C2005/4783, Transcript of Proceedings [2005] AIRCTrans 2445 (30 November 2005)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

---

Workplace Relations Act 1996 13486-1

COMMISSIONER DEEGAN

C2005/4783

APPLICATION BY UNITED FIREFIGHTERS’ UNION OF AUSTRALIA-AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY BRANCH
s.113 - Application to vary an Award
(C2005/4783)

CANBERRA

10.12AM, FRIDAY, 18 NOVEMBER 2005

Continued from 14/11/2005

PN1514

THE COMMISSIONER: Right, Mr Wilson?

PN1515

MR WILSON: Thank you, Commissioner. I can’t help but observing that yesterday you observed technology that did work; happily for all of us. Commissioner, as you’re aware, there are four elements to the variations that my client organisation seeks. As you’re equally aware, two of them can quickly be dealt with; one is the changes in the definitions of certain terms under the award, and we say that they’re largely due to changes in legislation occurring since the award was last varied in what we call the May 2000 WROLA decision. That, I respectfully submit, is straightforward.

PN1516

The other straight forward aspect of it concerns the variations to certain allowances already found in the award. That is those set out at paragraphs 6 to 12 and 15 to 17 of the application. My client seeks to have them varied in accordance with safety net adjustments that have occurred since the May 2000 WROLA decision was made, and the calculations for those adjustments have been made by Mr Baulman, and you’ll find them at exhibit 59. Now, the two major aspects of the application concern a reclassification under the award and a new minimum rates adjustments that my client says have occurred since the award was last varied in accordance with the second schedule, Efficiency Adjustment, and we say that occurred on 13 September 1990.

PN1517

There is, Commissioner, no dispute amongst the parties that there had been significant net changes in the value of work since that date. Nonetheless, it’s incumbent upon me to work through them to some extent this morning because regardless of what the parties have agreed, the Commission still needs to be convinced, if it’s not already. We say that the variations sought are consistent with sections 388A and B of the Act. We say they’re also consistent with principle 6 of the Commission’s statement of principles. Now, you have heard evidence and you have exhibits before you, Commissioner, that say in accordance with the principle, that the time from which work value changes in the award is to be measured is the date of operation of a second structural efficiency adjustment allowable under the August 1989 National Wage Case decision. That’s principle 6D.

PN1518

The evidence for that is found in the decision in transcript of Commissioner Frawley, C60197 of 1990 and following on that an order of 6 September 1990 in Print J5009. That established that the classification structure which at that time set the 100 per cent relativity at the First Class Firefighter Grade B, the parties are in agreement that the first pay period commencing on or after the date of that order was 13 September 1990. So for that reason, that’s the date at which we, as you well know, examined the significant net increases in work value of employees of the brigade between then and now. Now, our submission is that there have been significant increases in the work value of employees of the brigade, and they have arisen consistent with principle 6 as a result of two things.

PN1519

Firstly, the changes in the environment in which the work of the brigade in the ACT is done, and secondly, the changes to the actual work skills and responsibilities required of employees of the fire brigade, or as we all call them, firefighters. Now, the evidence, if I can summarise it for you, Commissioner, with respect in relation to environments, is that at 1990 in many respects there was confusion as to the role of the ACT Fire Brigade in matters other than to do with urban fires. As you heard, Commissioner, for example in road accident rescue, the police, the ambulance, the fire brigade would all turn up, scratching their heads as to who was doing what and as the evidence fell, there were oftentimes demarcation disputes no doubt arising from various differences of opinion as to who should have done what.

PN1520

The same was the case for things like fire investigation. That, for the first time - sorry. And all that was consistent with the legislative framework at the time, which you had the Fire Brigade Act of 1957 which talked about fire. Indeed - sorry, I withdraw that to something I meant to say. At any rate, exhibits 32 and 33, for the first time, sensibly, were a product of the brigade and the police and other agencies sitting down for the first time and nutting out who was going to do what. So for the first time it became clear that the fire brigade had responsibilities for RARs and vertical rescue and trench rescue, confined space and entry rescue, and Hazmat and so on.

PN1521

It developed from there, although it took until 1999 for the legislation to be changed with the Emergency Management Act 1999, to clearly put in place the start of a legislative framework that went beyond fire. Now, the second major environmental development, of course, was something that, with respect, none of us foresaw or if we did foresee it back in 1990, we did so in a very hazy manner, and that is the increase in terrorism that occurred during the - or from the mid-1990s with the Oklahoma bombing leading up to September 11, the Bali incidents which occurred respectively in 2001 and 2002. That inevitably resulted, consistent with the change that had occurred in the early 90s through to 1999 with the Emergency Management Act, of increased and specific training and responsibility for all brigade members in the area of CBR, incident and response and rescue.

PN1522

Now, the second major development that occurred from earlier this century was of course the January 2003 fires in the ACT, which resulted as you’re well-aware with the McLeod review and the Coronial Inquiry which resulted in a considerably increased public scrutiny of the role of the brigade and further enhanced responsibilities with the BAS and looking after the community fire units which had never occurred before, which are significant responsibilities. For example, as Mr Baulman reminded me of yesterday, the area that the brigade now has to cover has increased to around 255 per cent as a result of the McLeod review, and of course, there are other skills as people like Mr Fickster explained vividly in the witness box yesterday that are required of all firefighters and it’s had a manifestly significant net increase in the amount of and the quality of the training of all ACT firefighters from the early 2000s.

PN1523

All that was wrapped up, if you like, and incorporated with the enactment of the Emergencies Act of 2004 which implemented most of the McLeod inquiry recommendations. So it formalised in legislation for the first time roles that the brigade had taken over in the previous 15 years, or clarified and extended the responsibilities of the brigade, and as a result, we now for the first time last year have express legislation that provides for the brigade going beyond fire to new responsibilities it didn’t have in 1990, to whit, response to CBR incidents, responsibility for planning, command, control and response over the BAS response to rescue incidents, establishment of the CFUs and community awareness about fire prevention and preparedness.

PN1524

Now, in short summary it’s gone beyond the image that I had and perhaps you had, Commissioner, back in 1990, or even up until I certainly became with Mr Baulman and Mr Brosnan some time ago in relation to this case, from firemen sitting around a fire station, sliding down a pole, popping the Dalmatian dog on the red fire truck, whizzing off to the fire, putting it out with water and popping back.

PN1525

THE COMMISSIONER: You don’t look your age, Mr Wilson.

PN1526

MR WILSON: Because if you had said to the man or woman in the street firemen do CBR, they do the BAS, they do rescue, they get down in trenches and so forth, I think many of them, if not all of them, would be amazed. It’s fair to say, I think, that the evidence shows that qualitatively the work they do outside of fire is perhaps greater than the work they do with fire. Now, the second aspect as to the significant net increases in work value of employees, other than environment of course, is to the changes of the work skills and responsibilities required of employees since 13 September 1990.

PN1527

In my respectful submission, the evidence is that there is a vast array of such increases. You heard from station officer Ronald Hourigan in relation to urban search and rescue and then you attended the view yesterday at which senior officers Stephen Gibbs and Bernard Evans further showed you the developments that have occurred since 1990. Indeed, if you were to look at paragraph number - I won’t take you to this, Commissioner, I’ll just recite them, otherwise we’ll be here all day, but just some examples of the significant net increase that arise in very short summary from the evidence, you look at paragraph number 343 of the transcript of Mr Hourigan’s evidence.

PN1528

He does say that the term USAR was unknown in the early 1990s and it grew out of worldwide terrorist threats and it’s something that every firefighter has, a significant part of his training and it’s a significant element of their work. Indeed, as he observes at both paragraph 361 and paragraph 29 of his statement that was received into evidence, all firefighters are required to complete a USAR level 1 course in recruit training. Turning to RAR, or Road Accident Rescue, Station Officer Desmond Falconer, in exhibit UFU45 provides evidence of the significant net increase in that area since 1990, and indeed yesterday, Station Officer Stephen Gibbs was able to give you a demonstration of that.

PN1529

As Station Officer Falconer observed at paragraph 186 and paragraph 14 of his statement, and as I have observed this morning, there was no legislative authority to undertake RAR back in 1990. It was a confusing state of affairs. Certainly entirely lacking in proper training and the awareness of how to do it was almost non-existent amongst many firefighters of that era. Again, it developed through the memorandum of understanding with the police which I’ve mentioned before, the single agency legislative authority today under the Emergencies Act to attend road accidents.

PN1530

It’s now, as Station Officer Falconer observed, you’ll find that at paragraph 228 and at paragraph 24 of his statement, it is now compulsory for every recruit and lateral firefighter to complete a stage 1 RAR course. As he observed at paragraph 230 of the transcript, once a firefighter reaches the rank of firefighter second class, or what we now seek to have as FB3, every firefighter does a stage 2 RAR course. As he observed, and you’ll find at paragraphs 260 to 261 of the transcript and at paragraph 32 of his statement, firefighters are taking a more senior role at the lower ranks at motor vehicle accidents, something that never occurred back in 1990.

PN1531

Finally, in relation to Station Officer Falconer’s evidence, he did say at paragraphs 263 to 264 and at paragraph 30 of his statement that second class firefighter/FB3s are now given responsibility of the inner or action circle at the road accident rescue incident, all these significant net increases since 1990. Moving on to vertical rescue where you heard, with respect, the vivid and well-explained evidence of Station Officer Stephen Gibbs, a most impressive witness, with respect, I thought, Commissioner, in both his evidence here and in exhibit UFU46 where you’ll find at paragraph 287 of the transcript and paragraph 5 of his statement, going back to 1990 the brigade had no vertical rescue skill or capability

PN1532

At paragraph 298 of the transcript and paragraph 33 of his evidence, he now observes that for the first time, firefighters were given responsibility - sorry, I withdraw that, I’ve misled you. It’s not paragraph 33 of his statement, it’s exhibit 33, firefighters were for the first time given responsibility for vertical rescue on 1 July 1993. We now know from Station Officer Gibbs’s evidence which you’ll find at paragraph 295 of the transcript that all firefighters are trained in vertical rescue now at the recruit level. Again, comparing that to 1990 where there was no skill or capability whatsoever. Significantly, you’ll find at paragraph 307 of Station Officer Gibbs’s evidence on transcript, that vertical rescue is one of the specialised areas here in the ACT that occur nowhere else in Australia.

PN1533

The ACT brigade now has a very fine and recognised capacity in that area. Finally, at paragraph 320 of the transcript, you’ll find the observation of Station Officer Gibbs that it’s one of the most dangerous tasks undertaken, from a technical point of view. With respect, I don’t think that and many of the other things they do - that point was in relation to that point and the many other things they do was lost on us yesterday. It hadn’t already dawned on us during the course of evidence. You heard from Station Officer Bernard Evans, both yesterday and in his evidence, exhibit 51, about confined space entry and rescue. Speaking of danger and fear and all that; you’ll find that his evidence was, at paragraph 598 of the transcript and at paragraph 15 of his statement, it’s a highly technical area of rescue. Ain’t that a fact, to our eyes yesterday?

PN1534

At paragraph 600 of the transcript and at 18 of his statement, he compares what we saw yesterday and heard later last week, there was no responsibility, specialised equipment or training to deal with those kinds of incidents in 1990. Again, and this is at paragraph 604 of transcript and at paragraph 18 of his statement, the staff minute, exhibit 33, of 1 July 1993 for the first time gave the brigade the express function of conducting confined space entry and rescue and it was only 1995, was Station Officer Evans’s evidence, that new equipment was purchased and again, at paragraph 629 and 43 of his statement, he emphasised and explained and outlined the inherent dangers of confined space entry and rescue.

PN1535

You heard in relation to trench rescue from Station Officer Martin van der Sanden and his statement is exhibit 48, and Station Officer Stephen Gibbs demonstrated that to us yesterday. Again, the evidence was, which you’ll find at paragraph 441 of the transcript and paragraph 11 of his statement, that there was no legislative authority for that function back in 1990, or if we get specific about the date, 13 September 1990, nor was there any specialised equipment. Again, it was exhibit 33 that gave more clearly designated trench rescue as a fire brigade responsibility as from 1 July 1993.

PN1536

Nowadays and from that time, we’ve seen the fact that - this is paragraph 464 of the transcript - all firefighters, including recruits, are trained in and expected to work in trench rescue. Interestingly, I thought, at paragraph 465, the training is delivered by level 2 instructors who are at firefighter levels. So there’s been that very significant development in action and training and trench rescue. Moving on to Hazmat and CBR incidents, you heard from Station Officer Robert McGregor in exhibit - his statement is exhibit UFU49, and he gave us that wonderful view and explanation yesterday, Commissioner.

PN1537

If any of us were sceptical about the significant net increase in that area since 13 September 1999, we only need to have looked at the JW skipper, and heard Station Officer McGregor’s explanation of what that did or didn’t do, and then the vast array of equipment that we all were amazed at yesterday. His evidence was, and you’ll find that at paragraph 523 of the transcript, that CBR, the function of CBR and looking at it, wasn’t introduced into the brigade until 1999, and yet it’s from that time we see all of the things we saw over at Belconnen, having happened in the last five or six years and the sort of training that was involved that Station Officer Brighty was showing, coincidentally I must say, while we were there, the recruits how to go about it, with that specialised equipment.

