are the best person for the job they will have no problems at all appling along side Joe Public