MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FIRE BRIGADE UNION DISPUTE HELD AT COUNTY HALL, NEWPORT, ISLE OF WIGHT ON FRIDAY 17 SEPTEMBER 2004 COMMENCING AT 2.00PM

 

Present :         Mr G S Kendall (Chairman), Mr J H Fleming, Mr E Fox

 

Also present non-voting :

 

Mr A C Bartlett, Mr C H Lillywhite

 


 

 


1.                  ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN

 

Mr Kendall was duly proposed and seconded as Chairman.  There being no other nominations it was:

 

RESOLVED :

 

THAT Mr Kendall be elected Chairman

 

2.                  DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

There were no interests declared at this stage.

 

3.                  EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC AND PRESS

 

After taking legal advice the Committee considered that there was likely to be disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 11 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act Local Government Act 1972 and for that reason excluded the press and public, however other members present were allowed to remain.

 

RESOLVED :

 

THAT under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the public and press be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business namely Minute item no. 4 on the grounds that there was likely to be disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 11 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.

 

4.                  CONFIDENTIAL REPORT OF THE PORTFOLIO HOLDER FOR FIRE EMERGENCY PLANNING AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

 

The Chairman welcomed those present to the meeting and introduced the members of the Committee.

 

After informing the Committee of a number of perceived inaccuracies in the report, the Chief Fire Officer outlined to the Committee the main issues concerning the implementation of the 2003 agreement.  These centred on the hours that retained fire-fighters were available for work together with retainer and attendance fees that were payable, the potential cost of providing more retained fire-fighters arising from implementation of the 2003 agreement and the level of consultations and negotiation with staff that had taken place. The Chief Fire Officer confirmed that following consultation, staff had wished for the arrangements prior to the 2003 agreement to remain in place.  These issued were discussed and comments from the Fire Brigades Union were received.

 

The Chief Fire Officer then circulated a letter from the Chairman of the Fire Brigades Union concerning the requirement of retained fire-fighters to provide a set level of cover per week.

 

The Fire Brigades Union then outlined their concerns regarding the depth of the consultation that had taken place and that a national negotiated agreement had not be properly implemented in relation to the working hours and pay of fire fighters.  They were keen further consultation be undertaken and negotiations continue in the spirit of the 2003 agreement as had been achieved with other Fire Authorities.

 

The Committee then adjourned to take legal advice and considered their decision.  The Committee accepted, relying on the reasoning set out in his letter of 2 August, that the arrangement approved by the Chief Fire Officer was consistent with the 2003 agreement, and that agreement allowed for the existing retainer system to be continued.  Furthermore, the Committee accepted that the arrangement was consistent with what the Chief Fire Officer believed, on the basis of consultation undertaken prior to the decision, was the wish of the majority of retained fire fighters.

 

However, the Committee had sympathy with the Fire Brigades Union view that there had been a missed opportunity to engage with fire fighters and their representatives to try and identify other ways of implementing the agreement and believed that the Executive, as Fire Authority, should have the opportunity to consider alternative ways of implementing the agreement in the future - with any alternatives to be developed in collaboration between the Chief Fire Officer, the Fire Brigades Union and fire fighters not represented by the union and to be subject of consultation throughout the brigade.

 

RESOLVED :

 

                        THAT the Committee

 

(i)                 supported the Chief Fire Officer’s interpretation of the 2003 agreement and the dispute was not upheld

 

(ii)               were disappointed at the effectiveness of the previous consultation process

 

(iii)             required a further report to be taken to the Executive in January 2005 setting out:

 

·        possible alternative interpretations of the 2003 agreement

·        possible local variations of the 2003 agreement (including experience of other fire authorities

·        The financial consequences of implementing any alternatives

·        Setting out the result of further consultation with the Fire Brigades Union and retained fire fighters who are not members of the Fire Brigades Union

 

 

 

 

 

CHAIRMAN