Cuts in Response to Sprinklered Buildings

Attached is a self‐explanatory letter from the Union to Mike Hall which seeks the information that he presumably based his decision to cut responses to Sprinklered Buildings.

The Union can find no evidence that “International Best Practice” is to cut responses to sprinklered buildings to two appliances – but obviously Mike Hall has that evidence and will quickly provide it to the Union for our consideration.

Interestingly “International Best Practice” must also allow single appliance responses to continue if that is what has historically been provided. Obviously then, it’s a very flexible “International Best Practice”.

The Union has seen no evidence that “Senior Fire Officers have reviewed all buildings with a sprinkler installed to asses their risk”. Maybe they did this during their weekends.

Mike Hall obviously has that evidence and will quickly provide it to the Union for our consideration.

Similarly, the Union looks forward to considering the list of buildings designated by Senior Fire Officers as high risk.

The benefits claimed for this cut in response is less traffic congestion and less traffic accidents.

Again, the Union looks forward to the evidence of any such benefit. Any benefits would have to be both significant and measurable to outweigh the obvious additional risks the cuts will create.

Will the hard evidence that Mike Hall must have based his decision to cut responses be quickly provided as requested by the Union? And, if it isn’t forthcoming – why not?

Crude Attempt to Blackmail Won't Work

Members were advised in the last Newsletter that the breakdown of the lump sum/back‐pay would be provided within the next 2 weeks. The Fire Service has now told the Union that they will refuse to supply this information unless the Union withdraws its application to the Employment Relations Authority for a penalty regarding the late payment of the new wage rates/back‐pay.

There is no connection and never has been a connection between the late payment of new wage ates/back‐pay Dispute and the commitment made by the Fire Service negotiating team to provide a full breakdown of the lump sum/back‐pay.

Such a connection has never been raised with the Union at any of the discussions on the format/detail of the breakdown.

This crude attempt at blackmail is a complete breach of good faith.

It will not work.

The Union will not withdraw its application in the E.R.A.

The Fire Service has been explicitly told this and told they must honour the commitment made to provide the breakdown. If they do not honour this commitment, the Union will pursue this breach of good faith in the E.R.A. as well.

TAPs Evaluation

The Union repeats its advice as in Newsletter 8 – 22 March to complete and return this valuation in order to ensure that any necessary modifications to TAPs Programmes can be firmly based on information provided from all involved with TAPs programmes.