AW781966 PR969233
Download Word Document
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
Workplace Relations Act 1996
s.113 application for variation
United Firefighters’ Union of Australia
(C2005/4783)
FIREFIGHTING INDUSTRIES EMPLOYEES (ACT FIRE BRIGADE) AWARD 2000
(ODN C No. 50049 of 1993)
[AW781966 Print S5767]
Fire fighting services | |
COMMISSIONER DEEGAN |
CANBERRA, 1 MARCH 2006 |
Classification structure - wages.
DECISION
[1] This decision arises from an application 1 pursuant to s.113 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (‘the Act’) by the United Firefighters’ Union of Australia (‘the UFU’) to vary the Firefighting Industries Employees (ACT Fire Brigade) Award 2000 (‘the Award’) to:
[2] Appearing for the UFU throughout the course of the proceedings were Mr John Wilson, solicitor, and Mr Brett Baulman, Secretary, UFU, ACT Branch. Mr Terry Brosnan and Mr Conrad Barr, a Superintendent of the ACT Fire Brigade (‘the ACTFB’), appeared on behalf of the ACTFB.
[3] The matter was listed for conference on 2 November 2005 and for hearing on 10, 11, 14 and 18 November 2005. Inspections also took place at the ACTFB Training Centre in Belconnen and Phillip Fire Station on 17 November 2005.
THE CLAIM
[4] The application to vary the Award is made pursuant to s.113 of the Act. The Award regulates the employment of those employees who fall within the relevant classifications set out in the Award and who are employed by the ACTFB.
[5] The principal ground upon which the application is made is that there have been changes in the nature of the work, the skill and responsibility required or the conditions under which work is performed under the Award since the date of operation of the second structural efficiency adjustment allowable under the August 1989 National Wage Case. It is claimed that these changes constitute such a significant net addition to work requirements, when assessed against Principle 6 of the current Wage Fixing Guidelines 2, as to warrant the creation of new classifications or upgrading of existing classifications to higher classifications under the Award.
[6] Variations are also sought to the Award to reflect legislative changes applicable to employment under the Award and to vary allowances pursuant to Principle 5 of the current Wage Fixing Guidelines.
[7] The UFU relies on s.88 of the Act which inter alia requires the Commission to establish and maintain a safety net of fair wages and conditions. Also relevant are the Objects of the Act, in particular s.3(a), ss.3(d)(i) and (B) and ss.88A (a), (b) and (c).
[8] The application is made to establish the work value of persons employed as firefighters in the ACT as contemplated by Principle 2 and Principle 6 of the current Wage Fixing Guidelines [PR002005].
[9] Principle 2 provides that, in specific circumstances, an award may be varied under the principles without the variation being considered as a variation above or below the award safety net. An application for a variation to an award on work value grounds is consistent with Principle 2(d).
[10] Principle 6 sets out those matters that the Commission must take into account in the determination of a work value application. Principle 6 is reproduced in full at paragraph [131] of this decision.
[11] At the outset of the hearing, the UFU detailed the history of the Award and its predecessors. It was submitted that the most important features of the award history are:
THE EVIDENCE
United Firefighters’ Union
[12] A number of individuals gave evidence on behalf of the UFU during the hearing, both orally and by way of witness statements tendered in evidence.
Des Falconer
[13] Mr Falconer is a Station Officer with the ACTFB. His statement 9 dealt with the manner in which the ACTFB approach road accident rescue (RAR) and how the role of the ACTFB and the nature of the work carried out by firefighters in relation to RAR has changed since 1990. The witness joined ACTFB in 1983 and had been attached to a specialist RAR team for 12 years. His witness statement was detailed and comprehensive. Essentially his evidence was:
[14] It was also Mr Falconer’s evidence that Senior Firefighters had assumed a more senior role in RAR than 15 years earlier, as they now had sufficient training to take control of a rescue and all firefighters responding to an RAR incident carry out technical roles in relation to the incident.
Steven Gibbs
[15] Mr Gibbs, a District Officer, has been employed by the ACTFB for 23 years. His statement 10 describes the vertical rescue role of the ACTFB and the manner in which that role has changed since 1990. In 1990, the Australian Federal Police had responsibility for vertical rescue in the ACT. The vertical rescue course was developed for firefighters in 1991. Between 1991 and 1994, ACTFB provided all staff with the skills and equipment on all operational equipment to undertake rescue of firefighters or vertical rescue of injured or trapped people. A specialist vertical rescue appliance was brought into the service in 1997.
[16] Vertical rescues occur on a wide variety of structures and landscape features including towers, cliffs, quarries, construction sites, etc. Courses in vertical rescue are now provided at both the Level 1 and Level 2 stage. Mr Gibbs described the features of both stages of the training course and noted a number of occasions where these skills have been utilised to great effect by the ACTFB, for example, at the Thredbo disaster and in dam wall rescues. The training in vertical rescue was developed and is carried out in the ACT. This is important as there are some features that only occur in the ACT and firefighters must be trained to cope with those features.
[17] According to the evidence, the ACTFB also trains other organisations in vertical rescue. Currently 25% of ACT firefighting employees have Stage 2 vertical rescue qualifications. Stage 2 operators train other firefighters in the Level 1 course. At least two of the four staff rostered on at a fire station at any time must have Level 2 vertical rescue skills.
[18] Under the Emergencies Act 2004, the ACTFB has the responsibility for vertical rescue in the ACT.
Ron Hourigan
[19] Mr Hourigan is a Station Officer with the ACTFB, and has been employed since 1983. He has held various rescue and training co-ordination roles in the ACTFB. From 1996-2004 he was the ACT representative on the Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) steering committee, a national committee made up of representatives of all States and Territories and all emergency services.
[20] USAR is a specialised area of responsibility and is defined as “an integrated, multi-agency response which is beyond the capability of normal rescue arrangements to locate, provide initial medical care and remove entrapped persons from damaged structures and other environments in a safe and expeditious manner” 11. This definition has evolved since 1995, when the nature of the role changed considerably following the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. A two week course in USAR was held in Canberra in November 1995. It was only after 1995 that specialist equipment for USAR purposes began to be purchased and used by ACTFB.
[21] There are three categories of training in USAR. ACTFB developed the Category 1 component, the First Responders Surface Search and Rescue course. In his statement 12, Mr Hourigan set out the topics covered in the Category 1 course. ACTFB firefighters complete Category 1 during their initial recruit training.
[22] Category 2 USAR training is a technician’s course and was developed by the Melbourne Metropolitan Fire Brigade in conjunction with the NSW Fire Brigade, and with input from the ACTFB. Category 2 training enables a firefighter to be a specialist USAR operator, able to operate all specialist equipment associated with a USAR incident, carry out Search and Rescue techniques under rubble, and lead and direct Category 1 personnel at a USAR incident. Funding has now been made available to train more ACT firefighters to Category 2 level and to purchase more equipment for USAR purposes. It is anticipated that about 30% of ACTFB firefighters will be trained to Category 2 USAR level over the next two years.
[23] A USAR manager’s course was developed by the ACTFB in conjunction with NSWFB. To date, ten ACT firefighters have attended the Category 3 USAR course.
Martin van der Sanden
[24] Mr van der Sanden is a Station Officer with ACTFB and has been employed since 1984. He is an instructor for trench rescue, USAR, vertical rescue, road accident rescue and also for an ACTEW trench course. He has developed and delivered training packages for various rescue areas. He held the position of Rescue Officer within the ACTFB for two years (1999-2000) and was responsible for the research and development of training and equipment requirements for all areas of rescue. He has been involved in international rescue and was an Australian representative at the Taiwan earthquake in 1999.
[25] In his statement 13, Mr van der Sanden detailed the changes that have taken place in trench rescue since 1990. ACTFB did not have legislative responsibility for trench rescue until July 1993 and training only commenced in 1994. Prior to 1990, ACTFB had not acquired any specialised equipment for rescue. The Level 1 training package, which is aligned to national training modules, was developed in 1995 and now forms part of the initial training for all recruit firefighters ensuring that all firefighters have the necessary skills to deal with a trench incident until the arrival of specialised trench rescue equipment. A maintenance program has also been developed to ensure that firefighters maintain competency and are aware of the latest techniques and equipment. Training in Level 1 trench rescue is carried out by Level 2 trainers. There are about six Level 2 trainers in the ACTFB, all of whom are qualified to be Station Officers.
Robert McGregor
[26] Mr McGregor has been employed by the ACTFB since 1986 and is a Level 3 Hazardous Materials/Chemical, Biological and Radiological (HazMat/CBR) specialist involved in teaching and assessing ACTFB measures in all areas of HazMat/CBR. In the early 1990s the HazMat position was part-time. CBR was not introduced into ACTFB until 1999, in the build up to the 2000 Sydney Olympics, and has taken on a greater significance since a number of “white powder” incidents in the ACT in 2001. A basic HazMat course was taught to recruits in 1990. A much more comprehensive course, including CBR, terrorism awareness, emergency mass decontamination and bulk decontamination systems is now taught to all firefighting recruits, together with a number of associated courses.
[27] Firefighters may specialise in technical areas, such as HazMat/CBR, once they reach Second Class Firefighter. If selected, they undertake a two-week course which provides advanced knowledge of equipment and procedures. Having completed this course a firefighter is considered a technician. The majority of operational personnel in the ACTFB are Level 1 responders in HazMat/CBR, 33 are trained to technician level, and six ACTFB personnel are Level 3 specialists. A Level 3 specialist will have completed a Certificate IV in Workplace Training and Assessment and delivered Level 2 training under supervision.
[28] The ACTFB has also provided other emergency agencies with training in breathing apparatus and fully encapsulated suit training. The requirement for ACTFB to educate other agencies in HazMat/CBR has dramatically increased since 2003.
[29] The related equipment has become more complex since 1990, and breathing apparatus sections and HazMat crews spend many hours each day testing, calibrating and cleaning instruments introduced since 1990. The monitoring capability of the ACTFB has reached international best practice since 2003.
[30] Prior to 1990, the main form of civilian decontamination usually involved removal of clothing and washing with cold water. ACTFB now operates several different types of civil decontamination systems, the rapid shower trailer and two bulk decontamination showers. Training with and maintaining all the new CBR equipment is a continual process.
[31] The ACTFB now has legislative responsibility to respond to and deal with hazardous materials incidents and CBR incidents. The ACTFB has also gained additional powers under the Emergencies Act 2004 to detain people at a HazMat/CBR incident.
[32] It was Mr McGregor’s evidence that with increased terrorism risks it has become necessary to instruct firefighters about dealing with secondary devices. Firefighters must be made aware of the risk attached to attending incident scenes where a further device may explode.
Bernhard Evans
[33] Mr Evans, a Station Officer, has been employed by ACTFB since 1989. Throughout his career with ACTFB he has been involved in the development and delivery of training packages for several of the rescue areas, including confined space entry and rescue.
[34] In his statement 14 he described in detail the role of the ACTFB in confined space entry and rescue, noting that such incidents can involve vertical rescue, the wearing of breathing apparatus, HazMat procedures, atmospheric monitoring, patient care and handling, trench rescue techniques and USAR.
[35] According to his evidence, firefighters undertaking such rescues are required to be familiar with and comply with the rules and regulations outlined in the Australian Standard ‘Safe Working in Confined Spaces – 2001’. Although emergency services can gain written exemption from these procedures for the duration of an incident, at other times they are required to conform to all aspects of the Standard. Additional training has been required to ensure that firefighters comply with the new Standard.
[36] ACTFB assumed responsibility for rescue, including confined space entry and rescue, in July 1993 under the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding with the Australian Federal Police (AFP). In 1995, when Kambah Fire Station was designated as the training station responsible for confined space rescue, Mr Evans was given the responsibility for the development, and subsequent delivery, of the Confined Space Rescue Training Package.
[37] Firefighters are trained to Level 1 Confined Space Entry and Rescue during their recruit course. This package is aligned with the relevant Public Safety Training Package module. All firefighters are required to participate in skills maintenance training. The Emergencies Act 2004 designates the ACTFB as the agency with responsibility for confined space entry and rescue incidents in the ACT. The ACTFB is the only agency in the ACT with trained personnel and specialist equipment to perform confined space rescue.
Peter Cornock
[38] Mr Cornock has been employed by ACTFB since 1992 and is currently a Senior Firefighter, Qualified. Throughout his career he has been involved in the development and delivery of training packages for road accident rescue, trench rescue and USAR. In 2001 he developed and presented a new training package for road accident rescue which has been delivered to all subsequent recruit colleges and lateral intake training courses. Mr Cornock has also been an instructor in USAR Category 2 and has presented Stage 2 RAR to forty-eight ACTFB members.
[39] As detailed in his statement 15, Mr Cornock was heavily involved in establishing the ACTFB Road Awareness and Accident Prevention Program (RAAP) in Canberra. The program is directed at secondary school students and includes a demonstration of a motor vehicle being dismantled using the Jaws of Life. A video is shown which includes scenes from a road accident and interviews with brain damaged and otherwise physically handicapped survivors of road accidents. Firefighters are specially trained to sensitively deliver the RAAP program to students. The RAAP presenter must take full responsibility for successful delivery of the program to the students. All members of the ACTFB may be required to be responsible for presenting the RAAP program.
Todd Bourne
[40] Mr Bourne joined the ACTFB in 1991 and is a Station Officer, Qualified. In his statement 16 Mr Bourne noted that he is qualified to instruct ACTFB staff in urgent duty driving, heavy vehicle operation, four wheel drive operation and recovery and defensive driving. He also holds the necessary qualification as an instructor and operator of the new Compressed Air Foam appliances (CAFS) which were, at the time the statement was made, soon to be brought into service with the ACTFB.