PN1538

Now, as Station Officer McGregor observed, and you’ll find this at paragraph 548 of the transcript and at 21 of is statement, that they now for the first time have the legislative function for Hazmat and CBR been cast on the brigade, in section 44 of the Emergencies Act. Again, as we saw at the view, and as Mr McGregor observed in his oral evidence, you’ll find that at paragraph 531 and 11 of his statement, that recruits receive CBR training as an integral part of their program. He observed, in relation to significant increase in his evidence, and you’ll find that at paragraph 537 of the transcript and at 14 and 15 of his statement, that what is now the firefighter second class and what we seek to have reclassified as the FB3, these men and women are able to apply for and be selected for the Hazmat level 2 technicians course, so they are, at that level of firefighter, involved with special - have specialist training and involved in teaching those at level 1 and the recruits.

PN1539

Going back to the point that Station Officers Bernard Evans and Gibbs made in relation to trench rescue and confined space entry and rescue, in relation to Hazmat and CBR of course, as Station Officer McGregor, in his reassuring manner, assured us both here yesterday and in his statement at paragraph 563 of the transcript and 18 in the statement, that there’s a significant increased risk to firefighters as to their health and wellbeing following the advent of terrorism from the mid-90s. You heard, Commissioner, from Senior Firefighter Station Officer Qualified Todd Bourne, about cross-crewing, four-wheel driving and bushfire response, at UFU53.

PN1540

Now, as he observed, and we find at paragraph 689 of the transcript and 7 of his statement, all that or a large element of that cross-crewing and four-wheel drive training, bushfire response that has occurred, has occurred by reason of the declaration of the BAZ under the Emergencies Act and it’s an entirely new function requiring significant qualitative skills for the men and women across the fire brigade. Indeed, going back to what I said earlier, and you’ll find this at paragraph 693 of the transcript in relation to Mr Bourne’s evidence, and at exhibit UFU53A, that the fire brigade since the declaration of the BAZ has had 41,595 hectares added to its - in addition to the built-up area.

PN1541

So that the stark contrast between 13 September 1990 and today is that firefighters have a manifestly greater area. That is, 255 per cent, which you’ll find, Commissioner, at paragraph 699 of the transcript of Senior Firefighter Station Officer Qualified Bourne’s evidence, and at 7 of his statement, that we now have that 255 per cent of larger area. But it’s not just area, it’s the qualitatively different skills and responsibilities, the cross-crewing in that environment, and the four-wheel driver training and response skills have added to the duties, skills and responsibility of all firefighters. Just to wrap up that aspect of it, you’ll find at paragraph 705 of the transcript and 12 his Mr Bourne’s statement, that the knowledge, understanding and suppression of bushfire was not taught or understood in 1990.

PN1542

He talks at paragraph 7 - and you’ll find this at paragraph 707 of the transcript, about the developments in four-wheel drive vehicles and bushfire suppression techniques over the last 15 years. As I have said, you’ll find it at paragraph 711 of the transcript, Mr Bourne’s evidence that all firefighters and recruits now receive training in off-road vehicles. Finally, in relation to that, and significantly, you’ll find in his evidence at paragraph 738 of the transcript, that firefighters, that is, even second class firefighters at the FB3 level, or what we seek to be classified at FB3 level, can be in charge of these vehicles at incidents without the presence of officers. You heard from - would you excuse me, Commissioner?

PN1543

You didn’t hear from, I’m sorry, but you received into evidence the affidavit made by Station Officer Paul Cobbington, exhibit UFU50 in relation to medical assistance, first aid and first response skills, that have developed since
13 September 1990. Indeed, his evidence which you’ll find at paragraph 21 of his affidavit, that pre-1990, first aid was seen as merely a handy skill to have. With the memorandum of understanding that occurred in 1993, for the first time the role of first aid was entrenched in the core functions and increased workload for all firefighters, that’s his evidence, and you’ll find in exhibit UFU22 some statistics in relation to medical assistance and medical response that is the case in today’s ACT Fire Brigade.

PN1544

In paragraphs 31 to 35 of his affidavit, he observes in summary that prior to 1998, firefighters in that period in the ‘90s maintained a basic first aid qualification and now it’s in greater - he outlines the greater depth of training in first aid from 1998 onwards. At paragraph 42 of his affidavit, he talks about the new equipment that’s used in relation to this greater medical assistance, first aid, first response role. You also heard the evidence of Senior Firefighter Barry Davis in exhibit 57 about the fire education role that the brigade and all firefighters now perform. His evidence was that prior - you know, at 13 September 1990 and before that, it was kind of a voluntary thing. If the teacher happened to ring up your fire station, you would cobble together - in inverted commas - “volunteers” who would go over and teach the children.

PN1545

Now it is a distinct program that involves all firefighters on a closest station basis. They go in there, they teach the children, they liaise with the teacher, they dress up the teacher in the fire brigade stuff and they have that, which is another significant net increase in their responsibilities over the last 15 years. Also in that regard, and you’ll find the evidence of this at paragraph 944 of the transcript and at 8 of Senior Firefighter Davis’s statement, that the fire education program that has developed in the last 15 years has led to the development of the concept of fire stations as Safety Houses, as part of the AFP Safety House Program.

PN1546

Now, community fire unit programs, again, is something which is undeniably new and significant. It arose out of the McLeod inquiry and the January 2003 bushfires. You heard from Station Officers Russell Cameron, exhibit UFU56 and Stephen Edwards, UFU60, in relation to that. It can all be summarised in Station Officer Edwards’ evidence before you, and which you’ll find at paragraph 1048, Commissioner, that this is a new function involving all firefighters following the January 2003 bushfires, that involves them training, instructing, commanding civilians, including in an operational context which requires skills that weren’t necessary to have and certainly weren’t utilised back in 1990.

PN1547

As Station Officers Cameron and Edwards explained to the Commission, it requires an entirely different approach and underlying training to command and operate in a situation involving civilians, people like myself who have not had the training as a firefighter. You heard from Senior Firefighter Station Officer Qualified Peter Coulner at exhibit UFU52 about the road accident awareness and accident prevention program that the brigade now has implemented out of the - that arose from an invitation from ..... to conduct a one-off program at their school following the accident involving the three young men in 2001 in Hindmarsh Drive.

PN1548

It has developed, as Senior Firefighter Station Officer Qualified observed, both in his evidence before you at paragraph - you’ll find that at paragraph 663 and at 29 of his statement, that from that one-off thing at St Edmonds, it has now developed to an overall program in which it’s on the nearest station concept and any firefighter can be involved. We had yesterday, Commissioner, the very interesting and vivid description of compressed air foam appliances of CAFs appliance, involving Station Officer Fickster and Bourne, I think it was. And again, Station Officer Fickster’s evidence before you, which you’ll find at paragraph 776 of the transcript, was that what we saw yesterday with the foam on the tower and so on was a new appliance arising from the McLeod inquiry.

PN1549

His evidence was, as I understood it yesterday and certainly before you and which you’ll find at paragraphs 790 to 794 of the transcript and at paragraph 14 of his statement, that CAFs involves new technology not around in the 1990s. It is now, as Station Officer Fickster observed at his evidence before you, which you’ll find at paragraph 796 of the transcript, that a level 1 CAFs operator course is now achieved through the recruit course so everyone gets that sort of training in how to use that appliance that you saw Station Officers Fickster and Bourne operate yesterday.

PN1550

Then finally on that, you heard in his evidence, and it’s found at paragraph 798 of the transcript, that level 2 operators now instruct level 1 operators at the recruit level or at the firefighter level for those who haven’t had their training in the recruit level before they were there before the appliance came in of course, or the lateral recruits. Now, all of that in summary, in my submission and I respectfully submit, is plain on the evidence before the Commission, that has resulted in the need for new and enhanced levels of training, to ensure that brigade employees have the ability to properly carry out this new work, skills and responsibilities.

PN1551

You have heard no evidence as to any reduction or elimination of functions in the brigade since 13 September 1990 that might offset or discount those changes. It’s simply a fact they still do all of the fire stuff and layered onto it are all the additional functions that you’ve heard and that I’ve summarised this morning. Now, those changes have not - and this is the evidence - been taken into account in any variations to the award since 13 September 1990. They’re not merely evolutionary in nature, and I thought this was an interesting summary of what evolutionary means from the good old cases going in the 1980s when these work value matters seemed to be relatively brief, but - - -

PN1552

THE COMMISSIONER: It was a lot easier in those days.

PN1553

MR WILSON: Yes. They weren’t troubled by SEP, I suspect, Commissioner, and that’s the reason, but in the decision in Australasian Society of Engineers v General Motors Holden Ltd (1986) volume 301 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Reports, starting from page 555, I thought this was a nice little potted, succinct, and with respect, summary. You’ll find this - it’s page 560 of the decision. No need to trouble yourself finding it, Commissioner, but in that case Commissioner Payne observes this from the Full Bench decision in the Air Traffic Controllers Case of 1977:

PN1554

The nature of the change which would attract an adjustment on work value grounds was stressed by a Full Bench of the Commission in the Air Traffic Controllers Case 1977 when it considered ...(reads)... to avoid double counting.

PN1555

But it goes on to say here, and I just thought this was a good summary:

PN1556

A significant net addition to work requirements tends to exclude changes which are intrinsic, isolated or evolutionary in favour of changes which are exceptional, cumulative or dramatic.

PN1557

My summary is in relation to those changes and if it be ever suggested that they’re evolutionary changes, all the changes that I’ve outlined this morning, and you’ve heard in evidence, are exceptional, cumulative and dramatic. Now, of course the changes are necessary to maintain acceptable levels of services to the community; who after January 2003 would deny that? Who, in the face of the terrorist threats now to our community would deny that? They don’t represent changes that are inherent or accepted characteristics of any job of the employee of the fire brigade. Of course that’s obvious because we all thought, to go back to my Dalmatian dog analogy, that fire was inherent in characteristic, yes. But all these other things are not. They are dramatic and accumulative.

PN1558

They’re certainly not of the type that should be characterised as increases in workload that go to the issue of manning. Now, we say that recognition of the net addition to work value changes or increases in the minimum rates of pay for all employees under the award is appropriate and the alternative of across the board allowance is not appropriate for five reasons. First, that the allowances could exacerbate existing problems with internal relativities; secondly, that they would have the effect of further compensating superintendent and district officer levels for what they achieved in that Mercer review, under the old certified agreement in 2004. Increase in wage levels is more beneficial to the employee than equivalent increase in - as an allowance.

PN1559

Fourthly, the awarding of an increase in the minimum rates of pay under the award is a better approach in the circumstances of this case, where there’s been an increased need for multi-skilling and there’s been increased responsibility assumed at all levels of the brigade. Finally, whether or not it’s relevant to - in a purest examination of work value under awards, it still needs to be pointed out that we’re here from a provision in the certified agreement that says we come back here, and so my submission is that a change to the minimum rates under the award is consistent with the purposes of clause 21 of the certified agreement. Would you excuse me?

PN1560

I now wanted to turn to the classification structure itself, Commissioner, and make some observations about that. We say that the 8-level classification structure in descriptions applied for was more suitable for the contemporary needs of the ACT Fire Brigade than the 14-level structure. Now, it’s not only us that says that, it’s them, and their witness, Chief Officer Prince, who if you read his statement, that’s his evidence. We say that that classification structure that we apply for is consistent with and would give effect to principle 6 and the various decisions, National Wage Case and work value decision of the Commission that you’d be familiar with, specifically in that regard, would be more than aware than the February 1989 review decision, talks about the desirability of producing and simplifying classification award structures.

PN1561

You will also be equally more than aware that the April 2005 Childcare decision, that’s Print PR597259, 13 April 2005, talks about the determinative of the number of levels in the classification structure is the range of work functions to be performed and the skills acquired. Now, I might even jump across to - well, Commissioner, to Chief Officer Prince’s statement. I’ll just find out what he says about that. Excuse me, Commissioner. Yes. I thank my learned friend, Commissioner, he’s given me his copy. At ACT14, if you look at paragraph 35 and following from Chief Officer Prince’s statement, he emphasises that issue. In summary, the classification’s artificial, it’s unnecessarily complex.

PN1562

It has relativities that don’t reflect the current differences in skills and responsibilities and the one we seek - and it reflects organisational structures at large in brigades with a narrower range of functions. So we say that the classification we apply for better reflects the brigade’s current anticipated ongoing organisational operational requirements. It provides that for internal relativities that better reflect the different skills, competencies, training levels and responsibilities of ACT firefighters, and that’s what Chief Officer Prince says.

PN1563

It provides for a more effective basis for flexible arrangements and increased level of multi-skilling for ACT firefighters, and it reflects changes in current classification standards compared with what was the case on 13 September 1990. Now there are, as again, Commissioner, you are more than familiar with, an exercise that one goes through in fixing or adjusting minimum rates appropriately, and of course, that’s very helpfully outlined, that paragraph - or from paragraph 155 of the January Childcare decision. It tells us that principles established in the Paid Rates Review decision mandate a three-step process for the determining of properly fixed minimum rates.

PN1564

The first thing it says is that you establish an external relativity by looking at key classifications in awards which have been adjusted in accordance with the MRA process, with particular reference to the current rates of the relevant classifications in the Metal Industry Award. Now, just stopping there, unlike in the Clerk (Breweries) Case, which was referred to in this decision, you had, as I understand it, a clerical award which had gone through the MRA process and was very easy to slot in the Clerk (Breweries) application; the C10 rate or, properly, the key classification against another clerks’ award.

