Part-time work

[marknine]

I was talking recently to a manager of a mid-sized manufacturing company in the NW of England.

He told me that the FRS was called to his factory after the alarm system was actuated due to a faulty system.  This was the first time that the company had ever called out the FRS.

Upon arrival the O I/C was not happy about being called out to a false alarm, and wanted to see all documentation relating to fire safety, including FRA, Log Book and Training Records.

He informed the manager that he was not happy with what was produced so he would be visited in the near future by the Fire Safety Department.  The next day (how quick is that) he was visited by a member of the Fire Safety Department who informed him of the actions he should take to get his house in order.  I told him that I was impressed by the speedy response, which he agreed with, but he said that he wasn’t so impressed by what happened next.

He said that the Fire Inspector then produced a business card for a local Fire Safety company which could help him in sorting out his Fire Safety Management.  He was a bit sceptical about this so he did some investigating into the company and found that it was run by serving fire-fighters.

I also know that this practice is going on in the NE of England.

Some of you may be appalled by this; others may think that it is good business.  I personally think that what they are doing is unethical; but when have fire-fighters let the odd ethic get in the way of earning a few bob on the side?

[wee brian]

Its definately unethical and possibly illegal - the officers concerend should be sacked in my view.

[ian gough]

Marknine: this is possibly 'Gross Misconduct' and therefore instant dismissal (I make this observation as a recently retired 'investigating officer'). A similar case ocurred a few years ago in the midlands and the officers were sacked. I advise that the brigade be written to and informed of the circumstances. If senior managers do not know about this it can only continue.

[dave bev]

hmnnnnnn, im certainly not condoning such behaviour, but making an observation or two.

 ian, are you aware of the current discipline procedures in the fire service? i also didnt read anyone asking for your advice? its pleasing to note though that the old methods of dismissing without carrying out any sort of investigation and just listening to one side of the 'case' still lives on. you would also have to remind me if the investigating officer could actually sack anyone or if someone else got the pleasure and thrills from having so much power invested in them?

wee b, you have an opinion, which you have given us, and are entitled to do so. i note you dont suggest getting them sacked, just that in your opinion they should be. i would ask though that perhaps you would have considered if there was any information not given that you may have asked for before forming that opinion?

i would always say there are two sides to any story and there may be some inaccuracies in terms of the facts as they were reported. then again it may be entirely truthful?

i would ask at least one (or loads of) question(s) though - were they employed under njc conditions of service, or were they 'non uniformed fire officers', would the manager of the premise actually know there was any difference. what was the question that he asked of the 'inspecting officer' - did he ask for any recomendations? was he given more than one business card? there are many other questions - anyone else care to add any questions they might have considered asking before forming an opinion?

if the true facts do eventually prove to be the facts as reported then i may have an opinion, until then its a good story to get people all worked up over ........ - (i also love to look at the urban myth websites) - but then again i know urban myths are definitely not true!

dave bev

[ian gough]

Dave Bev - who is jumping to conclusions? Read the the word "possibly". And my encouragement to write to the CFO - and therefore have the matter investigated. And doesn't 'Gross Misconduct' come with 'instant dismissal' any more? Indeed, that is the same for any employee/employer whether in the fire service or not!
Also, whilst I agree (like any posting here) it may be a false story, I am aware that activities such as that described can and has happened - as I alluded to with one real example in mind. When they do, it gives the entire service a bad name. I would have thought, it is in your interests too to avoid this.  
Just to finish off here - you may notice that I've already written some other observations on this matter, supporting the right of people to work outside of their fire service contract. I know there are many differeing opinions to that. However, I (as a senior officer) actually supported a junior member of staff to do something quite lawful in his spare time - and for which he was/is eminently qualified to do - and in circumstances where there could be no 'conflict of interest' I hasten to add. I wasn't very popular with my Chief for doing so. Of course the FBU refused to support this individual to exercise his 'human rights' in this instance, as it didn't match their particular list of rights/freedoms to be fought for.

[dave bev]

ian, i did read the word 'possibly', but it wasnt that they should possibly write to the cfo, you advised them to do so. it always surprises me when people think a manager of a factory isnt aware of how they should make an official complaint and the circumstances for doing so, im sure theyre not managers because they dont know 'stuff'? it surprises me that the manager in this case, having carried out some sort of 'research' then decided not to follow up his research, just seems strange that someone should go to all that trouble then having got just the information they were looking for did nothing about it?
i referred to the changes in the discipline procedures because of your reference to 'has been' an investigating officer.
what does give the service or any other occupation a bad name can only be determined by those who make that 'judgement' in any given set of circumstances. i very much doubt if the 'entire service' get a bad name for one event. i can think of plenty of 'brigades' with a bad name in all sorts of areas, as i can for individuals. quite often they dont do anything to change that because they think they are right and dont give a damn about what others think. however, as a principle i would support your contention that its not in actually in anyones interests to have/earn/be given a 'bad name'.

on to finishing off - being in the fbu is not an insurance policy nor is it an automatic right for representation on a whole host of issues. on the basis of innocent until proving guilty would you honestly still believe that the fbu should represent anyone on any issue? ok, i know that isnt what you said but i wanted to get some principles established before continuing.
ok, the specific issue. the individual would be entitled to advice but not for legal reperesentation. if it was 'local' representation and not legal representation, the issue is the same. anyu support would have meant resources of one way or another being used at a cost (whether in terms of money or time) to all fbu members on an issue OUTSIDE of their employment under njc conditions of service. as i said advice IS available (and should have been, even if only to state it was an issue the fbu would not support). a list of rights and freedoms to fight for would be useful even for officials, though i doubt it does or even did exist - though i suspect that you used that statement to support your argument

and now just for me to finish off. the fbu is not perfect. its officials make mistakes, however i would like to think they do so unintentionally.i would also make the point that any union needs its members to support its officials and if officials get something wrong they need to be told by those members. the fbu has a process for doing this. membership is not just about paying union dues, its about taking part in the process

[marknine]

The manager to which I was referring was attending a Fire Risk Assessors course.  When I asked him why he was on the course he told me about the incident and how the directors had decided to train up one of their own staff to do the job.  He also said that he wished that he had not looked into the running of the fire safety company, as he was not happy about having to carry out this task without any prior knowledge of fire safety.