[41] Mr Bourne’s statement dealt with the impact on ACTFB of the Emergencies Act 2004 and the subsequent declaration of the Bushfire Abatement Zone by the Emergency Services Commissioner. In co-operation with the Rural Fire Service, ACTFB crews are required to provide safe and effective management of fires in grasslands, bushes and forests adjacent to the built up area, and also to assist the ACT Rural Fire Service to combat incidents in rural areas. Four wheel drive capability is required when undertaking these responsibilities and four wheel drive water tankers provide an additional water supply. ACTFB members must be familiar with a range of vehicles and pumps and have a solid knowledge of fire suppression and wildfire behaviour.
[42] Mr Bourne noted that over the years, the role, functions and responsibilities of firefighters as tanker operators have changed considerably requiring additional skills and training. Prior to 1990, there was no specialised driving training for water tankers, either on or off road. Bushfire behaviour and suppression was neither taught nor understood. Firefighters attended grass and bush fires with no knowledge of bushfire behaviour, placing themselves and their equipment in danger. Since 1994, ACTFB members have been required to operate both urban pumpers and water tankers and operators have been trained in wildfire suppression, pumping, off-road driving, chainsaw operation, safety and map-reading navigation.
[43] ACTFB is the only urban fire service in Australia to utilise pump crews to man water tankers on low fire indice days for the purpose of attending grass and bush fires. Although in the mid-1990s ad hoc four wheel driver training was provided to some staff, all staff are now required to undergo a comprehensive off-road driving program. With the introduction of more efficient and advanced pumps, pump operation training has also been upgraded. Training is provided in the use of class-A foam bushfire-fighting. All recruits now graduate from the Recruit College with comprehensive training in four wheel drive driving, pump operation and class-A foam systems.
[44] Mr Bourne’s statement details the manner in which the ACTFB responds to grass or bushfire incidents in the Bushfire Abatement Zone. He notes that the Strategic Bushfire Management Plan, which was developed after the 2003 bushfires in the ACT, recognises the Australian Inter-agency Incident Management System (AIIMS). ACTFB has only utilised AIIMS principles since the early 1990s. Prior to 1990, the system was not utilised in bushfire-fighting operations. Mr Bourne also noted that with the inclusion of the Bushfire Abatement Zone as part of ACTFB’s responsibilities in 2004, the ACTFB now has a significant role in a geographical area that is 255% larger than was previously the case.
Paul Fixter
[45] Mr Paul Fixter is a Station Officer. He joined ACTFB in 1997. According to his statement 17, he provides instruction to ACTFB staff in wildfire behaviour and suppression, flammable gas and liquid firefighting, urban interface wildfire operations and AIIMS incident control systems and structural firefighting. In particular, Mr Fixter is the senior instructor and operator of the new Compressed Air Foam appliances (CAFS), which commenced operation in the ACT in November 2005.
[46] The new CAFS appliances were designed by the ACTFB in conjunction with a New Zealand company and were developed as a consequence of the findings of the 2003 McLeod Inquiry into the ACT bushfires. The McLeod Report recommended that the ACTFB introduce four new appliances primarily designed for the urban interface. New CAFS appliances are a unique design, incorporating the latest technology, pumps and equipment. A high level of technical training for CAFS Level 2 Operators has been introduced in conjunction with the introduction of the new vehicles. Appliances of the type involved have not been used before in Australia and require significant new skills and training to operate safely. The CAFS appliances can be used for other ACTFB operations as well as in the Bushfire Abatement Zone.
[47] Additional training was required for the operation of the CAFS systems, as they consist of three elements: water pressure, water foam and air induction. Operators must be able to operate the system correctly, ensuring there is the right mix of the three elements for the type of fire application. New CAFS appliances have also been fitted with emergency protection systems designed by ACTFB to provide the crew with a greater chance of survival if caught in front of a wildfire. In addition, all CAFS Level 2 operators are required to learn advanced four-wheel drive techniques as the larger CAFS appliances require a higher level of skill to drive safely in off-road situations.
[48] CAFS appliances can be utilised for property treatment and protection before fires arrive. This requires that all operators are aware of the appropriate types of foam to be applied to the various materials involved in the property. CAFS operators must have a detailed understanding of building materials and design, and local knowledge of refilling points, fire trails, access and wildfire behaviour. CAFS appliances can also be used for control line construction and to contain a wildfire within a certain perimeter.
Keith Chavasse
[49] Mr Chavasse has been employed by ACTFB since 1984. He is now one of eleven Fire Investigators utilised to determine the cause and origin of fires within the ACT. Mr Chavasse also trains other fire investigators for the ACTFB. In order to carry out his fire investigation duties, Mr Chavasse has gained a number of additional qualifications from external providers, including Charles Sturt University, the AFP and the NSW Fire Brigade. Although prior to 2001 the ACTFB had legislative responsibility 18 to investigate the cause of fires, this role was not resourced or carried out in any structured way until the establishment of the Fire Investigation Unit within the ACTFB in that year. The Emergencies Act 2004 provides greater powers to the ACTFB in the exercise of the fire investigation role.
[50] The witness’ statement 19 describes the current operation and staffing of the Fire Investigation Unit in some detail and describes how the fire investigation function in the ACT is distributed between the ACTFB and the AFP. In 2002, a memorandum20 was entered into by ACTFB, the AFP and the Rural Fire Brigade setting out the manner in which those organisations would co-operate for the purposes of fire investigation and assigning particular responsibilities to each organisation.
[51] In his oral evidence, Mr Chavasse noted that prior to 2001 the AFP would investigate a fire where the cause was not easily determined, and had full responsibility to report to the coroner on the cause and origin of the fire. Following the 2002 Memorandum of Understanding 21, ACTFB assumed sole responsibility to investigate the cause and origin of fires and to report to the coroner. Fire investigation is now the responsibility of the eleven qualified fire investigators who fill a rotating roster, together with one daytime position of co-ordinator, who manages the roster and carries out investigations of fires which occur during his daytime roster. The other fire investigators are rostered firefighters who also carry out fire investigation roles in accordance with the roster when the co-ordinator is not on duty or is unable to perform the investigation. Generally two investigators will examine the cause of any fire.
[52] It was noted that each fire investigator will have at least five years firefighting experience (Senior Firefighter) and, on selection for the role, will attend a two week compulsory training course with the NSWFB. This course is attended by both ACTFB and AFP officers. In addition, the investigators are encouraged to complete distance education courses with Charles Sturt University in fire investigation and scholarships are provided by ACTFB for this purpose. A substantial amount of in-house training is also provided, some of which has been developed with the assistance of the Canberra Institute of Technology. The recruits are now provided with basic training in evidence preservation and scene observation so as to assist the fire investigation process. Great reliance is placed on the observations of, and evidence gathered by, the fire crew responding to a fire as by the time the investigator arrives much of the evidence has been destroyed by the fire.
Russell Cameron
[53] Mr Cameron is a Station Officer who has been employed by ACTFB since 1988. His statement 22 notes that he is currently responsible for the training and co-ordination of 780 ACT Community Fire Unit (CFU) members. There are currently 28 CFUs, with up to 60 members in each unit. The CFUs were established in the ACT as a consequence of the January 2003 bushfires. Each CFU comprises a number of volunteers who reside in a common geographic area at the edge of the urban area. The purpose of establishing a CFU is to equip and train the volunteers to protect their homes and fence lines from spot fires. Each CFU has a very strict area of operation and is confined to fires at the fence line and outside the home. The Emergencies Act 2004 requires the Chief Officer to provide CFUs with training and equipment. Mr Cameron, together with two other officers, is tasked with the provision of a specialised training program for the CFUs.
[54] The provision of training to the CFUs is not without complications. The CFU members are volunteers and as such not required to subject themselves to the same discipline as ACTFB members. Training must fit in with the volunteers’ normal occupations, making delivery problematic at times. Nor are many of the volunteers as fit as firefighters. No formal or specialised training was provided to Mr Cameron or the other officers required to train the CU members. Many CFU members were directly affected by the 2003 bushfires requiring the ACTFB trainers to deliver the training in a sensitive manner. Training is provided by way of two four-hour theory lessons and one six-hour practical lesson provided at a fire station. The training course is based on a similar program which has been provided for a number of years by the NSWFB.
Barry Davis
[55] Mr Davis is a senior firefighter who has been employed by the ACTFB since 1989. His statement 23 provided detailed information on the fire education and awareness programs instituted by ACTFB since 1996. These included the Juvenile Firefighters Awareness and Intervention Programme (JFAIP), the Community Liaison and Advisory Service Programme (CLASP) and the School Fire Education Programme (Fire Ed).
[56] Fire Ed was introduced in 1998. Prior to this an ad hoc approach was taken to the provision of awareness programs for schools. Fire Ed provides a structured and properly resourced fire education program for schools, ensuring that an effective timetabled program is delivered to all entry level classes. Approximately 4,500–5,000 kindergarten children are taught each year. Each fire station is allocated schools in its area and is tasked with providing the one hour program to each kindergarten class at each school. A training program for ACTFB co-ordinators of the Fire Ed program was developed in conjunction with the relevant area of the education department and these co-ordinators ensure that the children’s needs are met and there is consistency in the delivery of the program. All crew are encouraged to take part in the delivery of the Fire Ed program. A resource kit for the presentation of the program has been developed, a copy of which was tendered during the hearing. 24
Stephen Edwards
[57] Mr Edwards is a District Officer with ACTFB and has been employed since 1982. His statement of evidence made on behalf of the UFU 25 set out his career progression from recruit firefighter to District Officer and the training he was required to undertake to be promoted to each level. Mr Edwards also gave evidence about the role of ACTFB in the management and co-ordination of the CFUs, noting that members of the CFUs are under the direct control of the ACTFB and are instructed that they are part of the ACTFB chain of command. Each firefighter is now responsible for the management and safety of CFU volunteers. As already noted, ACTFB officers have had to learn new skills in order to manage the CFU resources appropriately for the nature of that resource, given the civilian, volunteer membership.
Margaret Thompson
[58] Ms Thompson’s statement 26 described the recruitment process adopted by ACTFB in recruiting new firefighters. As the branch manager for the recruitment company engaged to carry out the recruitment process in 2005, Ms Thompson has the responsibility for the recruitment of 32 new staff for ACTFB through two processes, one which commenced in September 2005 and another planned for July 2006. Two recruit college intakes of 16 would be chosen through each process.
[59] It was Ms Thompson’s evidence that the recruitment process adopted to meet ACTFB requirements was both exacting and rigorous. Of the approximately 700 candidates who had applied, 470 had been chosen from the written applications to attend ACER testing (to evaluate their verbal, quantitative, abstract and spatial/visual skills) and to prepare a written essay. On the basis of these results about 200 candidates, of whom 77 were tertiary qualified and 131 trade qualified, were chosen to undergo a rigorous physical assessment and an interview. Only those candidates that succeeded at both the physical assessment and the interview were required to attend a further interview. If successful at this stage they must complete both medical and psychological tests prior to being offered a position.
[60] In her oral evidence, Ms Thompson noted that most, if not all, of the successful candidates chosen through the selection process were mature, with previous work experience.
Paul Covington
[61] An affidavit signed by Mr Paul Covington 27 was also tendered on behalf of the UFU. Mr Covington was not required for cross-examination. Mr Covington, a Station Officer, had been a member of the Melbourne Metropolitan Fire Brigade for some years before joining ACTFB in 1995. For three years Mr Covington performed the function of training co-ordinator with ACTFB. His statement outlines the training firefighters are required to undertake in order to render emergency first aid to persons involved in incidents at which ACTFB provides first response, in particular fires and motor vehicle accidents. He notes that fire crews regularly provide backup to ambulance crews and often attend at motor vehicle accidents prior to the arrival of the ambulance. At paragraph 21 of his statement he says:
“With the role of first aid firmly entrenched not only in core functions but in workload, all firefighters in the ACT Fire Brigade are required to maintain their skills and knowledge. Whereas prior to 1990 first aid was seen as a handy skill to have, today’s firefighter would be lost without it. The last 10-15 years has seen a firefighter’s responsibilities shift from the rare motor vehicle accident (that may require some life support) to today where firefighters are called to attend to cardiac arrests, non-breathing patients, drug overdoses or any other medical emergency where an ambulance may not be readily available. These arrangements have been increased and formalised in new business rules relating to the dispatch of vehicles with the introduction of the new Computer Aided Dispatch (‘CAD’) system in August 2004”.
[62] Having noted the various changes that have occurred in the provision of first aid training to ACTFB members since 1990, Mr Covington outlined in detail the current arrangements that apply:
“In the last 5 years or so, the ACT Fire Brigade has recognised that we have to be self sufficient in terms of our on-going training requirements. That is, economics have prevailed and the cost of training and accrediting our staff became cost prohibitive particularly when there were a number of highly qualified staff capable of delivering advanced First Aid training. Consequently, with the push towards industry specific skills recognition via the Public Safety Industry Training Advisory Board (‘PSITAB’), the ACT Fire Brigade developed and delivered its own customised First Aid Course to its staff. Brigade staff using brigade time and resources performed all the developmental work. Whilst this has raised operational readiness issues, it has proved most cost effective. Whilst the course caters for the specific needs of the Brigade’s firefighters, it is acknowledged as a hybrid course. That is, it far exceeds the competency level and standards of the relevant PSITAB units in addition to that in a basic first aid course. For instance, all ACT firefighters are trained to a greater depth in the following areas which are over and above the expectations of a public first aider:
[63] Finally Mr Covington notes that first aid is a core skill for a firefighter and estimates that it makes up 10-12% of a firefighters’ work, as ACTFB provides first response medical assistance to members of the public as part of their routine business on a regular basis.