PN1565

Our difficulty here is, it’s not capable of being done in the fire brigade dispute, if you could call it that, because each award, and I took you to these in the opening submissions, has a different classification framework. Secondly, whilst each individual award did establish a particular main classification back in the early 1990s, I think you’ll find, if you read those decisions, there’s no comparison across the board with them. Finally - and that’s because, I suggest, that each fire brigade performs different functions and has a different legislative underpinning which describes those functions. That’s the evidence of Station Officer Edwards and in particular, his table.

PN1566

So what we did in establishing where we thought the external relativities should be, and that is at now, we say, in the second class firefighter, or what we’ve described as the FB3, is to look direct at the Metals Award. Now, there are two exhibits that are relevant in this regard and one is ACT Fire Brigade 2 and the other is UFU20. But I wanted to make, before we look at that - submit that there are three points of principle in determining both external, and following on from that, internal relativities. They are these; the first one you will find in the August 1989 National Wage Case decision - there is no need, unless you want to, Commissioner, to look at them because I’ll just say what they say.

PN1567

That decision says:

PN1568

Minimum classification rates and supplementary payments or other classifications -

PN1569

I know they’re talking about other classifications, but they make a relevant point:

PN1570

- throughout awards should be set in individual cases in relation to these rates on the basis of relative skill, responsibility and conditions under which the particular work is normally performed. The ...(reads)... satisfied, clear definitions will have to be established.

PN1571

So the first point I make is when you do the comparison, and I submit when we’re looking firstly at the external relativity between our award and the Metals Award, is that we look at the descriptors. The second point of principle is one that you, with respect, Commissioner, have made perfectly plain to us on previous occasions, is the one found at paragraph 172 of the Childcare decision of January 2005, where the Commission observes that a comparison of the qualifications required at particular classification levels within those awards which have been adjusted in accordance with the MRA process is one method - one method - for establishing properly-fixed minimum rates. In that context, the AQF framework is relevant.

PN1572

So, descriptors, AQF framework; the final one is the one again found in the January 2005 Childcare decision at paragraph 372, where the Commission observes this:

PN1573

Prima facie, employees classified at the same AQF level should receive the same minimum award rate of pay unless the conditions of work under which the work is performed warrant a different ...(reads)... important to the public interest.

PN1574

As I observed in my opening submissions, all that applies to my client. I don’t want to make any comparison with that of a childcare worker and my client in terms of the demands, stress, intrinsically important to the public interest. I’ll leave that to you, but I’ll add one more thing that I believe distinguishes my client’s members and brigade members from both metalworkers and childcare workers, and that’s the element of risk and danger which you can add to that. It’s stating the bleeding obvious to say that whilst sometimes firefighters may be around, there’s nothing to do and they’re doing whatever they’re doing at the fire station, but when the chips are down, the work is dangerous and risky, more so than most occupations save for, I suspect, serving in the military, particularly in today’s environment and the environment that’s arisen since 13 September 1995.

PN1575

Now, with that, all those observations I have stated, and just to summarise descriptions, AQF, conditions under which the work is performed. If you then look, firstly in terms of descriptors, or descriptions, at ACT FB2, and I just wanted to talk at this juncture about the 100 per cent relativity in establishing the external relativity, it says what it says, of course, and this is a comparison kindly prepared by the respondents to this application, which compares the descriptions of work that you’ll find in the Metals Award with the descriptions that we now seek to be put into the award, and it’s a matter for the Commission to make its own observations on that at the end of the day, of course, but I would emphasise the comparison particularly where it says an employee at this level, for our - all of the things it does, and then compare them against the descriptions of what a C10 metalworker does.

PN1576

In summary, my respectful submission is that qualitatively, the descriptions of the FB3 firefighter are more significant in terms of the work and responsibilities they’re required to perform than a C10 metalworker. That’s the first observation. If we now turn to exhibit UFU20, again Commissioner, just talking about the looking at pure qualifications here, I’m going onto the AQF framework it is, in my respectful submission, and as the evidence has fallen the other day from Station Officer Ross Kennedy, by the time a firefighter hits the Second Class Firefighter at the moment, or as we now seek to describe it, as the FB3 classification, his or her qualifications mapped against the AQF framework are in advance of the C10 Engineering Tradesperson at level 1.

PN1577

Finally, on the third consideration, I can’t give you any evidence about the conditions under which work is performed in relation to a C10 metalworker, and so I don’t know - and it’s a matter for you, Commissioner - to make up your mind in a comparative manner as to how demanding, stressful and intrinsically important it to the public interest. I don’t know, but I bet it doesn’t have that element of danger in the conditions of the work, certainly not to the extent that all firefighters have in relation to that regard.

PN1578

So in summary we say the evidence is that, properly fixed, the Second Class Firefighter is the appropriate external - or what we now seek as the externally of B3 - what we now seek is the FB3 as the appropriate external relativity. In fact, if I were being cheeky, which I may as well be, I would say, whether one can do it or not, it would be strictly speaking - the Second Class Firefighter should have a higher external relativity than the C10 Metal classifications. Whether or not you’re prepared to do that, or whether you can do that, we leave it for you, but that’s how we’ve established, Commissioner, in summary the external relativity of the first principle, first aspect of it in the Childcare, as outlined at paragraph 155.

PN1579

Now, in terms of then moving on to internal relativity, what we did was simply apply - excuse me, Commissioner. I just hand you a document, Commissioner, that explains our snapshot, how we established the internal relativities. In doing so, what we did was we applied what we respectfully submit is an orthodox Clerk (Breweries) formula as referred to at paragraph 162 of the January 2005 Childcare decision. I’ll just walk you through that, Commissioner. If we take the column - sorry, what you have is two pieces of paper. The first column deals with the current classifications under the award down to the First Class Firefighter Grade A, and because we didn’t have enough room, we then go over the page, from senior firefighter onwards.

PN1580

Now, in the second column from the left, we have written down the wage rate at the internal relatively established date, and that is Commissioner Frawley’s order of 6 September 1990.

PN1581

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. So the second column which says, “Internal Relativity” or, the internal relativity establishment date, refers to at 6 September 1990?

PN1582

MR WILSON: That’s correct, 1990, and that is as you might recall, Commissioner, Commissioner Frawley’s order. I can’t remember what the exhibit number is.

PN1583

THE COMMISSIONER: No, that’s all right. I know which one you mean.

PN1584

MR WILSON: Yes, but it’s Print J5009. Now, from that, if you go to the third column along, we’ve established the internal relatively at the internal relativity establishment date and so the rate at that time, the external rate of 100 per cent, was at the first firefighter grade B level, and we’ve just done the arithmetical calculations for everything else by putting the wage rate for the internal relativity over the 100 per cent rate. Follow, Commissioner?

PN1585

THE COMMISSIONER: I hope so, Mr Wilson.

PN1586

MR WILSON: The next column, that’s the fourth from the left, is the application classification and what we have done is simply realign the internal relativity in the fifth column along, and the rest of them are self-explanatory. The current classification application relativity comparison with the wages there, and on the final column, their response.

PN1587

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. Mr Brosnan and Mr Barr haven’t seen this document before?

PN1588

MR WILSON: They haven’t, because I whipped it up quite recently, rather than verbally going through it - - -

PN1589

THE COMMISSIONER: Are you intending to tender it?

PN1590

MR WILSON: I would like to tender it.

PN1591

THE COMMISSIONER: Any objection? Not that I suggest that you necessarily agree with any calculations in it, Mr Brosnan, but you don’t - - -

PN1592

MR BROSNAN: Commissioner, we have no objections, but that shouldn’t be taken as meaning that we agree with the calculations.

PN1593

THE COMMISSIONER: Right. Okay.

EXHIBIT #UFU62 MAPPING CLASSIFICATION CHART

PN1594

THE COMMISSIONER: So, if I look at this, your internal relativities would be going where, if your application was accepted?

PN1595

MR WILSON: Sorry?

PN1596

THE COMMISSIONER: It doesn’t show me what you’re actually proposing, or does it?

PN1597

MR WILSON: Yes, it does.

PN1598

THE COMMISSIONER: The current classification application does, so internally, if you say an FB3 is 100, a recruit would be 94?

PN1599

MR WILSON: Correct.

PN1600

THE COMMISSIONER: What would an FB2 be? Would it be a - - -

PN1601

MR WILSON: FB2 is 98.

PN1602

THE COMMISSIONER: 98, right.

PN1603

MR WILSON: You see that column there?

PN1604

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, yes.

PN1605

MR WILSON: And all I did in the next column was to say, well, if we don’t have that classification structure that we apply for, I just did a comparison of what it would look like if you popped our 100 per cent external relativity second class firefighter against the current classifications in the - - -

PN1606

THE COMMISSIONER: The structure. I see.

PN1607

MR WILSON: And then the second-last column just does the arithmetical calculation from the relativity to what is now the award rate, and you’ll see the footnote as to how that’s all added up.

PN1608

THE COMMISSIONER: Good. All right.

PN1609

MR WILSON: Make sense?

PN1610

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, to a degree. I’d need to study it for a bit longer.

PN1611

MR WILSON: Yes, I appreciate that, Commissioner. I appreciate that I have lobbed it on you as - - -

PN1612

THE COMMISSIONER: I’m not very good at formulas.

PN1613

MR WILSON: I’m sorry?

PN1614

THE COMMISSIONER: I’m not very good at formulas, unless I have a really good think about them.

PN1615

MR WILSON: Right. Did you want me to say anything more, or is it quite apparent, that it’s simply just a matter for you work through?

PN1616

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. I think I’m going to need to - I don’t think that any amount of explanation you give me at the moment, it probably is quite self-explanatory, but I’m going to need to sit down and look at it until I’m able to accept it.

PN1617

MR WILSON: All right. Now, the controversy in relation to this matter between the parties in terms of external and internal relativities is pretty simple and straightforward. The first controversy is that the union seeks to have the firefighter level 3 as an employee who’s completed two years satisfactory service as a firefighter.

PN1618

THE COMMISSIONER: Including the four months’ recruit training.

PN1619

MR WILSON: Including the recruit training. My learned friend’s claim seeks to have that - they agree with all that, everything else, but the firefighter level 3 should complete two years and four months satisfactory service as a firefighter.

PN1620

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Two years additionally - - -

PN1621

MR WILSON: Yes, that’s right. So in effect we’re four months apart. Now, it seems - - -

PN1622

THE COMMISSIONER: But everybody agrees an FB3 ought to be 100 per cent?

PN1623

MR WILSON: That’s correct, Commissioner.

PN1624

THE COMMISSIONER: Right.

PN1625

MR WILSON: Now, our submission in relation to that controversy is this; if you look at it purely from an AQF framework perspective, what you find is that the FB - is a matter of determining when you think, on that mapping exercise that you heard Station Officer Kennedy speak about, an ACT firefighter has the equivalent of a certificate 3. Right? Now, what this mapping document tells you is that at recruit training level, the fourth class firefighter, what is now fourth class firefighter, what we now say the FB1, has nearly completed his or her certificate 2. He or she has one more core unit to go. That is, he or she has done eight of the nine core units and more than three of the elective units.

PN1626

And he or she has done six of the nine core electives for the certificate 3 and seven of the electives for the certificate 3, of which he or she only needs to get three. Are you following me so far, Commissioner?

PN1627

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, yes.

PN1628

MR WILSON: That means, as this chart says, that to get a certificate 3, there are three more units to be obtained, three more core units to be obtained. I think the parties are in agreement with this, but we’ll hear from my learned friend shortly if they aren’t. That is, they have the core unit of PUAVEH11HOO1A dry vehicles under operational conditions which they obtain before they become a third class firefighter. Under the present system according to this mapping exercise, before they become a second class firefighter, they do the final two core units, that is, PUA0HS002A, maintain safety at an incident scene, and PUATEA002A, work autonomously. Excuse me, Commissioner.

PN1629

Now, so the question is, how long does it take for those two units to be done - sorry, those three core units to be achieved after a recruit comes out of the recruit training course? Now, the brigade’s evidence as I apprehend it - excuse me, Commissioner - is that, look, we would like it to be two years because in that time, we’re assured everyone would have those three core units. That’s the way I summarise it, rightly or wrongly. But I think when I cross-examined Mr Kennedy and Mr Prince, and Mr Prince in particular, I’m just trying to find the paragraph numbers, but if I summarise the evidence and you go back to it, I think I pinned him down in admitting that he would be very worried, if I might speak discursively about this evidence, he would be very worried if it took two years for someone to do the proper training in dry vehicles under operational conditions.

PN1630

He’d be very worried if it took two years for them to do the training, complete the training in relation to the maintain safety at an incident scene, and ditto, to work autonomously. If you just might excuse me because I’ll just try and find the exact - I thought I’d highlighted it. Sorry, Commissioner, I’m just trying to find a needle in a haystack here.

PN1631

THE COMMISSIONER: That’s all right. You’re actually looking at Mr Prince’s evidence, are you?

PN1632

MR WILSON: Yes.

PN1633

THE COMMISSIONER: I wouldn’t worry about it. I remember it - - -

PN1634

MR WILSON: You’re familiar with it, you remember what his - - -

PN1635

THE COMMISSIONER: And I can find it with a quick search in the transcript if I need to.

