Annex C
EXTRACTS FROM—RFU LEGAL REPORT 2005—WHILE
YOU ARE PROTECTING YOUR COMMUNITY, WHO IS PROTECTING YOU?
CASE HISTORY—2
Our member was attacked by a full time firefighter
whilst out socially. The attack was totally unprovoked but led
to our member sustaining damage to his teeth.
An application was made to the Criminal Injuries
Compensation Authority and an award made of £2,750.00.
The full time firefighter had been prosecuted
by the police and had admitted to the assault and accordingly,
it was thought that our member would have a very good chance of
obtaining a judgment against the full time firefighter if civil
proceedings were issued. However, it was decided not to pursue
such an action in light of the full time firefighter's probable
inability to meet any judgment outright. In addition, the £2,750.00
received from the CICA would have to be repaid from any damages.
CASE HISTORY—3
This Sub Officer in charge of a RDS station
found two letters that had been left by his supervisory officer
in which he was admonished for administrative failings on his
station. There had been no discussions between the two about these
matters and no attempt to understand the reasons for the perceived
failings or how the OIC might be helped to resolve them. The RDS
Sub Officer became totally demoralised and demotivated by this
high-handed treatment, until we pointed out that these letters
were in breach of discipline procedures and the fundamentals of
natural justice.
An RFU representative worked with a senior manager
to facilitate better communications between the officer and the
OIC, which resulted in the letters being withdrawn and a more
supportive attitude to resolution of the original issues. Until
that point the RDS sub officer had suffered a considerable loss
of commitment, due to his treatment and had been on the point
of resigning from the Service.
"Managers must realise that as well
as being employees. RDS personnel are volunteers, and need to
be managed accordingly".
CASE HISTORY—8
Two RFU members, one a JO with 15+ years' experience,
the other a probationary fire-fighter served at this station which
was a hotbed of militancy with a long history of trouble, often
described as a "running sore"".
The station had at one time been day crewed
and then downgraded to nucleus crewing. Over a period of time
the unwillingness of the W/T to attend the station on any other
than when contractually obligated had provided the brigade with
data to suggest that the station was meeting the standards of
fire cover as a retained unit. A review showed that the station
could meet the new standards and was therefore reduced to a two
pump retained station.
The problems which then arose for our members
were purely as a result of them wishing to make the most of the
new status of the station. They were keen to carry out community
education and visits to schools etc, they also embraced the need
to carry out maintenance and administration duties which had previously
been carried out by the nucleus W/T crew.
The station was a militant stronghold with many
of the former personnel who still lived in the town pulling the
strings and manipulating their retained members at the station
to carry out a war of attrition with the brigade. Their ultimate
goal was to prove that the station could never function as a stand
alone retained station and anyone who contributed to its success
as such was now considered the enemy.
Harassment and bullying reared its ugly head
with our members raising this through the chain of command, which
failed to support them.
The supervisory officer for the station did
little to try to resolve the issues, this at a time when the situation
was crying out for local managerial action. Evidence of appeasement
of the protagonists for fear of upsetting the militants was there
from the start. On our advice our members used the county council's
bullying and harassment procedures to try and address the problems
and get back to work as they were by now both on sick leave with
stress related illness. The brigade also failed to provide counselling
of any sort and they were left to seek help via their own GPs.
The council sought the services of a mediation
consultant to try to find a way forward. Our members were fully
prepared to use this route and co-operated fully with the plan
of action, but the remaining personnel were advised not to co-operate.
As a result the mediation exercise collapsed.
The next step was to use an external team of
investigators to carry out an investigation with a view to determine
who was at fault. Again, a lack of co-operation saw to it that
the rest closed ranks and no evidence was forthcoming. The brigade
then waited until the two had been on sick leave for a year and
sought to dismiss them under frustration of contract because they
had not returned to work.
It is interesting that throughout their period
of sick leave, the Brigade Medical adviser had consistently stated
that the pair were unfit to return. He described in a letter that
this was a management problem and our members were unfit to do
so until the brigade had taken action to deal with the problems
at the station.
The issue was eventually concluded by lengthy
legal intervention and correspondence and the inevitable expense
when a package was negotiated, which at least recognised that
the brigade had a case to answer by making a payment to them both
upon leaving the service.
"There is little prospect of real change
when the fire and rescue service can cover up their failings by
buying their victims off to avoid these matters coming into the
public domain".
CASE HISTORY—21
Our member, having completed more than 28 years'
service, was bullied and harassed by a number of his colleagues
for a lengthy period. Despite making official complaints to the
Fire Brigade, these incidents were not properly investigated.
Consequently, our member was diagnosed as suffering from work-related
stress, which resulted in his absence from work for some months.
During this period, despite the fact that his illness was caused
by his work, the Brigade refused to pay him any sick pay whatsoever.