The ACTFB
[64] The following evidence was given on behalf of ACTFB.
Stephen Edwards
[65] Mr Stephen Edwards also gave evidence on behalf of the UFU (see paragraph [57] above). In his statement on behalf of the ACTFB 29, he described in detail the steps he was required to undertake to progress through the ranks of firefighter from recruit to District Officer. Generally promotion occurred only after a number of years at a specific rank and successful completion of a series of exams. Mr Edwards also gained a law degree and studied a number of additional subjects in order to meet the merit promotion requirements prior to his promotion to District Officer.
[66] Mr Edwards described the changes that had occurred to the role and responsibilities of ACTFB since the enactment of the Emergencies Act 2004, noting the ACTFB’s predominant authority in the Bushfire Abatement Zone where a fire poses a threat to the built up area and the additional functions given to ACTFB by s.44(3) of that Act, which provides as follows:
“(3) The fire brigade has the following additional functions:
(a) to respond to and deal with hazardous material incidents;
(b) to respond to rescue incidents;
(c) to respond to chemical, biological and radiological incidents;
(d) to undertake assistance operations to support other entities in the exercise of their functions under this Act;
Example
assisting police officers or ambulance service members in dealing with any incident or emergency
(e) any other function prescribed by regulation.
Note: An example is part of the Act, is not exhaustive and may extend, but does not limit, the meaning of the provision in which it appears (see Legislation Act, s 126 and s 132).”
[67] Also noted in Mr Edwards’ evidence is the responsibility given to ACTFB to “provide first response to any other incident which another emergency service may respond under this Act if the emergency service is unavailable” 30. It is under this provision that ACTFB increasingly responds to medical incidents due to the unavailability of ambulances. In addition, two of the emergency services – the Rural Fire Service and State Emergency Service (SES) - are volunteer organisations and ACTFB must respond to incidents within their jurisdiction if either is unavailable.
[68] Attached to Mr Edwards’ statement is a table which compares the legislative roles, tasks and functions of fire services within Australia and of ACTFB prior to and after the enactment of the Emergencies Act 2004.
David Prince
[69] Mr David Prince has been employed by ACTFB since 1981. Since 2004 he has been the Chief Officer of the ACTFB. In his statement 31 Mr Prince stated that there have been significant changes to the environment in which the ACTFB performs its work, and that the greatest changes have occurred over the past five years.
[70] Two factors have brought about the most significant changes. The first is the new national framework for organising counter-terrorism strategies and activities within Australia. This change has occurred with the increased level of terrorism threat and terrorism activities since 2000-2001. The National Counter-Terrorism Plan provides that state and territory emergency services, supported by Emergency Management Australia, must maintain plans to deal with the consequences of a range of disasters including CBR hazards, mass casualties and those that require evacuation or urban search and rescue techniques.
[71] The other factor which has brought about significant change in the role and responsibilities of the ACTFB is the introduction of the Emergencies Act 2004. As already noted, the Emergencies Act 2004 arose as a result of the recommendations in the McLeod Report into the January 2003 bushfires in the ACT. Mr Prince noted that the functions and responsibilities of the ACTFB now contained in the Emergencies Act 2004 are considerably broader than those of fifteen years ago, especially in the areas of hazardous material incidents, rescue incidents and chemical, biological and radiological incidents.
[72] The ACTFB has a significant role in various counter-terrorism plans and is the primary combat agency for CBR incidents in the ACT. According to Mr Prince’s evidence, over the past three years major new resources and equipment have been provided to the ACTFB by the Australian Government, through the CBR enhancement program administered by Emergency Management Australia under the National Counter-Terrorism Plan.
[73] In addition, Mr Prince stated that there has been an increase in the community’s expectations and awareness of the role of the ACTFB in emergency situations. This increased awareness has arisen from the January 2003 bushfires, and the associated publicity, and the role of the ACTFB in recent ‘white powder’ incidents.
[74] Mr Prince also noted that in creating the Bushfire Abatement Zone the Emergencies Act 2004 has significantly increased the responsibilities of the ACTFB, requiring changes to the skills and functions of members of the ACTFB and the additional training to enable ACTFB members to carry out their functions. According to this evidence, it is essential that all members within the ACTFB have a reasonable base or level of skill to deal with the expanded roles and responsibilities. The approach that has been taken is to provide training in these skills to all staff, with specialist sections or stations having a higher level of skill and training to provide specialist support to all responders. Mr Prince stated that, to facilitate a stronger focus on CBR response and skills maintenance, he introduced full-time crewing of the ACTFB HazMat/CBR response section in 2003.
[75] It was also the evidence of Mr Prince that given the relatively small size of the ACTFB, multi-skilling of all members is required. Fewer members are available to respond to a fire incident than would normally be the case in other jurisdictions. Given the need for multi-skilling there is also an increased need for continued training to maintain the broad range of skills.
[76] As a result of the increased amount of training provided to all firefighters (including recruits), Mr Prince has reached the view that the time required for a member of the ACTFB to be considered fully competent has been progressively reduced over the last decade. According to his evidence, a firefighter can now be considered fully competent two years after graduation from recruit college. By this time the firefighter will have exceeded the requirements for the AQF Certificate III (i.e. tradesperson) qualification.
[77] It was also Mr Prince’s evidence that, in light of the changes in the nature of the work and competence and roles of the ACTFB members, the present award classification structure no longer adequately reflects the nature of the work performed or the responsibilities exercised by the staff. He noted that there are a number of historical, artificial divisions which are no longer used and are no longer relevant to contemporary operational arrangements. The rank of Fourth Class Firefighter is essentially superfluous due to the higher level of training recruits receive. In addition, there is no practical distinction between a First Class Firefighter, Grade B and a First Class Firefighter, Grade A, in the roles or functions those firefighters carry out, or the allocation of tasks and responsibilities at an incident.
[78] According to Mr Prince, the rank of “Senior Firefighter, Qualified” should not exist, but Senior Firefighters who have met the qualifying requirements for promotion to Station Officer should receive an allowance in recognition of meeting those requirements. Mr Prince also stated that the four ranks of Station Officer (A-D) have no practical relationship to the responsibilities and functions carried out by Station Officers. All Station Officers are required to perform at the standard previously expected of a Station Officer, Grade A. Given the small size of the ACTFB, and the amount of training now provided to all Station Officers prior to, and on, their promotion, Mr Prince believed that there should be only one grade of Station Officer.
Peter Jeffs
[79] Mr Peter Jeffs joined the ACTFB in 1979 and is currently a District Officer. He has completed a Churchill Fellowship in Hazardous Materials (1997) and a Diploma in Business Management. He also has a Certificate in Training through the Australian Institute of Management. In his statement 32 Mr Jeffs noted that there have been many significant changes to roles and responsibilities during his career with the ACTFB. These include changes to technology, legislation and the assumption of new roles including in road accident rescue, medical emergencies, vertical rescue, and USAR.
[80] According to Mr Jeffs’ evidence, road accident rescue functions were previously performed by the ACTFB, the police and the ambulance service. Today, the ACTFB is the sole provider of road accident rescue in the ACT. Mr Jeffs described in detail a few of the various types of rescue now performed by the ACTFB including vertical rescues at both construction sites and cliffs. He also noted that the ACTFB is now relied upon by other emergency services to provide response to medical emergencies. Often the ACTFB is the first responding service to a medical emergency.
[81] According to Mr Jeffs, the members of the ACTFB will be on the front line in responding to any terrorism attack that occurs in the ACT because of their numbers, location, training skills and equipment. He noted that there have been numerous ‘white powder’ incidents in Canberra, requiring a heavy response from the ACTFB. He also noted that the members of the CBR unit of the ACTFB are able to use many types of chemical warfare, radiation and chemical detection equipment, and undergo an intensive training course to enable them to operate this equipment. They must be competent in breathing apparatus, chemical suits, airline equipment, air monitoring, chemical and radiation detection and setting up and using mass casualty decontamination units. He noted that the incredible pressure and responsibility placed upon members of the ACTFB when dealing with CBR or terrorist incidents. Mr Jeffs also noted that the ACTFB works with other emergency organisations to plan emergency responses to local events that occur in the ACT.
[82] As far as the impact of these matters on training is concerned, Mr Jeffs outlined that there has been a quantum leap in the quantity and quality of the training that recruits undertake today. It was his view that subjects taught in recruit colleges at the time he joined the ACTFB would only amount to 50% of that taught to recruits today. Traditional subjects now taught to recruits include Advanced First Aid, Vertical Rescue, atmospheric monitoring, CBR, USAR, trench rescue, bushfire-fighting, dangerous substances and road accident rescue, among others. It was also noted that, apart from the training required to be provided to the recruits, all firefighters are now able to participate in advanced training in the same types of subjects provided at the recruit college, including advanced stages of USAR, dangerous substances and others. It was also noted that officers in the ACTFB require additional management training, and training in HR skills, in order to take command and control using the Incident Control system.
[83] Mr Jeffs reiterated the view of the Chief Officer that recruits are now given such a high level of training and skills that they are able to perform almost immediately at the front line of operations. After achieving the rank of Second Class Firefighter, firefighters are able to undertake more specialised training in HazMat/CBR, USAR, vertical-bronto rescue and COMCEN.
[84] It was Mr Jeffs’ evidence that all ranks of the ACTFB have assumed greater responsibility over recent years. Senior firefighters are expected to assist in station management and to mentor junior firefighters. Senior firefighters are often given command of rescue incidents where they have a greater skill level than the Station Officer in command. Station Officers also have a greater level of responsibility and accountability and require a greater range of skills to perform their duties. The Station Officer has the responsibility to manage, lead, train, mentor and counsel all staff at the station.
[85] Mr Jeffs also outlined the various responsibilities of the District Officers, whose roles and responsibilities have increased substantially since 1998. The District Officer has overall responsibility to manage any shift and to manage any incident scene, including liaison with other emergency services and relevant agencies.
[86] It was also Mr Jeffs’ view that a firefighter is now fully competent two years after graduation from college.
Paul Ingram
[87] Mr Ingram has been employed by ACTFB for 18 years. Prior to that time he spent three years in the London Fire Brigade and 3 years in Rescue and Firefighting at the Civil Aviation Authority. He is an Acting District Officer. It was Mr Ingram’s evidence 33 that there have been many changes to the operations of the ACTFB since the early 1990s, in particular in the areas of CBR, USAR, air monitoring, HazMat and medical assist. Having noted that CBR incidents, once unknown, are almost daily occurrences and the increasing role played by ACTFB in assisting the ambulance service, Mr Ingram also reiterated earlier evidence about the emerging hazard of undeployed airbags in RAR situations.
[88] Mr Ingram also detailed the extensive training now provided to both recruits and employed firefighters to enable them to handle the varied workload now undertaken. Training must also be provided to the officers of ACTFB to enable them to properly manage incidents involving the exercise of new skills by firefighters.
[89] According to Mr Ingram, the roles and responsibilities of all ACTFB members have increased considerably since the early 1990s and the range of skills exercised is considerably broader and more complex.
Ross Kennedy
[90] Mr Kennedy joined the ACTFB in 1988 and is a Station Officer. He has an Advanced Diploma in management and is a Certificate IV qualified Workplace Assessor and Trainer. Mr Kennedy’s statement deals with the ACTFB training framework and its mapping against the Public Safety Training Package (PSTP), part of the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF).
[91] It was Mr Kennedy’s evidence that the ACTFB has historically developed its training modules from a number of sources including interstate agencies such as NSW and Queensland Fire Brigades, ACT Forestry, ACT Ambulance Service, ActewAGL, the British Home Office and Australian Fire Competencies as administered through the Australian Fire Authorities Council.
[92] According to Mr Kennedy, the ACTFB uses the Proficiency Challenge Testing (PCT) as a valid method of assessment for firefighters for promotion to the rank of Third Class Firefighter through to First Class “A” Firefighter. There are also a number of specialist training courses, such as the specialist Level 2 Technical Rescue which is delivered to all staff at the rank of second or first class Firefighter and the Level 3 Rescue Course (dealing with command and control of technical rescue) which is targeted at the Senior Firefighter rank and is a requirement for all Station Officers.
[93] The formal Station Officer development program is now a 5-week program which Senior Firefighters must satisfactorily complete in order to gain their promotion to the rank of Station Officer. Having completed this program a firefighter will have completed the requirements for an AQF Diploma under the PSTP.
[94] ACTFB Modules, known as Training Resource Kits (TRKs), are based on external agency material and ACTFB requirements. According to Mr Kennedy, a core consideration in designing TRKs was to ensure the material and assessment was specific to the practices, policies and procedures adopted by the ACTFB.
[95] The ACTFB has recognised and adopted the standards and practices of the Public Safety Training Package system. As a result of the replacement of the AFC’s with the PSTP it was necessary to review the learning and development packages and standards in order to ensure compliance with PSTP competency standards. This involved the mapping of ACTFB TRK’s against PSTP Training units and specifically the Performance Criteria of the PSTP units.
[96] The mapping process was a protracted, complex exercise conducted between March 2005 and September 2005 and involving up to five members to complete the task.