PN1636

MR WILSON: All right. I won’t trouble you then, Commissioner, and I might go on to do the same thing with Mr Kennedy. I think that I pinned him down to saying that the expectation, and it’s not exactly his evidence, but you’ll find it, was that for all those three further core units that have to be completed to get your certificate 3, which you inevitably get before you are a second class firefighter FB3 under our new classification, you do it well - you achieve it well before two years. For that reason, we say that the descriptor should say, if you’re minded to grant our application in the first place, that a firefighter level 3 is an employee who has completed two years’ service as a firefighter because they have their certificate III well before three years.

PN1637

Indeed, on that, I also prepared at the last minute, Mr Brosnan will be pleased to hear, I’ve done another little chart in which you might be interested, if I could just hand this up?

PN1638

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

PN1639

MR WILSON: Further evidences my point in summary, which is you can’t really compare an apple with an apple when you’re looking at the metallies C10 classification with our people. The first table at the top here outlines the units that are required for the certificate 2, 3, 4 and diploma for the Public Safety ITAB frame course, which is aligned with the AQF framework. The second table looks at what the firefighters actually do in their training. That’s extrapolated from that colourful chart that you saw. You’ll see that they do a hell of a lot more.

PN1640

They do a hell of a lot more AQF units, 15 more just in total, I can’t - you know, you can’t line them up and so - but just in total, they do a hell of a lot more, and in addition to that, they do 25 of those red ACT FB specific units which again I couldn’t get the evidence because he wasn’t able to give conclusive evidence, but I tried to put it to Mr Kennedy, well, how do these relate to all the formal stuff that’s in the book, your specific ones, but my submission to the Commission is that in that regard they do have a value. They do have a value in outcome. They require rigorous training. It’s just that the ACT FB specific units haven’t gone through that process, but they do mean something, as we saw yesterday.

PN1641

THE COMMISSIONER: Are you tendering this document too?

PN1642

MR WILSON: I would like to tender it.

PN1643

THE COMMISSIONER: No objection, Mr Brosnan?

PN1644

MR BROSNAN: No, Commissioner.

EXHIBIT #UFU63 COMPARISON CHART

PN1645

MR WILSON: Now, so I’ve dealt with the FB3 classification, explained that, and I’ve gone through why we do it and also given you some overall evidence that gives you a snapshot of the training. Moving on now to the issue of the dispute, the other substantive dispute between the parties, very friendly but nonetheless significant between the parties, Commissioner, is that of the other internal relativities. Now, the brigade opposes the relativities at the FB1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 classifications in addition - sorry, I withdraw that. Now, again our submission is, what we have done is an orthodox application of Clerk (Breweries) and that’s where we have lined up our relativities.

PN1646

But we are helped, with respect to them I think, by Chief Officer Prince and Superintendent Jeffs, on our exercise. If I just take you to what they say. Sorry, Commissioner, we have so many folders here. Chief Officer Prince says this, Commissioner, if you have it there, otherwise I’ll - - -

PN1647

THE COMMISSIONER: No, I have it. Which paragraph?

PN1648

MR WILSON: Yes, 36. Firstly, looking at the - he says:

PN1649

In relation to the firefighter ranks, a rank of fourth class firefighter is essentially superfluous due to the higher level of training recruits now receive.

PN1650

So, stopping there, if it’s superfluous, then the relativity should be that which we established for the third class firefighter. In other words, I read it as him saying if it’s superfluous now because of the increased training that they receive in the recruit college, people should pop out of the recruit college at the third class firefighter rate or relativity, which we say is 98 per cent. Then he says:

PN1651

Likewise, there’s no practical distinction between a first class firefighter grade B and a first class firefighter A in roles or functions carried out or allocation of tasks and responsibilities at an incident.

PN1652

Okay. If that’s the case, then again, the relativity should be as we say it:

PN1653

A single rank of first class firefighter is more appropriate. In my opinion, the rank of senior firefighter qualifier should not exist, however, senior firefighters admit the qualifying requirements .....

PN1654

So he says should get an allowance, but we say what we say. Again, in paragraph 37 he makes the observation that there’s no practical distinction between any of the station officers, and if that is the case, then the relativity should be the highest level, certainly not 130, and then going to back to that, if you’re not convinced about that, have a look at the qualifications, the environment or conditions under work that work is performed by station officers and the descriptors, all of which will provide for a qualitatively higher level of employee at the station officer level as than the classification under the Metals Award to which my friends seek to link that relativity, which you already have there in FB2 and UFU20, Commissioner. I’ve already shown you that, and you can just look at those there. And also the ITAB material and the qualification comparison, that colourful document.

PN1655

Now, that’s our primary submission in relation to the issue of properly established ..... and I reserve any reply after I’ve heard what Mr Brosnan has to say. Finally, the other area of controversy is the new allowances, and in that regard, we say that in addition to the significant net addition to work requirements that all of the firefighters have had since 13 September 1990, there are particular firefighters that are now performing specific new or changed work that constitutes significant net addition to their work requirements. Now, we seek five new special allowances and they are member of the fire investigation roster, which you heard evidence from Station Officer Keith Chevas.

PN1656

The second one is the Hazmat CBR level 2 operator, who you heard evidence from Station Officer Robert McGregor. The third one is the vertical rescue level 2 operator, you heard evidence from Station Officer Stephen Gibbs. The fourth one is the USAR, the search and rescue level 2 operator; Station Officer Ronald Hourigan gave you evidence about that, and finally and fifthly, the compressed foam appliance level 2 operator, which Station Officer Paul Fickster gave evidence, and you saw Station Officer Fickster and Station Officer Bourne give a demonstration of that yesterday.

PN1657

The brigade’s position is that in relation to a member of the fire investigation roster, that should only be paid to an employee who is active member of the fire investigation roster. We don’t cavil with that, Commissioner, because that practical reality, that’s - they’re either on a roster or they don’t do it. In relation to the other allowances, they say that they should only be paid when someone, as I understand, is specifically rostered onto an appliance where such specialist skills are a minimum requirement of the crewing of that vehicle. Now, in relation to that change - I’m not going to go through such a large exercise as I did before, Commissioner, you’ve been massively informed about what the changes amount to, but I will do so briefly for the purposes of these submissions.

PN1658

Suffice it to say I think the evidence says that all of the allowances sought relate to new work value operations and therefore fit in with principles 5G and 6C. Now, just to briefly go through those ones, the fire investigation roster, that’s Station Officer Keith Chevas’s evidence at exhibit UFU55; at paragraph 847 of the transcript and paragraph 17 of his statement, you’ll see that that’s an entirely new task that’s arisen under a memorandum of understanding with the ACT Coroner, and that’s UFU55A. At paragraph 857 of the transcript and paragraph 6 of his statement, you’ll find where it’s outlined, the qualifications required to be a fire investigation officer in the brigade.

PN1659

At paragraph 859 of the transcript and paragraph 21 of his statement, he outlines the requirements to become familiar with a variety of new equipment. At paragraph 862 of the transcript and 28 of his statement, you’ll see how he outlines the duties and responsibilities of fire investigator in relation to reporting to appropriate agencies, and lastly, at paragraph 867, you’ll find his evidence that all of the things that he has to do in his fire investigation role is on top of his usual duties, and his evidence in summary is that he has to be on tap at any time of the day or night and he also gave evidence of the significant number of duties and responsibilities associated with that role.

PN1660

Turning to why we say vertical rescue level 2 operators should be given the allowance, it was the evidence of Station Officer Stephen Gibbs which to my recollection was not challenged in cross-examination, which you’ll find at paragraphs 311 to 312 of the transcript, that while you’re on duty, it doesn’t matter if you’re rostered on a particular appliance, you can be plucked from wherever you are and required to perform your vertical rescue level 2 skills, no matter what’s happening. In addition to that, at paragraph 321 of the transcript, Station Officer Stephen Gibbs’ evidence was that the level 2 operators provide the training for the level 1 vertical rescue course.

PN1661

So it is in my respectful submission just not possible, and not reasonable, with respect, to say that these men and women with that qualification should only be given it when they are physically bolted to a particular appliance. The brigade gets the benefit of that skill no matter where and when they are, regardless of whether they’re on duty, full stop, as the vivid evidence of Stephen Gibbs in relation to the Thredbo disaster and Station Officer Hourigan’s evidence clearly pointed out. Accidents just don’t happen when you happened to be rostered onto a particular appliance that require your advanced skills.

PN1662

As to USAR level 2 operator, Station Officer Hourigan’s evidence, again which you’ll find at paragraph 389 of the transcript, was while you’re on duty, you can be called upon to perform your USAR level 2 skills no matter where you are, what you’re doing, or even if you’re rostered that day. Ditto for Hazmat CBR level 2 operator; Station Officer Robert McGregor, and indeed, you’ll find at paragraphs 1223 to 1225 of Chief Officer Prince’s cross-examination, I understand by Mr Baulman, was again while you’re on duty you can be called upon to perform your Hazmat CBR level 2 skills no matter where you are, what you’re doing, where you’re rostered that day.

PN1663

Ditto for the compressed foam appliance level 2 operator, or CAFs, again which you saw Station Officer Paul Fickster - he could be anywhere and called upon, he and Mr Bourne, to use their skills. Mr Baulman will now speak to you, Commissioner, about the rationale for the actual amounts for those particular allowances.

PN1664

THE COMMISSIONER: Thanks, Mr Baulman.

PN1665

MR BAULMAN: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner, I’ve made a list of specialist skills and qualifications allowances that are included in awards and certified agreements throughout the firefighting industry. It’s UFU13. It’s quite a difficult process for us to do direct comparisons between the various awards and certified agreements that are in place in the industry, in the respect of coming to a figure in which we claim an allowance. It’s particularly difficult, Commissioner, in the respect that to garnish information of what every qualification requirement is in every various state and fire service is extremely difficult to get.

PN1666

So what I’ve done for you basically is just given you an amount that is paid, and some are in fact, Commissioner, paid as percentages of total wages. Some are paid by the hour, some are paid by the week. We have attempted, the UFU has attempted to try to put it in its simplest form. Drawing on our nearest neighbour and the brigade that we perhaps do the most work with at various incidents we’ve attended over the years, being the New South Wales Fire Brigade, albeit a consent award as such and not arbitrated outcomes in relation to these allowances, these are the market rates for New South Wales, and you’ll see, Commissioner, that our claim is quite reasonable in comparison to what’s paid in New South Wales.

PN1667

Having said that, Commissioner, of course these are very specialist units in New South Wales, are they are here, and receive the equivalent level of training to attain that qualification. As I say, Commissioner, it was not an easy process to come up with these allowances, but I believe these aren’t ambit claims. I believe these are realistic remuneration levels for the responsibilities and skills that are applicable to these particular firefighters. Commissioner, I have created exactly what you have in exhibit 13, I believe, just in chart form that might make it easier for you to draw the comparisons. I’ll leave it up to you if you - - -

PN1668

THE COMMISSIONER: You can provide it, Mr Baulman, if you think it’s useful. I won’t bother marking it if it’s the same as - - -

PN1669

MR BAULMAN: It’s exactly the same, Commissioner, it just might make it a little easier for you to follow. That’s really all I have to say on that matter. Thank you, Commissioner.

PN1670

MR WILSON: Commissioner, they are the submissions for the applicant, subject to me reserving the right to reply.

PN1671

THE COMMISSIONER: No problem.

PN1672

MR WILSON: Unless you have any further questions of me?

PN1673

THE COMMISSIONER: Not of you at the moment. I’ll wait to see what Mr Brosnan has to say, and then I might have questions for both of you, or I might be just prepared to go away and think about it. Mr Brosnan, how long are you going to be? Taking into account Mr Wilson’s been about one and three-quarter hours.

PN1674

MR BROSNAN: I believe we could be somewhere like an hour, up to an hour and quarter, certainly shorter.

PN1675

THE COMMISSIONER: Shorter?

PN1676

MR BROSNAN: Yes.

PN1677

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. Well, how about we break now as though it’s lunch, but we start again at 12.30 and then go to finish. Is that all right? It gives you a decent break and we don’t muck around. I think we need a break, although I don’t want to waste any time. All right. Back here at 12.30.

<LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT [11.59AM]
<RESUMED [12.32PM]

PN1678

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Brosnan.

PN1679

MR BROSNAN: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner, I'll try to structure our submissions in a way that mirrors or reflects the construction or approach of the applicant, Mr Wilson, on behalf of the applicant. So that Mr Wilson referred to four broad areas that the applicant is seeking changes to the variations to the Fire Brigade Award. The first category what he described were the changes in definitions, et cetera, to update the award both in terms of the new legislation. We can confirm on behalf of the employer that the employer does accept those proposals that are contained in the application to vary the award.

PN1680

In relation to the second category concerning the application to vary the current allowances in the award, once again we can confirm that the employer agrees with the application to vary and with the specific variation amounts. In doing so for the record I think it would be useful to note that, as I understand it, in the variation by the applicant and indeed in the document we provided the Commission - that is the fire brigade provided the Commission - both parties as I understand it are seeking to delete certain allowances that are currently in clause 30. So in order to clarify the position neither the application or the fire brigade document include the following allowances from clause 30 of the award.