Howes Percival wrote to the Brigade on the member's
behalf to highlight the problems that our member had experienced
and their failure to deal with these issues. However, the Brigade
neither addressed the shortcomings in their procedures and the
way in which they had dealt with the member nor tried to reach
agreement to compensate the member for the way in which he had
been treated.
Our member was forced to resign from his position
as a Retained Firefighter and Howes Percival advised him in relation
to his claim for constructive dismissal which was submitted to
the Employment Tribunal earlier this year. Howes Percival has
represented the Applicant in the negotiations that have taken
place since his Application was lodged with the Tribunal. The
Brigade made an initial offer of £20,000 but Howes Percival
negotiated with them to increase this figure and achieved a settlement
of £25,000.
"If retained firefighter was a Religion,
Gender, Disability or Ethnic Group, it would have been unlawful
to treat me in this way".
CASE HISTORY—28
Due to changes in the Grey Book, the brigade
had to implement payment of a full retaining fee for 120 hours
cover. RDS personnel were asked to provide details of availability
on a week by week basis. On receipt of our member's availability
sheet the brigade questioned as to why the total cover provided
was less than that stated on his original application on joining
the service, some 12 years ago.
When asked why a change of circumstance form
had not been filled in our member stated that he was not made
aware that he needed to complete one. It was also noted that nobody
on station had completed a change of circumstance form prior to
the implementation of the new policy.
Our member was then told that the reduction
in hours was not of benefit to the station and not a satisfactory
change from his original commitment and he was dismissed from
the Fire Service.
On requesting the services of his union we made
our own investigations into the matter and initially pursued an
informal process with the brigade, unfortunately to no avail.
This led to a more formal approach instigating the brigade's own
procedures. After review, the brigade confirmed that they did
act correctly and in accordance with their own policy.
It was not until we made preparations to submit
an appeal to the fire authority that the brigade reversed their
original decision and reinstated our member with full back-pay.
Interestingly enough during the time our member
had been dismissed from the fire service, the station had faced
more time off the run than it was available. The brigade's initial
inflexible stance actually reduced fire cover in the area.
It's perhaps amazing that anybody would want
to resume their service after such treatment-in another case,
where a member was re-instated after appeal, he decided he no
longer wanted to work for an employer that treated him in this
way
CASE HISTORY—31
Our member was dismissed by the brigade for
infringing the brigade's policy of Fairness and Equality. At a
hearing the union was able to prove that the Retained section
of the brigade had not received any training on Fairness and Equality,
only wholetime personnel. Our member was reinstated and is now
acting up as an LFf.
CASE HISTORY—33
This member had been an employee of the brigade
for 19 years, and the problems he has faced arose during the dispute
of 2002. He and his colleagues at this particular station suffered
threats and abusive behaviour for continuing to work.
At one particular incident his crew came under
attack from striking firefighters including senior officers and
as a result the police were called. Our member made a full statement
of the facts backed up by witnesses and reported this to the CFO.
To this date in spite of the police involvement at the incident,
the events have never been investigated by the brigade.
He became aware of both overt and covert intimidation
in the form of abusive telephone calls at all hours of the day
and night. He was also subject to other forms of incitement to
hatred, intimidation and blatant abuse against him.
He attempted to pursue the matter with the brigade
and due to the fact that a number of those involved in the events
were in his chain of command felt that any complaint would be
suppressed within the system. "Coincidentally" he was
then advised that complaints had been made against him as revenge
for his actions in the dispute and for complaining about them
to the CFO.
The previous months began to take their toll
on both him and his family and he was advised by his GP that he
was unfit for duty due to work related stress in the fire service.
A lengthy period of absence followed. His wholetime senior officer
gave an instruction that he should be paid for missed calls and
fees during this period, but he has to date never received payment
for his losses. Eventually the brigade organised and paid for
a lengthy period of counselling and after a period of time he
returned to work.
With all of these factors in mind, the brigade
then refused to accept that his sickness absence constituted work
related stress and continued to refuse to pay him for his loss
of earnings even though they had organised the counselling he
received.
The RFU's solicitors became involved and eventually
our member was paid compensation for his lost income.
"I no longer expect fair treatment and
support from my managers, as it is them who are bullying and harassing
me".
CASE HISTORY—34
Our member became subjected to unprecedented
harassment and bullying for the sole reason that he did not go
on strike. He was told by the local brigade official who served
on the same station, that he had "better get himself some
protection". Days later he was arrested by police for alleged
offences. A thorough police investigation found no case to answer.
The complainant was related to the partner of a striking firefighter.
Our member was suspended pending the outcome
of the investigation, suffered severe strain. He was self employed
but because of the time he was off sick with depression he lost
his main income as well as that from the fire service.
The RFU is now resolving his loss of earnings
from the service. This case could have been resolved many months
before, but indifference by the management has seen it continue.
Only now after meetings and robust correspondence have matters
proceeded toward a successful conclusion.
"How can we be expected to play our
part in fighting discrimination on the grounds of gender, race,
etc when we have been subject to discrimination on the grounds
of our duty system for the past 60 years?"
| 