ACTFB members with specific areas of expertise were involved in the mapping of that area of expertise, such as in USAR, Breathing Apparatus, Confined Space, etc. The mapping team supervised these specialists to ensure consistency and quality
[97] Mr Kennedy set out in detail the process and methodology adopted to “map” one part of the training syllabus provided to recruit firefighters to the PSTP Certificate II “Firefighting and Emergency Operations” 34. The information was then recorded on a matrix and summary table and these are presented separately as exhibits to the Commission.
[98] It was Mr Kennedy’s view that the evidence collected and the results of the mapping process clearly show that the ACTFB training packages met or exceeded the Performance Criteria of the relevant PSTP Elements against which they were mapped.
[99] After mapping the recruit level qualifications the team mapped the qualifications of significant ranks within the ACTFB.
[100] According to Mr Kennedy’s evidence the mapping exercise confirmed the following key points:
Tony Ross
[101] Mr Ross’ witness statement 35 was tendered but he was not required for cross-examination. Mr Ross joined ACTFB in 1978 and is a Station Officer qualified for District Officer. His evidence dealt with the matter of lateral recruitment. In particular, he described the minimum level of additional training required for recruits from other fire services to enable them to be fully operational members of ACTFB. Paragraphs 9-11 of his statement set out the situation:
“Although the successful applicants have gained qualifications from their previous fire service employer, the ACT Fire Brigade has learned through experience that these new employees need to undertake extensive induction training to provide them with the training, skills and qualifications required to meet the minimum requirements of a fourth class firefighter crewing operational response vehicles for the ACT Fire Brigade. This induction programme presently involves intensive training and assessment over a four week period prior to commencement of operational duties.
The induction programme specific areas such as Road Accident Rescue Level 1, Urban Search and Rescue level 1, Confined Space rescue, Trench rescue, Vertical rescue level 1, CAF’s level 1, Atmospheric monitor, pumping, 4x4, wildfire, hazmat 1, CBR 1, Radio Procedures and Protocols, Operation of Brigade vehicles both Urban fire pumpers and 4 WD vehicles.
This additional training and qualifications is necessitated due to the ACT Fire Brigade requiring a greater level of multi skilling than our counterparts interstate. This requires all operational staff to have minimal sufficient training and qualifications to perform all tasks when and if required.”
INSPECTIONS
[102] Inspections were held on 17 November 2005 at the ACTFB Training Centre in Belconnen and at Philip Fire Station.
[103] At the ACTFB Training Centre, new ACTFB recruits were observed undergoing recruit training. Both theoretical and practical training were taking place as the inspection proceeded. Recruits were observed taking part in a decontamination training exercise utilising the latest equipment acquired by the ACTFB for this purpose. The differences between the new, sophisticated equipment and the basic equipment formerly used by the ACTFB in decontamination were emphasised.
[104] A display of more basic equipment used by the ACTFB in the late 1980s and early 1990s in dealing with HazMat and other similar incidents was also observed. The trainers conducting the Commission through the displays and decontamination exercise noted the quantum leap that had occurred in the range of technology now utilised by the ACTFB, observing that some of the equipment (e.g. air monitoring) was as sophisticated as that currently used by the military.
[105] During the inspections a demonstration of the recently acquired CAFS appliances was performed by Level 2 CAFS operators, who gave evidence about the new appliances during the hearing. The additional skills required to properly operate the new appliances were demonstrated, as was the significant role these appliances will play in fire prevention. The ability to coat threatened buildings with the fire retardant foam mixture was competently demonstrated by the operators.
[106] At Philip Fire Station displays of rescue equipment were observed and demonstrations of some rescue techniques were given by firefighters taking part in additional skills training. In particular, the advanced equipment now utilised in USAR and confined space and trench rescue were demonstrated for the benefit of the Commission and explanations given of the equipment used, and techniques involved in Road Accident Rescue and Vertical Rescue. Also observed was the standard equipment required to be carried on every fire appliance in order that the ACTFB can properly perform the broad range of functions for which it now has responsibility. The Chief Officer noted that there was also an intention that every fire appliance be equipped with a defibrillator so as to better carry out the ACTFB’s medical assistance role.
THE SUBMISSIONS
The UFU
[107] It was submitted for the UFU that all four elements of the application were consistent with sections 88A and 88B of the Act and with the relevant Principles of the Commission. It was noted that there was no dispute between the parties as to the date from which the work value changes should be measured, as the operative date of the second SEP adjustment to the Award 36 was 13 September 1990.
[108] The UFU also submitted that the evidence, exhibits and inspections supported the claims of both parties that there had been significant increases in the work value in the work performed under the Award, both in relation to changes in the environment in which the work was done and changes to skills and responsibilities of the firefighters.
[109] It was noted that the evidence demonstrated that in the early to mid 1990s there was confusion about the role of the ACTFB. At that time, the main role of the ACTFB was to deal with urban fires and the responsibility for other functions carried out by the ACTFB, such as fire investigation, road accidents and other types of rescue was not clear and often the subject of demarcation disputes with other emergency services.
[110] From the mid 1990s there had been a series of Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) developed with the other services which had assigned to the ACTFB the major role in road accident rescue, vertical rescue, trench and confined space rescue and HazMat incidents. These arrangements were recognised in legislation with the enactment of the 1999 Emergency Management Act in the ACT.
[111] It was the UFU’s submission that the major changes to the environment in which the work under the Award is performed occurred mainly due to the increased terrorism threat that had arisen since 2001 and the response to the 2003 bushfire disaster that occurred in the ACT, i.e. the implementation of the recommendations of the McLeod Report, the enactment of the Emergencies Act 2004, the creation of the Bushfire Abatement Zone and the establishment of community fire units. According to the UFU, while there was evidence that the ACTFB now carried out significant additional functions, with concomitant changes to skills and responsibilities and a requirement for enhanced training, there had been no reduction in or elimination of any duties. The changes experienced by the ACTFB had been exceptional, cumulative and dramatic.
[112] The UFU claimed that in recognition of these major changes there should be an across the board increase to minimum rates set by the Award. It was not an appropriate response to deal with the changes through the awarding of a general allowance as this would only serve to exacerbate exiting problems with internal relativities, and would also provide additional compensation to that already provided to Station Officers and District Officers through other mechanisms. An increase in the minimum rate was both more beneficial and recognised the increased multi-skilling and additional responsibility assumed at all levels. It was also noted that the current certified agreement, in clause 21, provided for the making of the work value claim.
[113] So far as the alteration proposed to the Award classification structure was concerned, it was submitted that both parties agreed that a change from a 14 level structure to an 8 level structure would be more suited to the contemporary needs of ACTFB and, consistent with the requirements of Principle 6 was much simpler, less artificial and less complex. It was the view of the parties that the relativities contained in the current structure did not appropriately reflect differences in skills and responsibilities. The proposed structure would better reflect both the anticipated and ongoing requirements for flexibility and multi-skilling.
[114] According to the UFU, it is difficult to take account of award structures of fire brigades in other jurisdictions when carrying out this exercise as all brigades have different classification structures which take account of their different roles and functions. The UFU believed the more appropriate way to deal with the task of revising the classification structure and setting appropriate minimum wages was to carry out direct comparison with classification descriptors and qualifications contained in the Metal, Engineering and Associated Industries Award, 1998 - Part I (‘the Metals Award’) 37 with the appropriate reference to the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF). It was also put by the UFU that in conducting this exercise account should be taken of the difficulties associated with role of firefighter and the inherent dangers in performing the work. In this respect the UFU contended that the relevant exhibits (ACT 2 and UFU 20) clearly demonstrated the proposed classification FB3 was equivalent to the C10 level in the Metals Award in terms of qualifications and functions, although it was put that the wok performed by a firefighter at the FB3 level was more significant in terms of responsibility. The evidence is clear that the mapping exercise conducted to align the training provided by the ACTFB with the AQF indicated that the qualifications of a firefighter at the level FB3 are equivalent to the tradesperson level and that the appropriate external relativity for the FB3 is the C10 classification in the Metals Award.
[115] The UFU provided an additional exhibit 38 showing their proposed internal relativities for the new classification structure and the formula utilised to arrive at them. The exhibit took into account the agreement that the FB3 level should be set at 100% of the C10 classification. It was proposed that a firefighter would reach the FB3 level either 24 months (UFU) or 28 months (ACTFB) after commencing training in the recruit college. It was the UFU position that having had an additional 20 months on the job training and experience a new firefighter would have gained the additional qualification and experience to meet the requirements of an FB3. The mapping exercise set out in the chart at exhibit UFU 63 noted the additional training modules that would have been completed by a recruit in this period. It was put that the evidence given by Mr Prince and Mr Kennedy concerning the level of training provided to new firefighters and the experience gained during the initial years of employment support the view of the UFU that the internal relativities should be altered to reflect this position. According to the UFU the internal relativities set for each of the new levels of firefighter should be set at the highest current relativity of the “broadbanded” classification. The UFU proposed that recruits on graduation should be set at 98% of the FB3 (the highest point of the firefighter). Similarly the new Station Officer level replacing the current four levels should be set at the highest grade of Station Officer. In setting the relativities it was put that the Commission should have regard to the qualifications acquired and the environment and conditions under which work is performed.
[116] So far as the proposed award variation to include new allowances was concerned the UFU submitted that these allowances all related to changes in work value and were consistent with Principles 5(g) and 6. Further it was submitted that there was ample evidence before the Commission to support the awarding of the allowances. The parties were agreed about the quantum and conditions attached to the proposed allowance for firefighters on the Fire Investigation Roster. There was agreement that there should be allowances for firefighters with Level 2 qualifications in HazMat, Vertical Rescue, USAR and CAFS but the conditions under which these allowances should be paid and the quantum was not agreed. The UFU proposed that the level 2 allowances should be paid to all firefighters with the relevant qualifications, the ACTFB disagreed.
[117] The UFU noted that Exhibit UFU 13 provided a useful chart concerning the payment of allowances in brigades in other jurisdictions.
The ACTFB
[118] The ACTFB were in agreement with the UFU about the changes to the definitions contained in the Award. Also agreed were the increases to current allowances in accordance with the Safety Net Principles and removal of some obsolete allowances such as the “in charge of watch room”, “in charge of the salvage locker” and the “hose repair” allowances.
[119] The ACTFB also agreed that there have been work value changes to work performed under the Award and that these should be recognised, and measured, from 13 September 1990 in accordance with the relevant Principles and the provisions of Act.
[120] It was noted that the ACTFB agreed with the broad conclusions UFU have drawn from the evidence in relation to the work value changes:
1. changes occurred as a result of various Memoranda of Understanding entered into by the ACTFB since 1990 and these had involved new responsibilities, skills and training;
2. there have been real implications for the ACTFB arising from the increased terrorism threat and these have had a practical effect on resources, skills and responsibilities as was apparent from the Directive of the Chief Officer in relation to the ACTFB’s counter-terrorism role 39, the various statements emanating from COAG and the Chief Minister of the ACT, and the additional resources provided in relation to this role; and
3. there has been a significant impact on the ACTFB as a result of the 2003 bushfires, the subsequent recommendations of the McLeod Report and the enactment of the Emergencies Act 2004 with the creation of the Bushfire Abatement Zone.
[121] The ACTFB tendered an exhibit 40 which summarised all the evidence in support of the work value claim. It organised that evidence as follows:
It was submitted that the evidence 41 showed that all the above factors had had a significant impact across the board, requiring a greater level of multi-skilling throughout the ACTFB. While there had been no reduction or elimination of functions the changes had had a significant effect on skills and responsibilities, and these had not been taken into account in any earlier variations to the Award. The changes were not of an evolutionary nature.
[122] It was noted that to attempt comparisons with arrangements in other jurisdictions was a complex task but that there had been, in recent years, some work value movements in NSW, Tasmania, South Australia and, in particular, the Northern Territory. These were set out in Exhibit UFU15.
[123] So far as the new classification structure was concerned the ACTFB submitted that the replacement of the fourteen-level structure with a simplified eight-level structure was highly desirable and the altered internal relativities would more properly reflect the differences in skill, competencies, training and responsibilities. The new structure would also provide a basis for more flexible arrangements. The ACTFB did not support recognition of changes to work value by means of a general allowance as there would be fairer targeting of the compensation through an increase to minimum rates in the new classification structure. The latter course was preferred.
[124] In accordance with the relevant Principles, in reaching the proposed new external and internal relativities the ACTFB had had regard to:
[125] In addition, the ACTFB had considered the question; “What is a fully competent firefighter?” in order to establish the appropriate relativity to C10 level in the Metals Award. In order to answer the question considerations of operational experience on the job were taken into account. Both Mr Prince and Mr Jeffs were of the view that after 28 months experience (with the training provided during that period) a firefighter could be considered fully competent. Given the changes being made to the classification structure it was necessary to do more than merely apply the Clerks (Breweries) decision 42 formula in this case. The ACTFB contended that a number of exhibits in evidence before the Commission supported the proposed relativities, in particular Exhibit UFU 44 (the mapping document and summary table), Exhibit UFU 19 (comparisons with the AQF and the Metals Award), and Exhibit ACT 2 (a comparison of the classification standards proposed by the ACTFB with the Metals Award classification standards, noting differences in relation to other brigades). It was submitted that all the relevant evidence supported the relativities proposed by the ACTFB.
[126] So far as Principle 6 was concerned, it was the view of the ACTFB that a work value increase awarded to employees of the ACTFB was unlikely to result in leap-frogging in other jurisdictions, particularly given that the changes had resulted from ACT specific factors and the substantial differences between the operations of the ACTFB and brigades in other jurisdictions.