PN1681

The first one is in charge of salvage locker, the second one is watch room operator and the third one is required to carry out hose repair. Certainly from the employer’s perspective the employer believes that those three allowances are no longer in use. They’re obsolete basically and we propose not to include it in varying the award. Turn now to the third issue addressed by Mr Wilson and that, of course, concerns the work value and related claims from the applicant. I will briefly confirm our understanding that the principle 6 requires the time from which the work changes in the award should be measured as the date of operation of the second SEP and on the basis for, certainly the fire brigade is of the view that is, as Mr Wilson has suggested, 13 September 1990 pursuant to Commissioner Frawley’s decision in transcript.

PN1682

And in terms of the general requirements under the Act, the brigade of course submits that section 88A, the objects of part 6, 88B of the Workplace Relations Act, in particular 88B(2) and 88B(3) of the Workplace Relations Act are provisions that guide the Commission in its consideration of applications of this kind, indeed in consideration of many award matters. Turning to the specific evidence that has been before the Commission over the past week both in terms of written statements, evidence given and inspections, I can confirm in general that the brigade concurs with the broad conclusions by Mr Wilson that the evidence of work value has been, in our view at least, such that the particular requirements of principle 6 have, in our respectful submission, been satisfied.

PN1683

I won’t traverse all the matters Mr Wilson raised. I would like to emphasise on behalf of the brigade some aspects of these changes that we believe can be identified through what has been provided to the Commission in evidence. The first general comment is that the changes that have occurred as a result of the various memorandums of understanding in the 1990s - there are four actually listed in the exhibits - have had a direct impact across the fire brigade. That is that they had led progressively to new responsibilities, new skills and new training over that period and that has been identified in witness statements.

PN1684

In terms of the broad changes in the environment which is the first key area in which the brigade considers that work value changes the net addition to work value has occurred. The brigade would wish to emphasise that it’s not simply the fact that into the late 1990s and particularly following September 11 there have been certain developments in the world generally. In our submission it is more specific than simply suggesting that well, there’s been an increase - clearly on the evidence general through media, et cetera - there’s been evidence of increased terrorism activity and threat terror international and within Australia.

PN1685

Our submissions actually go more to the impact that this environment has had on the fire brigade, in other words the implications this has had for the brigade. And I think it’s that aspect that is relevant, in our view, to the application of principle 6. So in that context I think we would like to refer specifically to some of the exhibits that in our view support these contentions. That is that the impacts are rather more practical and have impacted particularly on resources, skills and responsibilities. The first exhibit is UFU29 which is a statement by the ACT chief minister on 18 October 2005 about ongoing, on a particular terrorism exercise that took place in the ACT and indeed was part of the national counter-terrorism exercise.

PN1686

Again I refer to UFU30 which is a directive by the chief officer of the ACT Fire Brigade on the impact and implications for counter-terrorism role for the fire brigade itself. Mr Prince in his written statement has already referred to ACT4 which is the extract of the COAG agreement on counter-terrorism and ACT5 which is the national counter-terrorism plan. I also just wish to draw your attention to three further exhibits that have been submitted. They are exhibit ACT6, ACT7 and ACT8 and those three exhibits are about the decisions by the Federal Government through the Emergencies Management Authority to provide specific resources to the state and territory emergency authorities.

PN1687

In this case specifically they relate to additional resources for CBR and USAR for the fire brigade. So that, it seems, are the aspects of that we wish to draw your attention to. The references in the evidence and indeed the conclusions drawn by Mr Wilson in relation to the developments in 2003, 2004 and 2005 concerning the January 2003 fires, the McLeod report and the enactment of the Emergencies Act which commenced in 1 July 2004, we believe the impact of those changes have been clearly drawn out in the evidence that’s before the Commission. I’d like now to turn to the second category of changes under principal 6 and they are changes to the work skills and responsibilities required of members of the fire brigade.

PN1688

In the brigade’s view the brigade is prepared to acknowledge that there have been significant changes in work skills and responsibilities in at least the 14 areas that have been identified in various evidence during these hearings. Instead of going into detail at this point on the specific evidence we’ve prepared a document, Commissioner, which summarises the evidence of the written witness statements. It addresses those statements in the context of five specific areas which we believe are quite relevant to the application of principal 6. At this stage I should hand this document up.

PN1689

What we’ve done for each of the written statements is we’ve looked at five different issues. Did the fire brigade have responsibility for this function in 1990, when did the fire brigade take on responsibility, do all members of the fire brigade have some role in undertaking this responsibility and finally has the brigade introduced new equipment as part of this responsibility and has the responsibility required new skills and new training programs for the brigade. What we’ve done is identified in summary form the various written statements and on the basis of this document we believe that there is clear evidence of additional work value that has occurred since 1990.

PN1690

THE COMMISSIONER: Tendering that, Mr Brosnan?

PN1691

MR BROSNAN: I wish to tender that, Commissioner.

PN1692

THE COMMISSIONER: No objections?

PN1693

MR WILSON: No objection, Commissioner.

EXHIBIT #ACT19 SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

PN1694

MR BROSNAN: There are two further points we wish to make in relation to work value. The first is to emphasise the brigade’s view that the impact of these changes, both in terms of the environment and specific skills, have had a significant impact across the board. That is throughout all ranks and classifications within the brigade. And in fact given the nature of the brigade as Mr Prince has attested, the changes have actually required a greater level of multi-skilling and therefore are again a reflection on the nature of the impact of these changes and how they’re applied across the board. I refer specifically to paragraph 26 to 31 of Mr Prince’s statement.

PN1695

The final point we wish to make on work value is that the issue of comparison with other jurisdictions is a little complex at this stage both in terms of, if you like, the arbitral history and also the developments that have occurred in the early 1990s and also in the last few years in other jurisdictions. Let me explain. Indeed there are a series of cases which have been referred to that have took place between 1990 and 1994 where work value was an issue either directly or indirectly. Those cases are listed under authorities 5.1 to 5.4, I believe.

PN1696

Now, the interesting thing in those cases and indeed in the recent agreements that have been reached in jurisdictions such as Northern Territory, New South Wales, Tasmania and South Australia which are the subject of an exhibit which was produced by the UFU15. That UFU 15 exhibit outlines recent changes that have occurred. The point here is that work value in one form or another has actually been acknowledged and refected in some of these decisions. The most specific and obvious example I could refer you to is in the Northern Territory where the Northern Territory Commission of Public Employment issued a determination earlier this year and quite specifically identified an increase in minimum wages to reflect work value and that’s in authority 5.5 and that contains the specific determination of the Northern Territory Commissioner.

PN1697

They are our submissions in relation to work value, Commissioner. The conclusion that we draw from these submissions is that there has been a significant net addition to work value in our view. There’s not been any reduction or elimination of functions. The changes in work value that we’ve referred to have all occurred since 1990. They have significantly affected the skills and responsibilities and related training requirements for all members of the fire brigade.

PN1698

They’ve not been taken into account in previous work value cases. They have not been taken into account in assessing an increase under the Fire Brigade Award or any other principals of the Commission. In other words they haven’t been dealt with in our view. In our view finally the evidence is when measured against principal 6 and in particular the outline of the decisions of the Commission that have been made in relation to principal 6 that are summarised in paragraph 190 of the January decision in the child care case, we believe that the evidence is such that the changes that have been identified satisfy the conclusions or the summary, if you like, or the considerations that are draw on in paragraph 190.

PN1699

In particular the changes are not merely evolutionary in nature and they do not represent changes that are inherent to an accepted characteristic, they’re far more than that. They are our submission in relation to classification structure. Now, in relation to the proposals of the applicant for a new classification structure and relativities both external and internal we make, together with Mr Barr, the following submissions. Firstly in general terms the brigade’s position which has been provide in a letter to the Commission on 8 November where we provided the document which reflected the brigade’s position, is that a new simplified classification structure reducing the levels from 14 to 8 is entirely desirable.

PN1700

In our view a simplified structure would be quite beneficial and I think indeed
Mr Prince attested to the fact that those new simplified structure would particularly reflect more closely the current and any anticipated ongoing requirements operationally of the brigade. It would ensure, depending on to provide the opportunity for the internal relativities to reflect more closely the different skills, competencies, training levels and responsibilities of all the fire brigade and in our submission, which we will come to shortly, the approach the fire brigade has adopted to its proposals in response to the applicant’s indeed does aim directly at ensure internal relativities achieve that appropriate acknowledgement of the different skills and responsibilities.

PN1701

The new classification structure would, if it was approved, provide another basis for more flexible arrangements and in fact underpin that level of multi-skilling we’ve referred to earlier. The approach therefore of the fire brigade is that we believe the new classification structure is something that will be, as we have said, very beneficial. Mr Wilson referred to the possible option which may be open to the Commission under principal 6 if it were to include there was significant net addition to work value to acknowledge or recognise this through a general allowance. I wish to confirm that the brigade certainly would not favour that approach.

PN1702

It would prefer the approach based on a general increase in terms of award rates for the same reasons that Mr Wilson’s already mention, but I'll just add one more. That is that compensation through a new classification structure in the way that we’re proposing in our view, they’d provide a fairer targeted way of compensating the various categories of employees within the ACT Fire Brigade. Finally in our view there’s been quite a history of industrial unrest or certainly a level of dissatisfaction over the last 10 or so years on this whole question of work value and its recognition. In our view an award of an increase of minimum rates desirably through a simplicities classification structure would be the most appropriate to satisfy that.

PN1703

Before inviting Mr Barr to address some specific areas now of our proposals, I’d like to refer to Mr Wilson’s submissions in relation to how one would go about how the principals of the Commission might consider in relation to establishing a new relativity externally and also in terms of what new internal relativities are concerned. We believe that the approach of the Commission, reflected particularly in the child care decisions, do suppose do support the principals that comparison of classification definitions is clearly a relevant consideration. The comparison of qualification is clearly a consideration as is the third element mentioned by Mr Wilson and that is conditions under which the work is done is a relevant factor.

PN1704

We however would add a further consideration which we believe that both child care and previous cases of the Commission going back indeed to the 1970s, 1980s. Those cases and particularly since 1989, the focus of those cases and the focus of SEP and the focus of work value have been to identify and to compare not in a kind of mechanical way particular definitions, qualification, but they’re a means to an end. The end in our view is to identify, in this case, what is a fully competent firefighter for the purposes of establishing what is the appropriate length, particularly the metals C10, classification.

PN1705

In our view, and we’ll come to this in a minute, considerations of experience, operational experience in the job are an important consideration in relation to the overall outcome. I add further that the issue of what is an appropriate external relativity. In other words what is the time and the circumstances in which a firefighter in the ACT Fire Brigade could be regarded as a fully competent firefighter and therefore comparable with a fully competent metal trades person. There is evidence that’s been presented, and as I understand it's not contested by Mr Prince, in particular in paragraph 33 of his statement and in which Mr Prince states in his written statement, taking into account previous developments that involved work change, half way down:

PN1706

A firefighter is now considered fully competent two years after graduation from metal recruit college, a total of two years and four months from commencement with the brigade.

PN1707

That is evidence that’s been produced by the chief officer of the fire brigade and that was supported by Mr Jeffs and to paragraph 71 of the witness statement of
Mr Jeffs. At this stage I’d like to invite Mr Barr to provide some further submissions in relation to our claims or our position.

PN1708

MR BARR: Thank you, Commissioner. I firstly would like to simply address some matters to do with the classification structure. Our colleague there,
Mr Wilson, earlier referred to the Clerks (Breweries) means of determining the internal relativities within an award once a C10 nexus had been moved or set. Certainly the brigade examined that whole methodology as part of our process of reviewing the work value, classifications, duties and remuneration et cetera.

PN1709

However because it was very clear to us that the brigade’s present classification structure did not meet the contemporary needs of the brigade nor reflect the duties, skills and responsibilities presently carried out by members of the brigade and that was clearly evidence by Mr Prince in paragraphs 35, 36 and 37 of this
written statement, we felt that a simple Clerks (Breweries) application in that way was not the most appropriate means of determining new internal relativities because we were dispensing within a number of elements of the existing classification structure and making changes.

PN1710

So in that regard we moved more towards the approach that was taken in the child care case where there were a number of comparison points made between the metals award and the child care decision, et cetera. And in our doing that and coming up with the internal relativities that are in the brigade’s draft order I guess we have four key tables that we rely on as supporting that and clearly showing the evidence. The first one is in UFU44 which is the mapping document and the summary table. At the beginning of that it very clearly shows where the firefighters at varying ranks with the brigade line up with the AQF framework as a result of the brigade training.

PN1711

Then we move on to UFU19 which again clearly shows where the AQF requirements and relativities in the metals and the AQF achievements and relativities in the brigade classifications. We see that there’s a direct correlation in a number of the classifications, however at that C10 metals FB3 and the C5 metals FB6 we have fairly clear correlations. Some of the differences along the way, for instance at the C11 FIB, the C11 is 92.4 per cent in the metals award, the FB2 version is 95 per cent. The reasoning for that is that the AQF competencies of firefighters within the brigade are than that requisite point in the metals. So we believe that sort of thing supports the relativity we have there rather than simply the straight Clerks (Breweries). Then I won’t bore you with further examples of that, the total’s there if you wish to familiarise yourself more with it, Commissioner. But we believe that table very clearly supports the approach we’ve taken.