To be honest I didn’t really think much of it at the time, I was more concerned that his company had decided to get him to carry out FRA’s without any prior knowledge.

I was talking to a colleague later about it and he informed me that he knows it also happens in the NE.  I must stress that I have no direct knowledge of these practices being carried out, but I have no reason to doubt the word of the persons who informed me.

[wee brian]

Dave

When I suggested they should be sacked this was on the assumption that the allegation was found to be true. My politics may be a little to the right of yours but Im not completely off my head.

If it was found to be true would you support this kind of behaviour?

[ian gough]

One of the pleasures of the last twelve months has been NOT having to reply to FBU officials and thereby wasting my time.

[dave bev]

mark, again i make the point that i would assume (obviously wrongly) that anyone in management or even directors, when they reveal such information they would act on it - i have no reasons to doubt you forwarded the information (if it is information) as was reported. i wont go into the discussion of whether they should be on the course or not

wee b, point taken - and if it was true then i would NOT support this kind of behaviour, i would go further and say that i am surprised it wasnt reported fully and an investigation allowed to take place therefore providing individuals with the oportunity to demonstrate their innocence if that was the case or provide the service with an opportunity to resolove the issue and take appropriate action (yes even the ultimate sanction if that WAS appropriate)

ian, hope your enjoying your retirement. im sorry you see my responses as wasting your time and offer my apologies in advance of you reading this one. i suppose thats the dangers of making statements/replies into the public domain  . there is always the danger of someone disagreeing with you and saying so. and as a matter of fact, i made the initial response as dave beverley, not on behalf of the fbu, wh were never mentioned. i made the second statement in support of the fbu after you mentioned it, again NOT as an official of the fbu.

dave bev

[pd]

Ian,

Whilst I have had a few concerns over the way my union, the FBU, has conducted events over the past couple of years...they are infinitely preferable to poorly organised or non-unionised workplaces.
One only has to look at the BA debacle, where american venture capitalists, having deliberately provoked a fight with poorly paid workers, then sacked them when they had the bottle to stand up and say that they wouldn't accept a worsening of their conditions. Now they are trying to play chicken with BA...a case of 'who blinks first' whilst people's lives are turned upside down. (BA are hardly innocent in this as well).

Sorry, if true, the relevant officers from the NW do require to be investigated, but do not say unions have nothing to say that you want to listen to. Go back to shoving children down mines, oh, I forgot, another establishment demon, Scargill, he was lying to when he said the government wanted to shut thirty mines...actually it was all of them! Still gas will give us cheap energy won't it? We just need a three thousand mile pipeline across some rather politically unstable areas.
Give me bolshy unions any day.

[P GUTHARD]

I seem to have started a very interesting post (been away on hols)
Please imagine this - you are pulled by the police for a defect on your car, following this the police officer gives you a business card of a mate of his that has a good garage to repair the car (as he received cash this) not very professional is it!
This (in my opinion), is the same scenario; as the officer is employed to enforce the law (same as the FPO) not receive extra cash on the back of his duties.
Also, what was the member of the fire service doing carrying business cards from a consultancy?
Also on the side of the premises manager, if a uniformed member of the fire service says that a fra is required then gives the man / woman a card, then if they use another company they may fear that the fra by another (non-sponsored) company may be refused by the fb and he/she will have to pay again - as a lot of managers in the country know very little of fire safety matters

[ian gough]

Absolutely, you make some good points. That is why it would be taken so seriously by F & R S management. Never mind the 'hand wringers'!

[colin todd]

Sorry, but I just cant resist this anecdote, about which there is no doubt. About 8 years ago an officer of a certain large met brigade descended on a large London hotel that was already certificated under the FP Act and told them that under licensing they had inadequate exit capacity. Now please, please no one respond on the FP ACt vs licensing issues as that is not the point of the anecdote. The point is that the manager of the hotel spoke by telephone to the I/Os boss, who told him he needed a fire consultant. And guess what, yeperoonie, it so happened that the very man he was talking to was indeed a fire consultant in his spare time!!!!! The hotel then came to us maoning about the ethics of this not to mention there problem about exit capacity. Ex fire service colleagues in the practice were quite enraged and wanted this reported as their opinion was the man would be sacked. After long hard thought and discussion we chose to do nothing other then tell the I/O to take a hike, which as I recall he duly did (though to be honest I cannot remember the exact details of the negotiations with the I/o). The point is that lack of ethics sometimes occurs in all professions, including the fire service, and is not new or brought about by fire risk assessment. FRAs have merely become a pot of gold at the end of a mythical rainbow for the greedy.

[dave bev]

toddy, welcome back. good holidays? i owe you a document still! i havent forgot!

dave bev