[127] In determining the new allowances proposed by the UFU, it was the submission of the ACTFB that the Commission should set the quantum of those allowances having taken into account the new classification structure with the adjustments to the minimum rates. The ACTFB contended that the four new allowances should be paid only to appropriately qualified staff when rostered on a dedicated appliance for which the relevant specialist skill was a minimum crewing requirement, or where the qualified operator was called in to perform duty on such a vehicle. According to the ACTFB, the simple acquisition of the skill should not be sufficient to qualify for the allowance. In setting the quantum of the new allowances it was submitted that the Commission should take into account that the ACTFB has a higher base than other jurisdictions, where allowances might appear more generous, and that paying the allowance only when the skill was utilised would encourage firefighters to move around the specialist areas, thus maintaining the skills. The ACTFB proposal in relation to the allowances was consistent with the relevant Principle.
CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUES
[128] The first part of the UFU claim, to amend various definitions in the Award and to increase existing allowances to reflect safety net increases or to delete some obsolete allowances, is not in dispute.
[129] The second part of the claim, which is directed at inserting a new classification structure with new internal and external relativities in the Award and increasing the minimum rates to compensate for the significant changes in work value, is also largely agreed. Both parties submit that the external relativity of 100% of the C10 level of the Metals Award is appropriately set at the new classification level of FB3 (the fully qualified firefighter). With the exception of the FB# level, the parties disagree about the internal relativities that should apply to the FB1 to FB6 levels of the new classification structure..
[130] The parties are agreed that the third part of the claim, which seeks the insertion of a number of new allowances in the Award, should be granted, but disagree about the quantum and the criteria for payment of those allowances.
[131] The Work Value Principle as set out in the Safety Net Review – Wages June 2005 decision 43 is as follows:
“6. WORK VALUE CHANGES
(a) Changes in work value may arise from changes in the nature of the work, skill and responsibility required or the conditions under which work is performed. Changes in work by themselves may not lead to a change in wage rates. The strict test for an alteration in wage rates is that the change in the nature of the work should constitute such a significant net addition to work requirements as to warrant the creation of a new classification or upgrading to a higher classification.
In addition to meeting this test a party making a work value application will need to justify any change to wage relativities that might result not only within the relevant internal award structure but also against external classifications to which that structure is related. There must be no likelihood of wage leapfrogging arising out of changes in relative position.
These are the only circumstances in which rates may be altered on the ground of work value and the altered rates may be applied only to employees whose work has changed in accordance with this Principle.
(b) In applying the Work Value Changes Principle, the Commission will have regard to the need for any alterations to wage relativities between awards to be based on skill, responsibility and the conditions under which work is performed (s.88B(3)(a)).
(c) Where new or changed work justifying a higher rate is performed only from time to time by persons covered by a particular classification, or where it is performed only by some of the persons covered by the classification, such new or changed work should be compensated by a special allowance which is payable only when the new or changed work is performed by a particular employee and not by increasing the rate for the classification as a whole.
(d) The time from which work value changes in an award should be measured is the date of operation of the second structural efficiency adjustment allowable under the August 1989 National Wage Case decision (August 1989 National Wage Case) [Print H9100; (1989) 30 IR 81].
(e) Care should be exercised to ensure that changes which were or should have been taken into account in any previous work value adjustments or in a structural efficiency exercise are not included in any work evaluation under this Principle.
(f) Where the tests specified in (a) are met, an assessment will have to be made as to
how that alteration should be measured in monetary terms. Such assessment will normally be based on the previous work requirements, the wage previously fixed for the work and the nature and extent of the change in work.
(g) The expression “the conditions under which the work is performed” relates to the environment in which the work is done.
(h) The Commission will guard against contrived classifications and over-classification of jobs.
(i) Any changes in the nature of the work, skill and responsibility required or the
conditions under which the work is performed, taken into account in assessing an increase under any other principle of this Statement of Principles, will not be taken into account under this Principle.”
[132] The manner in which this principle has been and will be dealt with by the Commission is set out in some detail in the following paragraphs of a recent Full Bench decision 44 concerning work value applications made in relation to the ACT and Victorian child care industry awards (footnotes omitted):
“[187] Wage fixation principles dealing with changes in work value have existed for some time and broadly speaking the current Principle 6 codifies the general principles which have emerged over time. In this context we note that in the proceedings before us the parties generally accepted a statement made by Senior Commissioner Taylor in 1968 to the effect that the following factors were relevant to the assessment of work value:
> qualifications necessary for the job;
> training period required;
> attributes required for the performance of the work;
> responsibilities for the work, material and equipment and for the safety of the plant and other employees;
> conditions under which the work is performed such as heat, cold, dirt, wetness, noise, necessity to wear protective equipment etc;
> quality of work attributable to, and required of, the employee;
> versatility and adaptability: for example, performing a multiplicity of functions;
> skill exercised;
> acquired knowledge of plant and process;
> supervision over others or necessity to work without supervision; and
> importance of the work to the overall operations of the plant.
[188] Paragraph (a) of the current principle sets out the strict test to be satisfied in order to justify an alteration in wage rates based on changes in work value. Such changes may arise from changes in the nature of the work, skill and responsibility required or the conditions under which work is performed. The expression “conditions under which work is performed” is defined in paragraph (g) of the principle to mean the environment in which the work is done. The principle makes it clear that it is only by satisfying the significant net addition test that wages may be altered on the ground of work value.
[189] The principle makes it clear that changes in work, by themselves, may not lead to an increase in wages. In State Electricity Commission of Victoria v The Federated Ironworkers’ Association of Australia, a Full Bench of the Commission expressed this limitation in the following terms:
“In all categories of work except perhaps the most simple, changes become evident with time. It is in the nature of things that new methods of doing the same thing evolve with time, and that skills which qualify a person for a particular category of work may become fully tested, or in some cases the work may thereby be made easier. However it is essential that such changes are not mistaken for genuine work value change.”
[190] Previous decisions of the Commission suggest that a range of factors may, depending on the circumstances, be relevant to the assessment of whether or not the changes in question constitute the required “significant net addition to work requirements”. The following considerations are relevant in this regard:
> Rapidly changing technology, dramatic or unanticipated changes which result in a need for new skills and/or increased responsibility may justify a wage increase on work value grounds. But progressive or evolutionary change is insufficient.
> An increase in the skills, knowledge or other expertise required to adequately undertake the duties concerned demonstrates an increase in work value.
> The mere introduction of a statutory requirement to hold a certificate of competency does not of itself constitute a significant net addition to work requirements. It must be demonstrated that there has been some change in the work itself or in the skills and/or responsibility required. However, where additional training is required to become certified and hence to fulfil a statutory requirement a wage increase may be warranted.
> A requirement to exercise care and caution is, of itself, insufficient to warrant a work value increase. But an increase in the level of responsibility required to be exercised may warrant a wage increase on work value grounds. Such a change may be demonstrated by a requirement to work with less supervision.
> The requirement to exercise a quality control function may constitute a significant net addition to work requirements when associated with increased accountability.
> The fact that the emphasis on some aspects of the work has changed does not in itself constitute a significant net addition to work requirements.
> The introduction of a new training program or the necessity to undertake additional training is illustrative of the increased level of skill required due to the change in the nature of the work. But keeping abreast of changes and developments in any trade or profession is part of the requirements of that trade or profession and generally only some basic changes in the educational requirements can be regarded, of itself, as constituting a change in work value.
> Increased workload generally goes to the issue of manning levels not work value. But, where an increase in workload leads to increased pressure on skills and the speed with which vital decisions must be made then it may be a relevant consideration.
[191] The principle provides, in paragraph (d), that where a significant net addition to work value has been established an assessment will have to be made as to how that addition should be measured in monetary terms. Such an assessment should normally be based on the previous work requirements, the wage previously fixed for the work, and the nature and extent of the change in work. However, it is open to the arbitrator to make comparisons with other wages and work requirements within the award, and in other awards, provided such comparisons are fair, proper and reasonable in all the circumstances. In particular, regard may be had to the wage increases ascribed to comparable changes in work value in other areas. Care must be taken in relation to making a comparison with a provision found in a consent award.
[192] Once an appropriate rate has been assessed for the new or changed work the Commission may, depending on the circumstances of the particular case, create a new classification, fix a new rate for an existing classification, or provide for an allowance to be paid in addition to the existing rate for the classification. Further, the principle provides in paragraph (b) that where the new or changed work is performed only from time to time by persons covered by a particular classification, or where it is performed by only some of the persons covered by the classification, it should be compensated by a special allowance payable only when the new or changed work is being performed by a particular employee and not by increasing the rate for the classification as a whole.”
[133] Both parties tendered a substantial amount of evidence in support of the claim for the work value increase to the minimum rates in the Award. In the main, the evidence tendered on behalf of the union and that tendered by the employer was complementary and directed towards similar conclusions.
Changes to the environment in which the work is performed
[134] In accordance with paragraph (d) of Principle 6 of the current wage fixing principles, the UFU submitted, and the ACTFB agreed, that the datum point for assessing the work value changes to all relevant classifications in the Award should be 13 September 1990.
[135] It is clear that the evidence supports findings that there have been major changes of a work value nature which have impacted on the work performed by firefighters in the ACT since that time. As has been agreed between the parties, these changes have not been evolutionary but have arisen as a direct result of major alterations to the environment in which ACTFB performs its duties. The environment has undergone substantial change since 1990 due to:
Work Value Considerations
Qualifications necessary for the job
[136] It is clear that since 1990 the number and types of qualifications required to be held by members of the ACTFB have increased significantly. All firefighters are now required to be qualified in areas such as HazMat and CBR in order to commence work as a firefighter. More senior firefighters are required to hold advanced qualifications in what were once considered specialist areas. All of the evidence supports a finding that it would not be possible for an ACTFB employee in Canberra in 2006 to operate as a firefighter if that person held only those qualifications required of a firefighter in September 1990. The evidence of all of the witnesses was that the nature of the work of a firefighter had undergone such dramatic change over the past 15 years as to bear little resemblance to performed in 1990.
Training period required
[137] The massive increase in the quantity and quality of the training required to be provided to firefighters at all levels since 1990 is apparent from the evidence of all witnesses. It is clear that recruit training now covers at least twice the material that was required to be taught at that level in 1990. In order to function as a new firefighter, all recruits must be familiar with rescue and firefighting techniques that were largely unknown or considered specialist areas in the late 1980s and early 1990s (for example, HazMat, CBR and USAR). The new and significantly changed functions acquired by the ACTFB have necessitated that all firefighters undertake advanced training in similar areas. It is clear that advanced training is ongoing for all firefighters in order to carry out the numerous functions that now constitutes the work of the ACTFB
Attributes required for the performance of the work
[138] The evidence before the Commission clearly demonstrates that the attributes required for the performance of the work have changed. Firefighters are now required to have increased “people skills” (to perform new educational and community fire unit functions, and to deal with incidents involving mass decontamination), additional management skills (lower levels are now required to provide assistance to station officers, mentor less experienced firefighters and to take control at incidents on a regular basis), and the ability to train other members of the ACTFB in new skills.
Responsibilities for the work, material and equipment and for the safety of the plant and other employees
[139] The additional and changed functions of the ACTFB have affected the level of responsibility assumed by members of the ACTFB at all levels. A number of witnesses gave evidence that Senior Firefighters now assume control of many incidents, especially incidents which require specialist training. The increase in workload has also required Senior Firefighters to assist in the management of stations and in mentoring more junior recruits. In particular, the advent of Community Fire Units has increased the level of responsibility that must be assumed by all firefighters who may be responsible for the civilian volunteers at an incident.
Conditions under which the work is performed such as heat, cold, dirt, wetness, noise, necessity to wear protective equipment etc
[140] The evidence supports a finding that the work performed by members of the ACTFB has become more hazardous over the past 15 years. The types of fires and other incidents are inherently more dangerous. Evidence was given that terrorism incidents are of particular concern given the potential for further explosions etc. once emergency services arrive. There was also evidence that in addition to the increase in road accident rescues, these incidents have also become more dangerous due in particular to the advent of airbags in vehicles and the potential for undeployed bags to deploy during a RAR. The level of protective equipment required to be utilised by the ACTFB has increased markedly as a direct result of the new counter-terrorism role assumed by the ACTFB.
Quality of work attributable to, and required of, the employee
[141] The evidence supports a finding that the changed role and functions of ACTFB members have brought with them a requirement for an increase in the quality of the work performed. The types of incidents attended (e.g. white powder, medical assist, complex rescues) have contributed to the qualitative difference.
Versatility and adaptability: for example, performing a multiplicity of functions
[142] The evidence of the Chief Officer of the ACTFB supports a finding that the number of additional functions taken on by the ACTFB, together with its relatively small size, has required all members of the ACTFB to become multi-skilled and to be able to assist in all forms of rescue, both urban and bush firefighting and all types of HazMat and CBR incidents.
Skill exercised
[143] The evidence of every witness who provided information about the operational role now performed by ACTFB supports a finding that there has been a marked increase in the level of skill exercised by every rank of firefighter, from recruit to Station Officer. New and increased skills have been required in order to perform the myriad of functions which now constitute the day to day work of an ACT firefighter.
CONCLUSION
1. Definitions
[144] The application to amend the definitions clause of the Award to remove and replace obsolete definitions has the consent of the employer and is in full compliance with the Act and the Principles. That part of the application is granted in full.