PN1712

Then when we couple that with the table ACT2 where we compare the classification standards proposed by the brigade with the classification standards that exist in the metals award, again we believe that’s further residence to support to relativities the brigade’s reached in those positions and that we certainly think the brigade very clearly and readily satisfies the minimum requirements for the percentages the brigade’s seeking in its submissions. Then further moving on from those tables to place our claim in context with the fire industry and we certainly acknowledge as our colleagues do that it’s very difficult to make a dead clear comparison between one brigade and another because there are differences in legislation, a different role here, a different role there and even from an AQF point of view the only brigade we could find that had a full mapping against AQFs in our research was Tasmania.

PN1713

And again UFU44 shows very clearly that the ACT Fire Brigade exceeds at just about every point through the whole process that qualifications of our counterparts in Tasmania, and that’s also partly because the brigade has broader responsibilities and that sort of thing. However, where we come back to is that the brigade feels that its proposed relativities in the main fit well within the range of established relativities that apply within the fire industry awards. In table 8 UFU38 very clearly shows that for us. So I guess the two primary points of difference relate to the second class and the first class firefighter in the ACT.

PN1714

The reason there are primary differences there compared to the established relativities is as we’ve gone through quite exhaustively the C10 or 100 per cent fully qualified trades person nexus in the ACT we believe very clearly aligns with what’s considered to be a second class firefighter in the overall scheme of things, whereas most other brigades have historically and since the early 1990s had some type of alignment with the first class firefighter. Although as Mr Brosnan mentioned earlier there were variations in that. For instance, in our authorities, I believe it is, we have a reference to a Western Australian work value case in the early 1990s where trying to paraphrase what the Commissioners came to in that case they accepted that a first class firefighter was in fact the trades person nexus,
but they in fact awarded a premium on top of that so the first class firefighter in WA back then was not 100 per cent, was actually about 118 per cent.

PN1715

Yes, Commissioner, actually it’s authority 5.4 that I’m referring to there. So just to summarise we believe that the evidence supports the relativities we are proposing and they very clearly fit within the established ranges already within the industry. Now, Commissioner, I'll just hand back to Mr Brosnan.

PN1716

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Brosnan.

PN1717

MR BROSNAN: Commissioner, there’s one further aspect to principal 6 which we’d like to address and that is the requirement under paragraph A of principal 6 that the party making a work value application will need to justify any changes relating to wage relativities that might result not only within the internal award structure, but also against the external classifications to which that structure is related. There must be no likelihood of wage leap frogging arising out of the changes in the relevant position. In our submission in the circumstances of this particular case we would believe that what is being proposed by the fire brigade there would be no likelihood if it were to be adopted of wage leap frogging arising out of the position that’s put by the fire brigade.

PN1718

The reasons that we reach and we make the submission are as follows. The work value changes that have been identified in this particular case, the fact that there have been no recent work value cases before the Commission in relation to fire brigade in other jurisdictions, the specific evidence of witnesses about changes and skills required at different levels within the classification, the recognition of work value through other means in other fire brigade jurisdictions, the absence of any recognition of or compensation for work value changes in the ACT Fire Brigade anywhere over the last five years. The fact that, as Mr Barr submitted, the structure and relativities proposed by the fire brigade in any case generally fall within the range of the calculated and defined relativities for the fire brigade in other jurisdictions, the fact that as I say the work value has been recognise because its been adopted through other mechanics elsewhere leads, in our submission, to the conclusion that the requirements of principal 6 are satisfied.

PN1719

If I may now turn to the applicant’s proposals for new allowances and there are two main differences between the parties on these. One is the circumstances in which the allowances might apply if they were to be approved and the second is employment. I might say that our overall approach as we’ve said earlier, the main outcome that fire brigade believes it would be most appropriate, certainly for the fire brigade’s point of view, would be increases in pay rates through revised simplified classification structure to acknowledge the net addition work requirements.

PN1720

Our view is this, that if the Commission was to recognise work value changes through increases in minimum award rates of pay in the simplified classification standard that should, if you like, be a relevant consideration in terms of what the Commission might consider in terms of allowances, in particular the quantum of allowances. I'll get Mr Barr to address that issue in a second. The other general point I wish to make on the applicant’s claim is this. That the applicant has indicted that they wish the four of the five allowances, that is four new allowances for Hazmat, an allowance for VR, an allowance for USAR and an allowance CAFs should apply in the event that the person acquires the relevant qualifications and skills.

PN1721

The brigade’s position is that those allowances should only be paid when an employee is roster on an appliance where such specialist skills are a minimum requirement for crewing that vehicle and the fire brigade allowance should only be paid to employees who are active men in a fire brigade roster. I want to clarify one aspect of that because Mr Wilson gave an example of Thredbo and so on and the body being called in to exercise rescue USAR skills and other rescue skills in that particular situation. The employer’s position is not that it’s only when you’re formally on a roster that you ought to be paid this allowance. The employer’s position is that being rostered on should include being called in to exercise a specific skill.

PN1722

THE COMMISSIONER: So it’s rostered on or actually used?

PN1723

MR BROSNAN: Or actually used.

PN1724

THE COMMISSIONER: So if you’re on a shift where you actually go on to what you might have otherwise been rostered on to then you’d get it as though you were rostered. So you’re sort of added to the roster in an emergency in other words.

PN1725

MR BROSNAN: Exactly, which is of course on a quite frequent occurrence.

PN1726

THE COMMISSIONER: But not an on call allowance for hanging around with those skills waiting for a call.

PN1727

MR BROSNAN: That's correct, Commissioner. Our position is that the simple acquisition of the particular skill or qualification is not sufficient. There should be something further and that is when you’re actually rostered on or called into exercise those skills and contribute to the work of the fire brigade. I'll just invite Mr Barr.

PN1728

THE COMMISSIONER: Before Mr Barr - unless he’s going to cover it in what he’s got to say - but I am right in believing that you seem to have two allowances where you agree on the amount as well. The breathing apparatus .

PN1729

MR BARR: Yes, we agree on it, yes.

PN1730

THE COMMISSIONER: You picked a very - all right. Perhaps, Mr Barr, tell me. I wanted to know where it came from, that was all. It seems to me that you should both come up with the same decimal point on the allowance on those to.

PN1731

MR BARR: We’re in agreeance effectively with the UFU on every allowance other than the fire investigation- - -

PN1732

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. So you’re telling me - all I want to know,
Mr Barr, before you go any further I’m just looking at the two applications. I haven’t looked at them against the award. Are the two allowances where you are in agreement which appear on the application, do they already exist in the award at that rate or is there an increased rate?

PN1733

MR BARR: Yes. That’s correct, Commissioner. They are existing allowances.

PN1734

THE COMMISSIONER: That’s the breathing apparatus locker and the self contained breathing apparatus?

PN1735

MR BARR: Yes. They’re existing allowances which have been updated in accordance with the wool classes- - -

PN1736

THE COMMISSIONER: So you’ve done the normal allowances. So they were already there, that’s the only reason you reached agreement. That’s fine. I’m happy with those two. Right, go on now.

PN1737

MR BARR: So, yes. Back to the allowances we differed on and again we differ in the quantum end, the circumstances to which they’re paid. Although I believe in the fire investigation allowance we basically had the same position in relation of circumstances in which they’re paid. It’s simply the quantum. Again, Commissioner, the quantum is different for all our allowances, I guess for a number of reasons. Firstly when one compares the quantum’s proposed with the quantum’s existing for any other allowance in the award the brigade’s proposals are exceptionally generous and we’re talking $8 per shift for instance which is an all purpose allowance is $16 or whatever it is a week, I can’t remember the exact figure now.

PN1738

But for instance when a person works four shifts in a week obviously that’s $32 in allowances of having one of those specialist skills. So we think it’s quite generous when compared to the majority of the existing allowances in the award. Also in relation to finding external means by which the allowances can be valued there are a number of issues that complicate the matter. For instance New South Wales Fire Fighting Award is the greatest number of allowances clearly identified in the award. However, that award is a consent award and the allowances in that award have been updated, changed, et cetera by consent rather than - - -

PN1739

THE COMMISSIONER: An arbitrated outcome.

PN1740

MR BARR: That’s right and a clearly explained mechanism as to how they were determined. Also in relation to the New South Wales situation there’s a mix of circumstances in which they are paid when people are rostered on the vehicle or simply for having skills. So it’s not cut and tried in that regard either. Further to that the quantum we seek is quite different as well because we believe the evidence clearly shows that the base level of all firefighters in the ACT for skills is significantly higher than the base level of all firefighters in New South Wales. So that the compensation for the additional skill is of a lower level because the difference between a generic firefighter and a firefighter with the specialist skill is lower in the ACT than in New South Wales.

PN1741

So that’s further reasoning why we believe the quantum there should be different. Also in relation to the manner in which they’re paid and the reasons for being paid when people are rostered on a vehicle or actually called on to be using that skill. We think there are a number of advantages in that, in that it encourages the people who have the skill to ensure that they are rotated through the locations where the vehicles are so that they maintain their familiarity with the vehicles with the equipment and working in that environment.

PN1742

THE COMMISSIONER: Sorry, do they get an opportunity to say where they want to be, does it?

PN1743

MR BARR: We do, Commissioner. We have a fairly complex staff movement system where the brigade tries to move people basically on around about two year intervals through a range of stations so that people get to experience the different types of working a brigade and maintain their skills across a broad area. For instance if we look at the existing allowance with the bronto aerial appliance what we look at doing is rotating in to Fyshwick station where the bronto is located on a two year permanent basis plus we bring in people from outlying stations for a block of shifts when a bronto operator’s on leave so that they maintain their skills in that way.

PN1744

The same approach is endeavoured to be taken, for instance, with vertical two skills at Cambar fire station or the CBR Hazmat skills at Fyshwick or with the USAR divided skills at Phillip. So we endeavour to try and maintain a program like that to ensure that people keep their skills up to date and we believe that payment of the allowance in those circumstances for doing it encourages people to go and work at those stations otherwise we might have somebody who’s happily getting the allowance over at Gungellan and we say Jim, I don’t want to go to Cambar to do that, it’s too far to travel, I get paid the allowance anyway.

PN1745

I guess the other issue there is that the payment of the allowances for actually using the skill is a more appropriate and fairer means of achieving outcomes across the organisation. And I'll use myself as an example. I would quite readily under the system proposed qualify for three of those specialist allowances because I have V2 skills, I have USAR2 skills and I have CBR2 skills. But in my situation I can not personally envisage a situation where I would actually be working on the appliance and using those skills in a hands on way.

PN1746

THE COMMISSIONER: Unless we’ve all been struck down by bird flu and you’re the only one here.

PN1747

MR BARR: Exactly.

PN1748

THE COMMISSIONER: But you could, I gather.

PN1749

MR BARR: I imagine full readily there could be a circumstance where I may, but it’s not conceivable in the normal operations of the brigade that I would be doing any of those things in a hands on way. So they’re our primary reasons for the quantum’s we’ve proposed and again just to reiterate what Mr Brosnan said in that our preference from the brigade’s point of view is to have the overall rates of pay for all classifications with relevant classifications increased by requisite amounts in preference to larger amounts for allowances. We believe it’s a fair and more appropriate outcome. Thank you, Commissioner.

PN1750

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Barr. Mr Brosnan.

PN1751

MR BROSNAN: Commissioner, two further and brief comments. I omitted to, in discussing the specialist allowances proposed by the applicant I omitted to refer to the principal 6, in particular the requirement in paragraph C. That is where you would change work justifying a higher rate as performed and I now pick up the quote towards the end:

PN1752

Such your changed work should be compensated by a special allowance which is payable only when the new changed work is performed by a particular employee and not by increasing the rate of classification as a whole.

PN1753

That in our view supports our contention that any new specialist allowance should be paid only when a person is rostered on and or called in as we indicated earlier. The final point of our submissions and that is that our approach to both the internal relativities and the reaction and response to the application for specialist allowance, in particular the amounts proposed, in determining our response the brigade’s position takes into account the appropriate balance, really, to be struck between the level of compensation that should be provided in the award in these proceedings in recognition of what we regard as significant net addition to work requirements and the financial management and responsibilities the brigade has within the ACT government.

PN1754

Particularly in the context of the current budget constraints within the ACT government. I have no further submissions.

PN1755

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Brosnan. Mr Wilson.

PN1756

MR WILSON: Thank you, Commissioner. Three themes not surprisingly in reply. The first point concerns the dispute over the two years at 20 months. My learned friend in summary says to you that look, two years is the time that it’s considered by Mr Prince that a firefighter becomes fully operational. And true it is that experience is a factor, we must concede that. But the evidence is, Commissioner, that that two years is an entirely arbitrary line. And if you look at as I did in my cross examination of Mr Prince, what flows from that is point one, that training is very intense in significance and at the end of that before they hit the second class firefighter/FB3 they have three units to go which would achieve their certificate III.

PN1757

Now, if we look at that in an experiential and operational matter this is the evidence before you. Mr Prince agrees with my proposition that they’ve got the three core units of the certificate three to go and I put it to him - now, we’re just talking about the training aspect, this is at print number 1205 and I'll go through it - we’re just talking about the training aspect of that, purely lined up the certificate three program. One of the core units they have to complete is drive vehicles under operational conditions. In other words in real life experience. That’s right. That wouldn’t take more than a year for them to satisfactorily complete that unit. In other words in operational conditions, experience.