2. Current allowances
[145] The application to increase current allowances to reflect increases in the Safety Net also have the consent of the employer, and the amounts of the increases accord with the appropriate Principles and are derived using the relevant formulas. This part of the application to vary the Award is also granted in full.
3. Work Value Increases/New Classification Structure
[146] I accept the submissions of the UFU, which were supported in full by the ACTFB, that the current award classification structure does not meet the needs of the industry or of the employees. The classification structure currently contained in the Award is set out at Annexure B to this decision. The application in this matter seeks to delete, in its entirety, the current fourteen-level classification structure, together with the descriptors of those classifications, and replace them with a simpler, broad-banded, eight-level structure with new classification descriptors.
[147] I am satisfied that all the evidence supports a finding that there has been a significant net addition to the nature of the work performed, the skill exercised and the responsibilities assumed by firefighter at all levels covered by the Award. I am also satisfied that it is appropriate to insert in the Award the new classification structure sought by both parties.
[148] Having determined that it is appropriate to insert the new classification structure, it is then also necessary to determine the minimum rates that should apply to each of the new classifications to be inserted. The manner in which new minimum rates should be struck was considered in 2005 by a Full Bench of the Commission. 45 At paragraphs [142] to [155] of that decision, the Full Bench described the manner in which such a process should be undertaken:
“4. THE PROPER FIXATION OF MINIMUM RATES
4.1 General
[142] Section 88B(1) provides that the Commission must perform its functions under Part VI of the WR Act in a way that furthers the objects of the WR Act and in particular the objects of Part VI. One of the objects of Part VI is to ensure that the awards of the Commission act as a safety net of fair minimum wages and conditions of employment. Further, one of the objects of the WR Act is to provide the means:
“... to ensure the maintenance of an effective award safety net of fair and enforceable minimum wages and conditions of employment” (emphasis added).
[143] Similarly, s.88B(2) provides that in performing its functions under Part VI of the WR Act the Commission must ensure that “a safety net of fair minimum wages and conditions of employment is established and maintained”. Further, s.88B(3)(a) provides that in performing such functions the Commission must have regard to a number of matters, including: “... the need for any alterations to wage relativities between awards to be based on skill, responsibility and the conditions under which the work is performed”. This requirement broadly reflects what have traditionally been regarded as work value considerations.
[144] The applications before us require a determination of whether the wage rates in the relevant awards have been properly fixed. The Commission’s traditional approach to the determination of such matters is relevant to our deliberation of these applications.
[145] Classification structures and rates of pay in many awards were subject to a fundamental reassessment as a result of the minimum rates adjustment (MRA) process established by the August 1989 National Wage Case decision. That process was designed to facilitate award reform by providing a clear understanding of award relationships one to another.
[146] In the February 1989 Review decision the Commission concluded that:
[147] The Commission emphasised that the successful implementation of these measures would be inhibited by irregularities in award rates of pay. These irregularities had been exacerbated by the attitudes of the parties to awards. As the Commission pointed out:
“The result is there exist in federal awards widespread examples of the prescription of different rates of pay for employees performing the same work but this is only part of the problem. For too long there have existed inequitable relationships among various classifications of employees. That this situation exists can be traced to features of the industrial relations system such as different attitudes adopted in relation to the adjustment of minimum rates and paid rates awards; different attitudes taken to the inclusion of overaward elements in awards, be they minimum rates or paid rates awards; the inclusion of supplementary payments in some awards and not others; and the different attitudes taken to consent arrangements and arbitrated awards.
There is a further dimension to the problem. Employers have introduced and will continue to introduce wage relativities both as between employees employed under the same award and employees covered by other awards in a particular establishment. These relativities can vary from workplace to workplace and may bear no resemblance to the relativities set in the award or awards concerned.”
[148] The Commission noted that this situation had inevitably caused feelings of injustice leading to industrial disputation and flow-on settlements. It concluded that the situation had to be corrected otherwise continuing instability within and between awards would seriously reduce the effect of moves to modernise those awards. Consequently it determined that:
“...minimum rates awards will be reviewed to ensure that classification rates and supplementary payments in an award bear a proper relationship to classification rates and supplementary payments in other minimum rates awards.”
[149] The translation of the principle of ensuring stable relationships between awards and their relevance to industry was considered in the August 1989 National Wage Case decision. In the course of its decision the Commission elaborated on what had been said in the February 1989 Review decision about the requirement to review relationships between classification rates and supplementary payments in minimum rates, stating:
“...we have decided that the minimum classification rate to be established over time for a metal industry tradesperson and a building industry tradesperson should be $356.30 per week with a $50.70 per week supplementary payment. The minimum classification rate of $356.30 per week would reflect the final effect of the structural efficiency adjustment determined by this decision.
Minimum classification rates and supplementary payments for other classifications throughout awards should be set in individual cases in relation to these rates on the basis of relative skill, responsibility and the conditions under which the particular work is normally performed. The Commission will only approve relativities in a particular award when satisfied that they are consistent with the rates and relativities fixed for comparable classifications in other awards. Before that requirement can be satisfied clear definitions will have to be established.”
[150] In the August 1989 National Wage Case decision the Commission also stated that following the completion of the MRA process it was envisaged that minimum classification rates would not alter their relative position one to another unless warranted on work value grounds.
[151] Principle 3 of the current Statement of Principles provides that increases under previous National Wage Case decisions, such as minimum rates adjustments, may be awarded in accordance with the relevant principles in those decisions. Further, an award may be varied pursuant to a previous National Wage Case decision without the application being regarded as a claim for wages and/or conditions above the award safety net.
[152] In our view the establishment of properly fixed minimum rates in awards is clearly consistent with the Commission’s obligations under the WR Act. In particular, s.88B(3)(a) is intended to preserve the structure of stable and equitable relativities between awards established by the MRA process which commenced as a result of the August 1989 National Wage Case decision.
[153] In the Paid Rates Review decision the Commission observed that for an award to contain properly fixed minimum rates the rates of pay must bear an appropriate work value relationship to rates for work covered by a minimum rates award which has completed the MRA process. Further, the Full Bench concluded that without a common basis for the fixation and variation of minimum rates awards it is not possible to maintain stable relativities between such awards.
[154] The continued relevance of the MRA process was confirmed by the Paid Rates Review Full Bench, in these terms:
“The MRA principle was designed to establish a consistent pattern of minimum rates in awards covering similar work thereby removing inequities and providing a stable foundation for enterprise bargaining. That objective is as important now, perhaps even more important, than it was in 1989.”
[155] In the context of the matter before us, the principles established in the Paid Rates Review decision mandate a three step process for the determination of properly fixed minimum rates:
1. The key classification in the relevant award is to be fixed by reference to appropriate key classifications in awards which have been adjusted in accordance with the MRA process with particular reference to the current rates for the relevant classifications in the Metal Industry Award. In this regard the relationship between the key classification and the Engineering Tradesperson Level 1 (the C10 level) is the starting point.
2. Once the key classification rate has been properly fixed, the other rates in the award are set by applying the internal award relativities which have been established, agreed or maintained.
3. If the existing rates are too low they should be increased so that they are properly fixed minima.”
[149] So far as the setting of external relativities is concerned, I am satisfied that the evidence before me as to the qualifications and job description of the proposed new classification of FB3 are such that a firefighter at that level is appropriately aligned with the C10 classification in the Metals Award. The parties have agreed that this is the appropriate external relativity, and I accept their submission that to attempt to align the relativity with an award covering a fire brigade in another jurisdiction is not appropriate given the significant differences in the structures and functions of other brigades.
[150] The complex mapping exercise conducted by the ACTFB setting out the correlation between the training and qualifications provided to the ACTFB and those qualifications under the Public Safety ITAB, together with the relationship with the Australian Qualifications Framework, provides sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the proposed FB3 will hold an equivalent qualification to that of the C10 tradesperson under the Metals Award. Taking into account the nature of the work performed by a firefighter, and the conditions under which that work is performed, I have no difficulty in finding that the FB3 level is the correct relativity to the C10.
[151] In relation to the setting of the remaining internal relativities, I accept that it is not appropriate, given the extent of the changes to the proposed new classification structure, simply to apply the formula set out in the Clerks (Breweries) decision 46 to those relativities. An explanation of how that formula is applied in such a circumstance can be found at paragraphs [162] to [167] of the Child Care decision47.
[152] The parties have not been able to agree the internal relativities, with the exception of those for levels FB7 and FB8. The differences between the parties’ proposals as to those relativities (and the effect on the award wage rate ) are as follows:
FB6 |
786.35 |
136 |
FB6 |
751.66 |
130 |
FB5 |
676.50 |
117 |
FB5 |
653.37 |
113 |
FB4 |
641.80 |
111 |
FB4 |
630.24 |
109 |
FB3 |
578.20 |
100 |
FB2 |
566.65 |
98 |
FB2 |
549.29 |
95 |
FB1 |
543.50 |
94 |
FB1 |
503.03 |
87 |
[The UFU proposal is in bold font and the ACTFB proposal is in italics]
[153] While I have taken into account the evidence concerning the types of persons selected through what I accept is a very arduous selection process for admission to the recruit training college, I am not prepared to accept the relativity proposed by the UFU for the FB1 or recruit firefighter. In my view, the more appropriate relativity for a novice undergoing initial training is more rationally set at about the level proposed by the ACTFB. The relativity for the recruit FB1 firefighter will be set at 88% of the FB3 level. The evidence is that this is the approximate relativity that currently applies to recruits and I am not satisfied that it should be altered. In setting this relativity I have also had regard to the evidence presented in Exhibit UFU 42, which sets out the approximate relativities for employees at the recruit level in brigades in other jurisdictions. While noting the general agreement that it is difficult to compare the situation in the ACT with that in other brigades, I have determined that a relativity of 88% is appropriate.
[154] Nor do I accept that a newly trained recruit with little on-the-job experience warrants a relativity of 98% as against a fully competent firefighter. While I accept that recruits receive a great deal more training today (and more advanced training at that) than was the case in the past, I give weight to the evidence of those witnesses who stated that theoretical and practical training is no substitute for experience under real conditions where lives are at risk. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the appropriate relativity for the FB2 firefighter is 95%, as proposed by the ACTFB. Setting the relativity at that level will take account of the work value increase that I accept has occurred since 1990 to the role of the firefighter newly graduated from recruit college.
[155] As already noted, the parties are agreed, and the Commission is satisfied, that the FB3 firefighter is the appropriate classification for the 100% nexus with the C10 rate from the Metals Award.
[156] It is proposed that a firefighter who has served at least one year at the FB3 level and has the requisite skills and experience will access the FB4 level. Even taking account of the additional skills and experience acquired, I am not satisfied that the internal relativity for this level should be set at 111% at proposed by the UFU. The ACTFB have suggested that this relativity be set at 109% and given that the FB4 is equivalent to the broadband of the current First Class Firefighters Grade B and Grade A, I accept that that relativity is supportable.
[157] So far as the proposed FB5 level is concerned, I have taken into account the quasi-managerial responsibilities to be assumed at this level, and the additional experience and training received during the two year period a firefighter must remain at the FB4 level before accessing this rank, in determining that the appropriate relativity to be applied is 115%. I do not accept that is appropriate in all cases to merely adopt the highest, or for that matter the lowest, relativity that is applicable where a number of classifications are broad-banded into a new classification. In my view, setting the relativity at 115% recognises that the new single Senior Firefighter grade no longer has a premium attached to the acquisition of Station Officer qualifications, as is currently the case, but recognises the significant responsibilities assumed at this level and the experience acquired.
[158] Having proposed the collapsing of four levels of Station Officer into one FB6 level, the parties disagree as to the relativity that should attach to that level. The UFU is consistent in the proposal that the highest current relativity (136% according to the formula set out in Exhibit UFU 62) should apply, while the ACTFB argues for 130% at the lower end of the range. The evidence is clear that all Station Officers are expected to perform at the highest of the current grades and that the position is one of significant managerial responsibility. The lowest grade of Station Officer currently has an internal relativity of 10% over that of the highest level of Senior Firefighter. At the highest level of Station Officer the relativity is set at 18%. In my view, the single level Station Officer salary level should be 16% higher than the FB5 level (i.e. 131%).
[159] The relativities for District Officer and Superintendent are not in dispute.
[160] In setting all the internal relativities I have had regard to the adjustments that have been made to the minimum rates for each proposed new level, the effect of the reduction of fourteen classification levels to eight, the increases in work value that have been recognised through this process and that part of Principle 6 which states (my emphasis):
“In addition to meeting this test a party making a work value application will need to justify any change to wage relativities that might result not only within the relevant internal award structure but also against external classifications to which that structure is related. There must be no likelihood of wage leapfrogging arising out of changes in relative position.”
[161] I am also satisfied that there is no likelihood of wage leapfrogging arising out of the changes in relative position occurring as a result of this decision. The claim is based on factors largely peculiar to the ACT.
[162] The parties have reached agreement about the terms of the classification descriptors for the new classification structure to be included in the Award, with the exception of one term of the descriptor for new level FB3. It is the UFU claim that a firefighter at FB2 level who has been employed for a total period of 24 months (including the period of recruit training), and who meets the other requirements, should be entitled to access the FB3 level. The position taken by the ACTFB is that a firefighter should have served 24 months at the FB2 level in order to qualify as an FB3.