PN1758

One would hope not, says Mr Prince. I then moved off to put to him that they should be ticked off for the maintenance of safety at an incident scene at core unit for certificate three course. Remember these are competencies engaged in the operational context and I say to him that should be ticked off. You’d be disturbed if after a year they couldn’t be ticked off in terms of maintaining safety, wouldn’t you? You would be. We’re not talking two years here, we’re talking a year. And finally I put it to him in the same context, to be able to work autonomously. We’re not a playschool here now. We’re working autonomously in the real experiential world and I say to him to the extent that you’d want people to be ticked off to be able to work autonomously within 12 months wouldn’t you? Couldn’t agree more.

PN1759

We say that given that sort of evidence and Mr Kennedy’s evidence was essentially of the same notion, essentially of the same kind. And indeed I put it to him there’s no magic in the two years is there, Mr Kennedy? No, there’s no magic in the two years. And if you look at the evidence that was before you a firefighter is fully qualified in objective terms on evidence under oath before two years indeed, we say, within 12 months as it came from the chief officer of the brigade. As to the second thing I wanted to say Mr Barr, with respect, seeks to convince you that the relativities where they digress from ours are consistent with what’s happening in other jurisdiction.

PN1760

Now, it’s kind of a bet each way because we’ve already established in the evidence that it’s not really too useful to compare what’s happening in other jurisdictions because of the different statutory framework they operate under and because they do different things there. And it’s of no help whatsoever to the Commission, I respectfully suggest, to go through that exercise and base your internal relativities on that. You must compare apples with apples, not apples with oranges. Now, what we did in our - do you have it there, UFU62 which is pertinent in this regard, it gives you a clear idea in what we’re trying to do and what they’re trying to do.

PN1761

If you look at the column labelled Current Classification Application Relativity Comparison, this is after we’d done the relativity for the purposes of our application. You end up with a fourth class firefighter recruit at 94. What they want to do is to peg the internal relativity back at 87 which was what it was in 1990. If you go to the third column from the left, see that Commissioner? Notwithstanding the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence has been there’s been a quantum leap in the nature and quality of the training that recruits have received since that date.

PN1762

Moving on to the fourth class firefighter third class firefighter issue you’ll see, Commissioner, in the third column from the right that I have divided it up into what it would be if we preserved those two classifications and applied our relativity under the Clerks (Breweries) case and you’d end up for a fourth class firefighter at 95 and as it goes a third class firefighter at 98. Now, again what they want to do, with respect to them, is to not only peg the fourth class firefighter back where he should have been with this new relativity, but also the third class firefighter. In the face of it Mr Prince’s evidence that the rank of fourth class firefighter is now essential superfluous because of the higher level of training recruits now receive.

PN1763

Moving on to the same exercise with the first class firefighter grade B and the first class firefighter grade A what the brigade seeks to have is to slot it somewhere in the middle of the two, but that again flies in the face that likewise, says Mr Prince, there’s no practical distinction between first class firefighter grade B and first class firefighter grade A in roles or functions carried out or allocation of tasks and responsibilities at an incident without unpinning of training. Moving on to the senior firefighter station officer exam qualifications. Again it’s the qualification that they want to peg us back and we want to peg us up.

PN1764

But the evidence you heard that the view was in relation to the senior firefighter station officer with exams they do this course for the Metropolitan Fire Brigade of London, isn’t that right? You pulled out that manual from there and that’s all it is.

PN1765

THE COMMISSIONER: I hope that’s not all it is.

PN1766

MR WILSON: Well, I’m instructed that’s all it is.

PN1767

MR BARR: I think the brigade would have a somewhat different view to our colleague on that, Commissioner, and we can elaborate if required.

PN1768

MR WILSON: At any rate you can see what’s done and we say with all that background you’ve heard we, on orthodox principals, established the correct relativity. And that leaves the station officer aspect of it, again noting you can’t compare an apple with an orange across to what other jurisdictions have done. On orthodox principals we come to the relativity of 136 and we rely on the evidence of Mr Prince in that regard at paragraph 37 where he says:

PN1769

Of all those ranks A, B, C, D have no practical relationship. All station officers are required to perform at the standard previously expected of a senior station officer grade A due to the small size of the brigade and the large range in functions the brigade has.

PN1770

And therefore everybody should be at the relativity, we say, on orthodox principals and on the evidence of the officer. Finally in relation to the specialist allowances yes it’s true generally that someone should be getting allowance only if they’re doing the thing that the allowance relates to, but in this case it’s not simply a matter of that, I’d suggest to you. These allowances relate to new functions that are legislatively mandated and the firefighter who acquire that particular qualification of level two do so within that frame work.

PN1771

It’s not only desirable for the brigade to have them, but it’s necessarily legislatively to have people not only to be available to perform that incident response at the drop of a hat, but also to train others that they be able to do so. So we again are talking about a different thing. It’s all very well, with respect, for
Mr Barr to say I’d be just sitting there, but any times you correctly observe or an employee correctly observed, Commissioner, he could be pulled out from where he is and be required to do the very things that he is level 2 qualified to do. Therefore we say he should have those allowances.

PN1772

Now, that’s all I wanted to say, Commissioner, in reply.

PN1773

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. Now I’d like to go through the application. Now, the definitions appear to be fairly straight forward I hope. Commcent - communications centre.

PN1774

MR BROSNAN: We’ve defined that, Commissioner.

PN1775

THE COMMISSIONER: I know you have. I just want to know why it doesn’t have a capital letter. Most communication centre when you talk about them are not dealt with in the lower case. Is yours dealt with in the lowercase, that’s what I want to know?

PN1776

MR BROSNAN: That’s how I’ve always seen it written, Commissioner.

PN1777

MR BARR: It’s just the common reference, Commissioner.

PN1778

THE COMMISSIONER: That’s why you always talk about it as though it’s a lowercase operations. It’s not a place, it’s not a thing, it’s not the communications centre.

PN1779

MR BARR: It is actually. It’s an acronym for the fire brigade communication centre.

PN1780

THE COMMISSIONER: So it’s a military thing?

PN1781

MR BARR: Yes.

PN1782

THE COMMISSIONER: Right. I mean, when I say it’s a military thing, this dropping of capital letters is a military thing. All right. Another question I had, watch room operator. This is the person in the watch room at Commcent - with a capital that is. See, I find this really interesting. I like consistency in all things. So I assume this is a capital letter Commcent?

PN1783

MR WILSON: Quite right, it’s a drafting error.

PN1784

THE COMMISSIONER: Can you fix it up?

PN1785

MR BROSNAN: If comment is to have a lower case let’s - - -

PN1786

THE COMMISSIONER: Let’s be consistent. But can you tell me is this the only reference to watch room operator now you’ve wiped out the allowance?

PN1787

MR BROSNAN: Yes, exactly, Commissioner.

PN1788

THE COMMISSIONER: So why are we keeping it in?

PN1789

MR BROSNAN: We don’t need it, Commissioner.

PN1790

MR WILSON: Precisely, let’s get rid of it.

PN1791

THE COMMISSIONER: Beauty. Let’s go to the next one. Now, a firefighter level 1. Forgive me if I misunderstand, but this is the person who comes in after going through all the rigorous testing, et cetera, to the recruit training college and does a 16 week course. Immediately upon being graduated out of the recruit training centre he becomes a firefighter level 2.

PN1792

MR WILSON: Or she, Commissioner.

PN1793

THE COMMISSIONER: Whatever.

PN1794

MR BARR: That’s correct.

PN1795

THE COMMISSIONER: Right. One of those very delightful six women who must be very lonely, Mr Wilson.

PN1796

MR WILSON: You will have to ask my learned friends about that.

PN1797

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. None on the current course I note. Is that right?

PN1798

MR BARR: That’s correct, Commissioner. However we did actually have a female we recruited laterally who graduated about three weeks ago.

PN1799

THE COMMISSIONER: So you whipped her up from somewhere else?

PN1800

MR BARR: Yes, New South Wales in fact.

PN1801

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. Firefighter level 2, this is the person who is a newly fledged recruit, walks out into the fire station and starts training as the new kid. Right?

PN1802

MR BARR: Okay.

PN1803

THE COMMISSIONER: Got all his training behind him and a much more valuable person, as I understand it, than would have been had he come out in perhaps you year, Mr Barr?

PN1804

MR BARR: That’s correct, Commissioner.

PN1805

THE COMMISSIONER: And yours as I understand, Mr Baulman?

PN1806

MR BAULMAN: That’s correct, Commissioner.

PN1807

THE COMMISSIONER: Right. Somewhere around recruit college 24 or something everything changes. Is that what I’m told?

PN1808

MR BARR: Yes.

PN1809

THE COMMISSIONER: Around one of those 20s anyway, right.

PN1810

MR BARR: Yes, around there.

PN1811

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. Now we go to firefighter level 3. This is the 100 per cent fully trained qualified person we’re arguing about whether it’s 20 or 24. Up to now I’m pretty right. Now explain to me firefighter level 4. So they’ve been hanging around as a full competent firefighter for a year?

PN1812

MR BARR: Yes, that’s correct, Commissioner.

PN1813

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Works above an FB3 - well, we put that down to experience. What’s the difference between an FB3 and an FB4? That’s what I need to know.

PN1814

MR BARR: There are a couple, Commissioner. One of them is, as Mr Falconer in his evidence talked about the level 2 rescue course.

PN1815

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, you can only do that if you’re already a level 3.

PN1816

MR BARR: The target rank for that is second class. So we attempt to get all our - sorry, FB3s. I'll use the right version.

PN1817

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, let’s try and get it right. FB3s, all right. You wouldn’t ask a first year out recruit or second year out recruit to do the level 2?

PN1818

MR BARR: No.

PN1819

THE COMMISSIONER: You’d wait until they’d been promoted to done whatever their 20 or 24 months and they were a level 3?

PN1820

MR BARR: That’s correct.

PN1821

THE COMMISSIONER: So now you’re going to invite them to do a few of these level 2 courses? It’s not only the USAR or the road rescue, whatever. Is it Hazmat as well level 2?

PN1822

MR BARR: Yes.

PN1823

THE COMMISSIONER: Vehicle rescue level 2? They’re all directed at the full qualified FB3 level?

PN1824

MR BARR: Yes. If I can clarify there, there are a number of courses which they are able to apply for.

PN1825

THE COMMISSIONER: Able or mandatory?

PN1826

MR BARR: Okay, that’s what I’m attempting to clarify. The stage 2 RAR type rescue that Mr Falconer talked about is considered a mandatory requirement.

PN1827

THE COMMISSIONER: So RAR is mandatory and you would be saying to all FB3s you are required to do the stage 2 RAR rescue?

PN1828

MR BARR: That’s correct.

PN1829

THE COMMISSIONER: Right. So it’s built in more or less to an FB3. So you would look at that, would you, before you promoted them to an FB4 or not?

PN1830

MR BARR: Well, they actually have to pass a challenge test at the end of FB3 and in addition to the challenge test now that we’ve implemented this new course and have, hence starting end of last year, put all our people who are FB3 through that course. We also had some people who were at the level higher than FB3.

PN1831

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay, this is the RAR2 course?

PN1832

MR BARR: That’s right, yes.

PN1833

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. What’s the challenge test, Mr Barr? No one told me about a challenge test.

PN1834

MR BARR: The proficiency challenge test is an internal brigade process that is part of the requirement for firefighters to satisfactorily complete to progress from FB3 - - -

PN1835

THE COMMISSIONER: An FB3 to an FB4 and FB4 to an FB5.

PN1836

MR BARR: That’s right.

PN1837

THE COMMISSIONER: This is the internal thing.

PN1838

MR BARR: Yes.

PN1839

THE COMMISSIONER: This is where it says possessors have required competencies and has completed the - - -

PN1840

MR BARR: That’s right, yes.

PN1841

THE COMMISSIONER: Right, okay. But you don’t build in to the FB3 to go to FB4 a requirement for them to have done the RAR2.

PN1842

MR BARR: Okay. That’s not formally documented at this time, Commissioner. However it is the intent of the brigade having implemented the course last year and now put everybody who was- - -

PN1843

THE COMMISSIONER: To add that as one of the required competencies.

PN1844

MR BARR: That’s right, that’s correct. Likewise with the stage 3 rescue that
Mr Falconer talked about, our intent is that when people get to FB5 they will be required to do that course and that having satisfactorily completed the stage 3 rescue the aim of that is that everybody at FB6 will have done the stage 3 rescue. As Mr Falconer said the other day there were two station officers who were FB6s who haven’t and it’s the brigades intent that they will be guaranteed starters on the next stage 3 course we run.

PN1845

THE COMMISSIONER: This is the road rescue?

PN1846

MR BARR: Yes.

PN1847

THE COMMISSIONER: Right. Because road rescue is such a large part of what you all do from any station at any time?

PN1848

MR BARR: That’s right, yes. And because the stage 3 road rescue is focused more on command and control of technical operations than the physical hands on, that’s why it’s targeted as effectively seen as the central requirement for all our FB6s.

PN1849

THE COMMISSIONER: And you do recognise as you progress from each of these levels that experience is an important factor.

PN1850

MR BARR: Yes.