[163] I accept the evidence of the ACTFB witnesses (see paragraphs [76] and [86]) that the length of time served by a firefighter on the job is particularly important when assessing skills and competencies. I am satisfied, however, on the evidence presented by the UFU (see paragraph [115]) that, given the level of training provided to new recruits and the additional training provided to an FB2 firefighter, a firefighter who has been employed for a total period of 2 years (4 months spent at recruit college and 20 months experience at the FB2 level) can be considered fully competent and able to access the FB3 level, so long as the other requirements are satisfied.
New Allowances
[164] The UFU has also applied to vary the Award to insert five new allowances:
[165] As already noted, the ACTFB agrees new allowances recognising those specialist functions should be included in the Award, but does not agree with the quantum claimed by the UFU, or the circumstances in which four of the allowances should be paid.
[166] Principle 6(c) provides that:
(c) Where new or changed work justifying a higher rate is performed only from time to time by persons covered by a particular classification, or where it is performed only by some of the persons covered by the classification, such new or changed work should be compensated by a special allowance which is payable only when the new or changed work is performed by a particular employee and not by increasing the rate for the classification as a whole.
[167] The parties have agreed firefighters who are on the fire investigation roster should be paid a new allowance of $80 per fortnight while so rostered. Given the evidence 48 before me about the duties and responsibilities of members of this roster and the skills and training required to enable firefighters to qualify for the roster, I have determined that the claim for this allowance should be granted in full.
[168] In relation to the other claimed allowances I have determined that, consistent with Principle 6 (c) and in accordance with the position put by the ACTFB, each of the proposed new allowances should be paid only where the relevantly qualified firefighter is rostered on an appliance for which the possession of the particular skill is a minimum requirement for crewing or is called in to assist on the appliance.
[169] So far as the quanta of the allowances are concerned, I have had regard to Exhibit UFU63, the comparison chart of allowances paid under the industrial instruments that apply to Brigades in other jurisdiction. I have also noted the ACTFB submission that these comparisons must be read in light of the higher base rate that applies to the ACT, especially as a result of this work value exercise. I have also taken into account the training involved in acquiring these specialist skills and the fact that it, and the skills acquired, formed part of the overall work value claim. Nevertheless, I accept that these skills are especially significant and those who acquire and exercise them should receive additional compensation.
[170] The allowances paid for similar skills in other jurisdictions do not make for easy comparisons as they are often expressed as an additional percentage on top of the normal wage or as an hourly or weekly amount. The allowances sought by the UFU are expressed to be paid per shift. Given that some recognition has already been given through the work value process to these skills it is my view that the quantum for each allowance should be set as follows:
[171] I have based these figures on the proposed values put on each allowance by each party, a consideration of the allowances paid in other jurisdictions, the work value recognition already afforded to the skills, the evidence given by the relevant witnesses and my own observations of the equipment and skills attached to the various areas of expertise.
The Order
[172] In reaching these conclusions I have determined that the Award as varied will contain properly fixed minimum rates as required by the legislation. I am also satisfied that the variations I am prepared to make to the Award meet the requirements of the legislation and the Statement of Principles. 49
[173] I am prepared to make an order varying the Award to give effect to this decision. It is my intention that the order giving effect to this decision will take effect from the first full pay period on or after the date of this decision.
[174] The parties are directed to lodge an agreed draft order to give effect to this decision with the Commission on or before 6 March 2006.
BY THE COMMISSION:
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code C>
ANNEXURE A
s.113 APPLICATION BY UNITED FIREFIGHTERS’ UNION OF AUSTRALIA TO VARY THE FIREFIGHTING INDUSTRIES EMPLOYEES (ACT FIRE BRIGADE) AWARD 2000
Form R6 Rule 22
Workplace Relations Act 1996
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
Application to Set Aside or Vary an Award
In the matter of:
Firefighting Industries Employees (ACT Fire Brigade) Award 2000
Application is made by the United Firefighters’ Union of Australia, ACT Branch for the variation of the abovementioned award in the following terms:
1. Clause 4: By deleting the existing words and inserting in substitution:
4.1 In this award:
“the Brigade” means the A.C.T. Fire Brigade;
“Chief Officer” has the same meaning as chief officer (fire brigade) in section 29 of the Emergencies Act;
“comcen” means the A.C.T. Fire Brigade Communication Centre;
“the Commission” means the Australian Industrial Relations Commission;
“the Commissioner” means the ACT Emergency Services Commissioner appointed under section 18 of the Emergencies Act;
“the Emergencies Act” means the Emergencies Act 2004 (ACT);
“employee” means a person employed under the Public Sector Management Act 1994 (ACT) in any of the classifications listed under clause 14 of this award;
“employer” means the Minister in the Australian Capital Territory with responsibility for the Brigade;
“employees relieving” means any employee serving at a station other than that to which he/she is permanently attached;
“firefighter” has the same meaning as “employee”;
“Member” means a member of the Brigade;
Prior service with the NSW Fire Brigade, for the purpose of compiling credits for long service leave and sick leave, will be taken to be service with the Brigade where:
(a) an employee accepted appointment to the Brigade pursuant to the A.C.T. Fire Brigade (Administration) Act 1974 (Cth); and
(b) acceptance was made within nine months of the commencement of that Act.
“relieving employee” means an employee serving at stations whilst not being permanently attached to any one station and any one platoon;
“roster system” means the arrangement of shifts as worked by rostered and non-rostered shift work staff;
“the Union” means the United Firefighters’ Union of Australia and the United Firefighters’ Union, ACT Branch;
“Watchroom” operator means the employee in charge of the watchroom at comcen.
2. By deleting the words “Fire Commissioner” and “Chief Executive” and inserting in substitution “Chief Officer”.
3. Clause 8.2: By deleting the existing words and inserting in substitution:
National Training Wage Award 2000
A party to this award will comply with the terms of the National Training Wage Award 2000 [AW790899CAN], as varied, as though bound by clause 4 of that award.
4. Clause 14: By deleting the existing words and inserting in substitution:
14. CLASSIFICATIONS AND CAREER PROGRESSION
CLASSIFICATIONS
14.1 The classifications under this award are as follows:
Firefighter Level 1 (Recruit) (FB1)
14.1.1 A Firefighter Level 1 is an employee who, having satisfied the minimum entry requirements of the Brigade as determined by the Chief Officer, has entered into and is completing the Brigade’s recruit training program.
14.1.2 An employee at this level:
(a) undertakes sufficient training and acquires sufficient skills so as to meet the requirements of the Brigade to perform its functions under the Emergencies Act;
(b) undertakes sufficient training to enable him or her to work effectively as part of an emergency response team;
(c) undertakes sufficient training to become competent to perform the duties of a firefighter in accordance with the policies and standard operating procedures of the Brigade; and
(d) maintains standards of behaviour and performance as determined by the Chief Officer.
Firefighter Level 2 (FB2)
14.1.3 A Firefighter Level 2 is an employee who:
(a) has successfully completed the Brigade’s recruit training program; and
(b) in the opinion of the Chief Officer, possesses sufficient knowledge and experience to perform duties at this level.
14.1.4 An employee at this level:
(a) as part of an emergency response team responds to and deals with the type of incidents referred to in Part 4.2 of the Emergencies Act;
(b) under direct supervision, assists Station Officers in the command, control and co-ordination of personnel and resources;
(c) under supervision in a team environment provides assistance to more senior employees including subject matter advice and techinical support;
(d) assists in the implementation of Brigade training and skills acquisition in conjunction with senior staff;
(e) understands and applies relevant legislation, regulations and Brigade policy to a degree appropriate to this level; and
(f) represents the Brigade at various functions in an official capacity.
Firefighter Level 3 (FB3)
14.1.5 A Firefighter Level 3 is an employee who:
(a) has completed 2 years’ satisfactory service as a firefighter;
(b) has achieved the required competencies and Brigade specific training to enable him or her to perform the duties of this level; and
(c) in the opinion of the Chief Officer possesses sufficient knowledge and experience to perform duties at this level.
14.1.6 An employee at this level:
(a) works above and beyond an employee at the FB2 level;
(b) as part of an emergency response team responds to and deals with the types of incidents referred to in Part 4.2 of the Emergencies Act;
(c) assists more senior classification level employees in the command, control and co-ordination of personnel and resources;
(d) under supervision and as part of a team provides leadership and assistance including subject matter advice and technical support;
(e) undertakes and completes tasks of a technical and complex nature in high pressure emergency where time critical actions and decisions are required;
(f) assists in the implementation of Brigade training and skills acquisition in conjunction with more senior classifications;
(g) understands and applies relevant legislation and Brigade policy appropriate to this level; and
(h) represents the Brigade at various functions in an official capacity.
Firefighter Level 4 (FB4)
14.1.7 A Firefighter Level 4 is an employee who:
(a) has completed 1 years’ satisfactory service at FB3;
(b) possesses the required competencies and has completed the Brigade specific training to perform the duties of this level; and
(c) in the opinion of the Chief Officer possesses sufficient knowledge and experience to perform duties at this level.
14.1.8 An employee at this level:
(a) works above and beyond an employee at the FB3 level;
(b) as part of an emergency response team responds to and deals with the types of incidents referred to in Part 4.2 of the Emergencies Act;
(c) under limited direction assists Station Officers in the command, control and co-ordination of personnel and resources;
(d) undertakes tasks of a highly complex technical nature, in often high pressure emergency situations;
(e) assists higher level employees in providing leadership, guidance and assistance including technical advice under limited supervision in a team environment;
(f) assists in the investigation and presentation of information to more senior officers;
(g) assists senior staff in the development and co-ordination of identified areas of training and skills acquisition in conjunction with supervisors and trainers;
(h) understands and applies relevant legislation and Brigade policy appropriate to this level; and
(i) represents the Brigade at various functions in an official capacity.
Firefighter Level 5 (Senior Firefighter) (FB5)
14.1.9 A Firefighter Level 5 is an employee who:
(a) has completed 2 years’ satisfactory service at FB4;
(b) has the required competencies and Fire Brigade specific training to work at this level; and
(c) in the opinion of the Chief Officer possesses sufficient knowledge and experience to perform duties at this level.
14.1.10 An employee at this level:
(a) as part of an emergency response team responds to and deals with the types of incidents referred to in Part 4.2 of the Emergencies Act;
(b) assists in the command, control and co-ordination of personnel and resources under the direction of higher level employees;
(c) provides leadership, guidance and assistance including technical advice under limited supervision in a team environment;
(d) assists in the development and co-ordination of identified areas of training and skills acquisition in conjunction with supervisors and trainers;
(e) possesses knowledge in technical and administrative areas of the Brigade including relevant legislation, standard operating procedures, memoranda of understanding and policy; and
(f) represents the Brigade at various functions in an official capacity.
Firefighter Level 6 (Station Officer) (FB6)
14.1.11 A Firefighter Level 6 (Station Officer) (FB6) is an employee who:
(a) has completed 7 years’ satisfactory service as a firefighter;
(b) has the required competencies and Fire Brigade specific training to perform at this level; and
(c) in the opinion of the Chief Officer possesses sufficient management knowledge and experience to perform duties at this level.
14.1.12 An employee at this level:
(a) as part of an emergency response team responds to and deals with the types of incidents referred to in Part 4.2 of the Emergencies Act;
(b) commands, controls and co-ordinates resources and personnel in an emergency environment;
(c) provides leadership, guidance and assistance including technical and/or professional advice across a range of Brigade activities;
(d) manages the operation of an organisational element, programme or activity;
(e) develops, co-ordinates and oversees specific areas of training needs and development opportunities for Brigade staff;
(f) under limited direction, provides high level administrative and technical support to the Brigade;
(g) provides subject matter expertise or policy advice including technical or professional advice, across a wide range of programmes or activities;
(h) undertake, manage and complete tasks of a highly technical and complex nature;
(i) possesses knowledge in technical and administrative areas of the Brigade including relevant legislation, standard operating procedures, memoranda of understanding and policy; and
(j) represents the Brigade at various functions in an official capacity.
Firefighter Level 7 (District Officer) (FB7)
14.1.13 A Firefighter Level 7 (District Officer) (FB7) is an employee who:
(a) has been employed at the FB6 level for a minimum of two years;
(b) has the required competencies and Fire Brigade specific training to perform at this level; and
(c) in the opinion of the Chief Officer possesses sufficient advanced management knowledge and experience to perform duties at this level.
14.1.14 An employee at this level:
(a) as part of a senior management emergency response team responds to and deals with the types of incidents referred to in Part 4.2 of the Emergencies Act;
(b) commands and controls significant resources at emergency incidents that demand a high degree of thought and judgment;
(c) provides expert, complex and technical advice to senior staff about policy and planning;
(d) in conjunction with project managers, plans, develops, co-ordinates and oversees major, complex and technical Brigade functions;
(e) possesses a high degree of knowledge in technical and administrative areas of the Brigade including legislation, policies, procedures, memoranda of understanding and agreements;
(f) liaises with staff at a functional/agency level to achieve organisational outcomes;
(g) represents the Brigade in an official capacity at meetings, conferences, seminars and in legal and industrial proceedings; and
(h) final authority in relation to a range of matters may be exercised at this level.
Firefighter Level 8 (Superintendent) (FB8)
14.1.15 A Firefighter Level 8 (Superintendent) (FB8) is an employee who:
(a) has been employed at the FB7 level;
(b) has the required competencies and Fire Brigade specific training to perform at this level; and
(c) in the opinion of the Chief Officer possesses sufficient advanced management knowledge and experience to perform duties at this level.
14.1.14 An employee at this level:
(a) as part of a senior management emergency response team responds to and deals with the types of incidents referred to in Part 4.2 of the Emergencies Act;
(b) commands and controls significant resources at emergency incidents that demand a high degree of thought and judgment;
(c) provides highly complex and technical policy and planning advice to the Chief Officer and/or Government agencies;
(d) plans, develops, co-ordinates and oversees major, specialised and highly complex Brigade functions and projects;
(e) works at a strategic level with complex matters often involving multiple agencies and jurisdictions to achieve coordinated outcomes;
(f) possesses expert knowledge in technical and administrative areas of the Brigade including legislation, policies, procedures and industrial relations;
(g) constantly adapts principles to new and unusual problems and deals with frequent policy changes; and
(h) represents the Brigade in an official capacity at meetings, conferences, seminars and legal proceedings at a local, national and international level.
CAREER PROGRESSION
14.2 Progression through the classification levels within the ranks of the Brigade will be as set out in this clause 14.2.
14.2.1 Eligibility for all progressions will be on the basis of qualification by examination and/or practical assessment of skills acquired and used and training requirements, within the scope of the classification, on such being certified to in writing as part of the assessment process.
14.2.2 Where the assessment review is delayed, the eligible date will not be changed, and the increase, if any, will be paid retrospectively to that date.
14.2.3 A FB1 level employee will progress to FB2 level upon graduation from the Brigade’s recruit training college.
14.2.4 A FB2 level employee will progress to the FB3 level upon:
(a) satisfactory completion of 2 years’ service as a firefighter; and
(b) meeting the other criteria referred to in clause 14.1.5.
14.2.5 A FB3 level employee will progress to the FB4 level upon:
(a) satisfactory completion of 1 years’ service at the FB3 level; and
(b) meeting the other criteria referred to in clause 14.1.7.
14.2.6 A FB4 level employee who meets the criteria referred to in clause 14.1.9(a) is eligible to sit the qualifying examination for the FB5 level.
14.2.7 A FB5 level employee who meets the criteria referred to in clause 14.1.11(a) is eligible to sit the qualifying examination for the FB6 level.
14.2.8 A FB5 level employee who has passed the requisite examinations referred to in clause 14.2.7 and has completed 7 years service as a firefighter and meets the other criteria referred to in clause 14.1.11 is eligible to sit the qualifying examinations for the FB6 level.
14.2.9 A FB5 level employee who has passed the requisite examinations referred to in clause 14.2. 7 and has completed 8 years service as a firefighter and meets the other criteria referred to in clause 14.1.9 is eligible to sit the qualifying examinations for the FB 7 level.
14.2.10 A FB6 level employee who meets the criteria referred to in clause 14.1.13 is eligible to apply to the Chief Officer for progression to the FB7 level.
14.2.11 A FB7 level employee who meets the criteria referred to in clause 14.1.15 is eligible to apply to the Chief Officer for progression to the FB8 level.
5. Clause 15: By deleting clause 15 and inserting in substitution:
15. WAGE RATES
15.1 The following rates of pay will be the minimum weekly pay for each of the following classifications:
Classification |
Minimum Weekly
|
Relativity
|
FB8 |
1,000.30 |
173 |
FB7 |
873.10 |
151 |
FB6 |
786.35 |
136 |
FB5 |
676.50 |
117 |
FB4 |
641.80 |
111 |
FB3 |
578.20 |
100 |
FB2 |
566.65 |
98 |
FB1 |
543.50 |
94 |
15.1.1 Employees will be paid an allowance calculated at 30% on the respective minimum rates set out in 15.1 instead of shift allowances and weekend and public holiday rates over a normal roster cycle.
15.1.2 In addition each employee will be paid an amount of $42.61 per week as an Industry Allowance.
15.2 Arbitrated safety net adjustments
15.2.1 Arbitrated safety net adjustment
The rates of pay in this award include the arbitrated safety net adjustment payable under the Safety Net Review—Wages June 2005 decision [PR002005]. This arbitrated safety net adjustment may be offset against any equivalent amount in rates of pay received by employees whose wages and conditions of employment are regulated by this award which are above the wage rates prescribed in the award. Such above award payments include wages payable pursuant to certified agreements, currently operating enterprise flexibility agreements, Australian Workplace Agreements, award variations to give effect to enterprise agreements and over-award arrangements. Absorption which is contrary to the terms of an agreement is not required.
Increases made under previous National Wage Case principles or under the current Statement of Principles, excepting those resulting from enterprise agreements, are not to be used to offset arbitrated safety net adjustments.
6. Clause 16.3.2: By deleting “$50” and inserting in substitution “$62”.
7. Clause 16.9.3: By deleting “$50” and inserting in substitution “$62”.
8. Clause 18.1.2: By deleting “$14.15” and inserting in substitution “$16.69”.
9. Clause 18.4.1(c): By deleting “$14.15” and inserting in substitution “$16.69”.
10. Clause 27.1: By deleting “$6.44” and inserting in substitution “$7.58”.
11. Clause 27.2.3: By deleting “47.0 cents” and “53.1 cents” and inserting in substitution “51 cents” and “61 cents”, respectively.
12. Clause 28.1.1: By deleting “$22.13” and inserting in substitution “$26.78”.
13. Clause 29: By deleting the existing words and inserting in substitution:
DRIVE AND OPERATE BRIGADE VEHICLES
An employee who drives and operates a Brigade appliance or vehicle will be paid as follows:
Driver of turntable ladder, snorkel, mobile tender |
$27.53 per fortnight |
Driver of any other firefighting vehicle |
$15.36 per fortnight |
All other drivers |
$12.l9 per fortnight |
14. Clause 30: By deleting the existing words and inserting in substitution:
SPECIAL ALLOWANCES
An employee rostered for or called upon to perform the following duties will be paid as follows:
In charge of self contained breathing apparatus locker |
$27.85 per fortnight |
Member of Fire investigation roster |
$80.00 per fortnight |
Qualified to wear self contained BA |
$24.37 per fortnight |
Hazmat CBR level 2 operator |
$15.00 per shift |
Vertical rescue level 2 operator |
$12.00 per shift |
USAR level 2 operator |
$15.00 per shift |
Compressed Foam Appliance level 2 operator |
$8.00 per shift |
Carry out duties as a driving instructor |
$1.57 per shift |
15. Clause 31: By deleting “$20.90” and inserting in substitution “$25.29”.
16. Clause 32.1: By deleting “$23.02” and inserting in substitution “$27.85”.
17. Clause 32.3: By deleting “$28.69” and inserting in substitution “$34.71”.
18. Clause 33.6: By deleting “the Chief Executive” and inserting in substitution “the Chief Officer”.
The grounds on which this application is made are as follows:
1. The ground on which the variations sought at paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 17 above are made is to reflect legislative changes applicable to employment under this award.
2. The ground on which the variations sought at paragraphs 4 and 5 above is that changes in the nature of the work, skill and responsibility required or the conditions under which work is performed under the Award since the date of operation of the second structural efficiency adjustment allowable under the August 1989 National Wage Case constitute such a significant net addition to work requirements when assessed against Principle 6 of the National Wage Case Principles set out at Attachment A to the Safety Net Review—Wages June 2005 decision [PR002005] as to warrant the creation of new classifications or upgrading of classifications to higher classifications.
3. The ground on which the variations sought at paragraphs 5 — 16 is that the subject matter relates to allowances and service increments and variation is sought in accordance with Principle 5 of the Commission’s Statement of Principles set out at Attachment A to its Safety Net Review—Wages June 2005 decision [PR002005].
Dated: 20 September 2005.
Brett Baulman
Secretary, United Firefighters Union of Australia, ACT Branch
ANNEXURE B
CLASSIFICATION STRUCTURE CURRENTLY CONTAINED IN THE
FIREFIGHTING INDUSTRIES EMPLOYEES (ACT FIRE BRIGADE) AWARD 2000
14. WAGE RATES AND CLASSIFICATIONS
14.1 Promotions within the ranks of the Brigade are determined pursuant to the Act. Eligibility for all progression shall be on the basis of qualification by examination and/or assessment of skills acquired and utilised and training requirements, within the ambit of the rank or classification, on such being certified to in writing as part of the assessment process.
Where the assessment review is delayed, the eligible date shall not be changed, and the increase, if any, will be paid retrospectively to that date.
14.1.1 Firefighter ranks
14.1.1(a) Members seeking promotion to the next highest rank, up to and including Firefighter first class B grade, will be promoted after completion of one year of service at their current rank, and satisfying the eligibility criteria provided in 14.1 whichever is the latter.
14.1.1(b) Members holding the rank of Firefighter first class B grade are eligible to sit the qualifying exam for the rank of Senior Firefighter.
14.1.1(c) Members who complete one year of service at the rank of Firefighter first class B grade and satisfy the eligibility criteria provided in 14.1 in respect of that rank will be promoted to the rank of Firefighter first class A grade.
14.1.1(d) Members who complete one or more years of service at the rank of Firefighter first class A grade, and who satisfy the eligibility criteria provided in 14.1 for the rank of Senior Firefighter, will be promoted to the rank of Senior Firefighter.
14.1.1(e) Members holding the rank of Senior Firefighter, and satisfy the eligibility criteria provided in 14.1 in respect of that rank, are eligible to sit the qualifying examination for the rank of Station Officer.
14.1.1(f) Senior Firefighters who are qualified by examination for the rank of Station Officer, and who have completed eight years service, are eligible to sit the qualifying examination for the rank of District Officer.
14.1.2 Officer ranks
14.1.2(a) Senior Firefighters who have completed two years service at that rank in the ACT Fire Brigade, and who satisfy the eligibility criteria provided in 14.1 in respect of Station Officer, are eligible to apply for promotion to the rank of Station Officer (D grade).
14.1.2(b) Members who gain recognition or credits for any qualification that are relevant to Station Officer rank must, in addition, pass the ACT Fire Brigade qualifying Administration and Drill examination subjects for the rank of Station Officer.
14.1.2(c) Members holding the rank of Station Officer are eligible to sit the qualifying examination for the rank of District Officer.
14.1.2(d) Members who have completed two years service at the rank of Station Officer D grade, and who satisfy the eligibility criteria provided in 14.1 will be promoted to the rank of Station Officer grade C.
14.1.2(e) Members who have completed two years service at the rank of Station Officer C grade, and who satisfy the eligibility criteria provided in 14.1 will be promoted to the rank of Station Officer grade B.
14.1.2(f) Members who have completed two years service at the rank of Station Officer B grade, and who satisfy the eligibility criteria provided in 14.1 will be promoted to the rank of Station Officer grade A.
14.1.2(g) Members who have completed two years service at Station Officer rank, and who satisfy the eligibility criteria provided in 14.1 in respect of District Officer, will be promoted to the rank of Station Officer A grade.
14.1.2(h) Members who gain recognition or credits for any qualifications that are relevant to District Officer rank must, in addition, pass the ACT Fire Brigade qualifying Administration and Oral examination subjects for the rank of District Officer.
14.1.2(i) Members who have completed two years service at Station Officer rank in the ACT Fire Brigade, and who satisfy the eligibility criteria provided in 14.1 in respect of District Officer, are eligible to apply for promotion to the rank of District Officer.
14.1.2(j) Members who have completed two years service at the rank of Station Officer A grade, and who satisfy the eligibility criteria provided in 14.1 in respect of District Officer, are eligible to apply for promotion to the rank of Superintendent.
1 set out as Annexure A to this decision
2 set out at Attachment A to the Safety Net Review – Wages June 2005 decision [PR002005]
3 Print C7189
4 Print E6122
5 Print J1392
6 Print J5009
7 AW781166
9 Exhibit UFU 45
10 Exhibit UFU 46
11 The Australian Emergency Management Institute (1996), Record of the Urban Search and Rescue Workshop: 9-12 September 1996, Mt Macedon Paper Number 7/1996, page 11 [Annexure to Exhibit UFU 47]
12 Exhibit UFU 47
13 Exhibit UFU 48
14 Exhibit UFU 51
15 Exhibit UFU 53
16 Exhibit UFU 53
17 Exhibit UFU 54
18 Fire Brigade Act 1957, section 10
19 E exhibit UFU 55
20 Exhibit UFU 55A
21 Exhibit UFU 55A
22 Exhibit UFU 56
23 Exhibit UFU 57
24 Exhibit ACT 10
25 Exhibit UFU 60
26 Exhibit UFU 61
27 Exhibit UFU 50
28 Exhibit UFU 50, paragraph 35
29 Exhibit ACT 12
30 Emergencies Act 2004, section 44(4)
31 Exhibit ACT 14
32 Exhibit ACT 13
33 Exhibit ACT 15
34 Exhibit ACT 16, paragraphs 18-30
35 Exhibit ACT 18
36 Print J5009
37 AW789529
38 Exhibit UFU 62
39 Exhibit UFU 30
40 Exhibit ACT 19
41 Exhibit ACT 14, paragraphs 26-31
42 Clerks (Breweries) Consolidated Award, 1985 case [Print R9120]
43 PR002005
44 Re Child Care Industry (Australian Capital Territory) Award 1998 [PR954938]
45 Re Child Care Industry (Australian Capital Territory) Award 1998 [PR954938]
47 Re Child Care Industry (Australian Capital Territory) Award 1998 [PR954938]
48 Exhibit UFU55
49 For a discussion of the relevant matters to which I have had regard in reaching this conclusion, see paragraphs 142-155 of Re Child Care Industry (Australian Capital Territory) Award 1998 [PR954938], as set out in full at paragraph [148] of this decision