PN1851

THE COMMISSIONER: There’s no doubt about that, that’s why we have these years of experience.

PN1852

MR BARR: Yes.

PN1853

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay, all right. So a firefighter level 4 is a very experienced firefighter level 3?

PN1854

MR BARR: yes, with the stage 2 rescue course under his belt.

PN1855

THE COMMISSIONER: Which is not yet mandatory?

PN1856

MR BARR: No.

PN1857

THE COMMISSIONER: Right. But that’s what you’re hoping for?

PN1858

MR BARR: Yes, it’s our intention, Commissioner.

PN1859

THE COMMISSIONER: That’s right. And a fibrillator on every pump. Right, okay. Which I can’t take out because there's not a fibrillator on everyone.

PN1860

MR BARR: No. However we can confidently say that at the moment everybody who is FB2 and above has done the stage 2 course or the stage 3 course.

PN1861

THE COMMISSIONER: FB2 and above?

PN1862

MR BARR: Yes.

PN1863

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. So then we go up to the level 5 - - -

PN1864

MR BARR: Sorry, I should say FB3 and above, Commissioner. It needs to be corrected to FB3 and above.

PN1865

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, right. So we’re now up to the 5.

PN1866

MR BARR: Yes.

PN1867

THE COMMISSIONER: So they hang around for a bit longer, a couple of years to pick up a bit more experience and do a few more, another challenge test at some stage after those years?

PN1868

MR BARR: Yes. The challenge test for an FB5 is significantly more involved because an FB5 is, to a degree, seen as the gateway into management.

PN1869

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. Now, if we go to this broad banding and we make what was the senior firefighter and the senior firefighter with station officer qualifications the same at the same level, what encourages senior firefighter to gain station officer qualifications apart for the ability to actually look for promotion? I must, it must be useful for the fire brigade as it currently stands to have all those senior firefighters hanging around to a degree to be station officers.

PN1870

MR BARR: Yes, Commissioner. That’s why they are paid an allowance for that.

PN1871

THE COMMISSIONER: So the allowance would continue?

PN1872

MR BARR: The allowance will continue.

PN1873

THE COMMISSIONER: And you’re at one on that?

PN1874

MR BROSNAN: Indeed, Commissioner.

PN1875

THE COMMISSIONER: The allowance still continues for the senior so we’d have an FB5 with allowance?

PN1876

MR BARR: If they have that qualification, yes. However that’s entirely optional.

PN1877

THE COMMISSIONER: So what are you going to call it?

PN1878

MR BARR: Well, they will still be a senior firefighter, but they will be acknowledged as being qualified for station officer but it won’t be a rank. It’s simply a person who is a FB5 with the additional qualifications.

PN1879

MR BAULMAN: What’s being proposed, Commissioner, in consultation with management and union is to change the way our firefighters become qualified for station officer. At the moment you saw the red rooters, the home office books. They do that particular type of exam, they get the qualification. Through negotiation we believe through the next CA we’ll look at actually the qualification to be achieved after the five week intensive course rather than before that.

PN1880

THE COMMISSIONER: I see.

PN1881

MR BAULMAN: This qualification framework will enable - - -

PN1882

THE COMMISSIONER: After the five week station officer course that they currently don’t go on until they’ve actually got a job to go to. So what, they go on the five week course?

PN1883

MR BAULMAN: That will enable, we believe, the brigade to plan. What we’ve had in the past is we’ve had a back log of shortage of station officers and we’ve had to rush them through to fill positions.

PN1884

THE COMMISSIONER: You’re joking?

PN1885

MR BAULMAN: No, I’m not joking. It’s happened in the past.

PN1886

THE COMMISSIONER: I thought you must have had people sitting around waiting for - so there must be senior fire officers - - -

PN1887

MR BAULMAN: There is quite a number of senior firefighter qualified as station officers.

PN1888

THE COMMISSIONER: What, that don’t want to be a station officer?

PN1889

MR BAULMAN: No, who do want to be station officers, but because of budget requirements and whatever the positions haven’t been available, Commissioner.

PN1890

THE COMMISSIONER: But I thought you just said there was a shortage of station officers?

PN1891

MR BAULMAN: Because the brigade over the last 10 years or so, Commissioner, hasn’t promoted in line with what’s been required within the brigade.

PN1892

THE COMMISSIONER: I see. So there’s a shortage but you won’t promote anybody.

PN1893

MR BARR: Perhaps if I can clarify that, Commissioner.

PN1894

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thanks Mr Barr.

PN1895

MR BARR: Commissioner, the brigade’s establishment has an optimum staffing of station officers of approximately 80 - - -

PN1896

THE COMMISSIONER: By the way, that was the other question I wanted to ask. Do I have in my exhibits anywhere a list of the break down of staffing of the fire brigade?

PN1897

MR BROSNAN: We certainly prepared it.

PN1898

THE COMMISSIONER: I probably do, I just want to know where it is. How many of all these people, yes.

PN1899

MR BROSNAN: We prepared that on the basis of the latest annual report, Commissioner, where that information is actually in there.

PN1900

MR BARR: In the annual report.

PN1901

THE COMMISSIONER: Right. Go on.

PN1902

MR BARR: Okay. So the brigade has an identified requirement of or an optimal staffing level of 80 station officers. We presently have around about 70 people at that level and there are a number of reasons, the history goes right back to the ESB in the late 1990s as to why we don’t have our optimum staffing at every level. One of the primary reasons for that is that we have a minimum crewing requirement on every one of our operational vehicles of an officer and three firefighters. So in order to promote officers we have to have enough firefighters that when we promote the people from the firefighter ranks - - -

PN1903

THE COMMISSIONER: So you’ve still got three to a truck.

PN1904

MR BARR: That’s right, so that we can still have enough firefighters there to put all the seats - - -

PN1905

THE COMMISSIONER: So you’ve got to keep your percentages of that right.

PN1906

MR BARR: That’s right.

PN1907

THE COMMISSIONER: To act people not as station officers?

PN1908

MR BARR: There is no acting between senior firefighter and station officer.

PN1909

THE COMMISSIONER: So you just have to find a station officer a fully fledged competent and all of that, but what you’re saying is if they did the course first, well what?

PN1910

MR BROSNAN: We were just talking in relation to the qualification, the SFQ - the Q on the end, Commissioner. It’s just a different way. It will enable the brigade in our view to be able to plan further ahead so we don’t see these shortages of officers that we’ve had over the last 10 years or so.

PN1911

THE COMMISSIONER: I’m just thinking how do you run these five week intensive courses?

PN1912

MR BROSNAN: Well, basically, Commissioner, they’ll be taken off shift, that shift to be negotiated with the union. How we do that fairly and equitably is something we’ll address.

PN1913

THE COMMISSIONER: Because currently you just sort of do one station officer at a time?

PN1914

MR BARR: No, Commissioner. What we do is advertise for positions and we run a joint selection process as per the old public sector type standard and we basically do a batch job. We promote anywhere between about 18 to about, I think, 16 is the highest number of station officers we’ve promoted in what hit.

PN1915

THE COMMISSIONER: So what, could you take 16 off shift to do a five
week - - -

PN1916

MR BARR: 16 has actually caused us some problem when we did that. That was about six years ago and we’ve never done 16 ever since because of that very issue.

PN1917

THE COMMISSIONER: It would be hard.

PN1918

MR BARR: Yes. The last one process that we did which we completed in about July, I think it was, we had 12 people and it cost the brigade a phenomenal amount of money in overtime while we had those 16 off shift.

PN1919

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay, all right. I understand. That’s all coming to me now, I can see where it’s coming from.

PN1920

MR BARR: If we’re staffed to our full complement we have a component of staffing available to allow us to take people off shift without incurring overtime, but we’re not there yet.

PN1921

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. Then we go fire brigade 6 and that’s station officer and that’s no hassle. Then of course it goes district officer and superintendent. Now, there’s a difference here, isn’t there?

PN1922

MR BARR: Between the parties, Commissioner?

PN1923

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN1924

MR BROSNAN: The relativities.

PN1925

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, the relativities. Why did we stop with the relativities? Are there no relativities or something? The fire brigade seems to not up relativities for the last two.

PN1926

MR BAULMAN: The reason for that is, Commissioner - - -

PN1927

MR BARR: We’re in agreeance. In our application we only put in the relativities, except the 100 per cent point. The others we only put in the relativities where they differ from the application.

PN1928

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. That’s okay, I’ve got it. So everybody says an FB8 should be 173 and that FB7 should be 151?

PN1929

MR BARR: That’s correct.

PN1930

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. We got no worries about what a district officer does because it is quite different and it’s a promotable position and all the rest of it and the same with the superintendent. How many superintendents do you have?

PN1931

MR BARR: We have four, Commissioner.

PN1932

THE COMMISSIONER: So the only person who doesn’t get covered by the award is your chief officer?

PN1933

MR BARR: Chief then deputy chief.

PN1934

THE COMMISSIONER: You have a deputy chief as well?

PN1935

MR BARR: Both SES positions.

PN1936

THE COMMISSIONER: Right. The member of the fire investigation officer roster. You say 80, you say 40. There’s not a lot of science in either suggestion. These are people who are, according to the evidence I’ve had, people who are with exception of the one who is the day person, are continuing their normal roster and are just pulled in as required?

PN1937

MR BARR: That’s right. When they’re actually the on call person they’re paid a restricted duty allowance in accordance with the certified agreement and what
this - - -

PN1938

THE COMMISSIONER: This is for just- - -

PN1939

MR BARR: Having the skill and maintaining that skill to enable them to - - -

PN1940

THE COMMISSIONER: Where’s the qualification for the member of the fire investigation roster?

PN1941

MR BARR: Okay. The minimum qualification for these people is a fire investigation officers course run by the New South Wales Fire Brigade.

PN1942

THE COMMISSIONER: What I mean is, is it in the award or not?

PN1943

MR BARR: No.

PN1944

THE COMMISSIONER: No. So there’s nothing in the award which says that there is a minimum qualification or a person who is a member of the fire investigation?

PN1945

MR BARR: No. The brigade has its own - - -

PN1946

THE COMMISSIONER: It’s an agreed thing.

PN1947

MR BARR: Yes, internal policy.

PN1948

THE COMMISSIONER: And you wouldn’t have much point in putting someone on that roster who didn’t know what they were doing?

PN1949

MR BARR: That’s correct.

PN1950

MR BROSNAN: No, basically.

PN1951

MR BARR: We actually run a scholarship for potential investigators to undertake - - -

PN1952

THE COMMISSIONER: Ever likely to become a full time job? Have your own little group of fire investigators working over there?

PN1953

MR BARR: It’s theoretically possible, however we do have issues in that the brigade’s not directly funded for that role in identified funding we receive at the moment.

PN1954

THE COMMISSIONER: No? Fair enough. All right. And did they find what was wrong with the wall at Howes yesterday?

PN1955

MR BROSNAN: I’ve not heard, Commissioner.

PN1956

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. Now, the only other thing that I was going to say but I managed to restrain myself. Mr Brosnan was saying there was agreement that no functions or whatever had been dropped or lost, it was something about sliding down holes and feeding Dalmatians.

PN1957

MR WILSON: Putting them on the truck.

PN1958

THE COMMISSIONER: They were the skills I thought you might have lost. All right. Well, I'll reserve my decision. I was going to ask because I was pointed to a man who sat in the corner of the room yesterday who said he knew where everybody was in the fire brigade so far as their training was concerned and I was thinking he might be able to just press the thing that just shot out everybody’s name and their current state of training which I thought might have some bearing on what I’m doing, but I wasn’t sure how difficult it would be.

PN1959

MR BARR: Yes. We did explore it, Commissioner.

PN1960

THE COMMISSIONER: You did? And it’s a bit more difficult than just hitting a couple of buttons I assume?

PN1961

MR BARR: That’s correct, yes.

PN1962

MR BROSNAN: It was only in the last week that we thought it could be helpful.

PN1963

THE COMMISSIONER: No, never mind. I think I’ve got a certain amount of evidence about the numbers at various positions. 75 here and 80 there that are trained I various level 2s and things.

PN1964

MR BARR: Yes.

PN1965

THE COMMISSIONER: I think that might be sufficient for my purposes. All right, then. I will reserve my decision as I said. I will promise you that it will be handed down prior to the proclamation of any new legislation in order that it doesn’t get cut off unless of course something happens and it’s proclaimed without any notice. But I am hopeful of doing it fairly quickly, but I do have a number of other very urgent things on my plate at the moment.

PN1966

MR WILSON: Commissioner, could I on behalf of the parties thank you for the Commission’s attendance at this matter and I say, for myself, thank Mr Baulman and Mr Brosnan and Mr Barr. It’s been enormous. It sort of hasn’t happened overnight.

PN1967

THE COMMISSIONER: No, it’s a very well put together case. There’s no doubt about it, Mr Wilson, and it should make my job all that easier. It’s just getting around to being able to do it.

PN1968

MR BROSNAN: Commissioner, I wish to endorse those remarks.

PN1969

THE COMMISSIONER: I'll adjourn.

<ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [1.58PM]

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

EXHIBIT #UFU62 MAPPING CLASSIFICATION CHART PN1593
EXHIBIT #UFU63 COMPARISON CHART PN1644
EXHIBIT #ACT19 SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE PN1693