Archive for This forum is for serving or retired firefighters from the LFB. This is the place to have a moan, have a laugh and maybe even get some proper answers to some time honoured and new questions
“What are you doin’ “I can’t go sick Guv.
‘ere? You should be off I’ll lose my right to
sick!” part time, pre-arranged
overtime and now…
I’ll lose my CPD money!”
Introduction
Increasingly, sickness is becoming the major component of our contract of employment with the Authority. Sickness is now linked to eligibility for Pre-Arranged Overtime (PAO), the right to partake in Outside Employment (OE ), Promotion, and now, eligibility for Continual Professional Development (CPD) payment. Further to this, we already have a Disciplinary Procedure which covers sickness, Attendance-managers guidance 2005. A debate needs to take place about the impact of these policies on FBU members and the fairness of their implementation.
Attendance - Managers Guidance. (Formally the Absence control policy)
The first thing to acknowledge on any debate about sickness is, if any fire-fighter is abusing their right to sick pay, we as professional fire-fighters and Union members should have no sympathy for them. If it is proven under the policy that they have abused their right to sick pay, then it is right that they are subject to disciplinary procedures. Therefore, it is also right that if any employee has not been subject to disciplinary action after an investigation from their line manager, it must be accepted that they have done nothing wrong and should not be subjected to any detrimental sanctions.
Due to Service Sickness (DTSS)
The Authority makes a clear distinction between DTSS and Non -DTSS when deciding eligibility for PAO, OE, CPD payments or Promotion. It’s accepted that morally, there would be real problems in withholding eligibility for the above if a fire-fighter injured them selves at an incident, and this is why the distinction is made.
Imagine; if a fire-fighter suffered burns after rescuing a child from the top of a ladder at a fire, and the Authority withheld their CPD payment, because they were off sick recovering from burns. There would be an outrage in the press. The Authority covers itself here by making a clear distinction between DTSS and Non DTSS.
The Law however, makes no such distinction. It is irrelevant how or where any employee becomes unwell for work, you are entitled to Statutory sick pay. Therefore, it is irrelevant when deciding on eligibility for PAO, OE, CPD, or Promotion whether your sickness is caused by either DTS sickness or non DTS sickness.
In the guidance note for managers it states that 'all sickness is to be treated as genuine'. Compliance with the Statute would dictate that there must be no distinction or imposed penalties for non DTS sickness.
Outside Employment (OE)
The question is often asked “why can the Authority tell me what to do on my days off?” The answer is simple; if you injure yourself whilst partaking in OE you still claim sick pay from the Authority. Therefore the Authority has every right, in fact a duty, to have a policy that can make you refrain from partaking in that employment. There is no argument against this. But if a fire-fighter injures themselves whist taking part in a sport, and that could possibly be for the Brigade with facilities, or suffers a cold i.e. activity that has nothing to do with their OE, it is unjust and possibly unlawful to order that individual to cease from their OE or face discipline.
Pre- Arranged Overtime (PAO)
The introduction of PAO is a real benefit to the Authority for three reasons 1) It allows them to cover sickness; 2) It allows them to react to dynamic situations i.e. a major flood, or a shortage in skills, MD, TL, WM, etc; 3) It allows them to cover for a shortfall in the establishment. This is why management have always wanted to bring this policy in.
If one rider position in the Brigade is covered by PAO, this position being below the Authority establishment, the savings to the Authority are immense. As a rough guide - add up the cost of Initial Trainee Training, PPE clothing, other uniform, all statutory leave, National Insurance, Pension contribution (employers), periodic BA and FA courses and MD, TL, FRU, HVP CM, or WM courses. It runs into tens of thousands. If we then take into account Commutation and pension payments on retirement, that do not have to be met, the savings to the Authority run into hundreds of thousands and this is only for one rider position. Multiply that by however many below establishment rider positions are being covered by PAO and the savings to the Authority are colossal. By volunteering for PAO, i.e. working overtime, we are helping to run the Brigade more efficiently whilst saving the Authority money.
But yet again, if a fire-fighter becomes ill through no fault of their own and is legally eligible to report sick and claim Statutory sick pay, then, although an investigation from their line manager reveals that this is genuine certificated sickness and there is to be no action, this individual is automatically taken off this list for PAO.
Further to this, if the Authority requires certain skills, it will ignore its own policy and offer PAO to an individual that has been taken of the list. There is a premise in law that states, 'If any Rule is periodically broken, or broken when needs must, it is essentially a bad Rule, and has no place being in existence'. That premise applies to this Rule.
Continual Professional Development (CPD)
It is not unreasonable to proclaim that the new CPD agreement has caused confusion and anger amongst fire-fighters. We have seen a plethora of e-mails from Management and our Regional Officials trying to explain the detail of this new 'Agreement'. However, the detail is irrelevant in relation to the fact that we have now accepted a link between sickness and pay.
We have seen all our union officials trying to wash their hands from any blame. Region blames the National Union. The National Officials blame the deal they picked up after the Strike. This 'Deal' has taken the Trades Union Movement back fifty years and it will come back to bite all of the actors in this 'Deal'.
However, do not forget it is our present Employers who desperately wanted this link. Further to this, section 4 of the agreement states “Immediately after the implementation of this agreement, a joint working party is to be set up to consider the arraignments for payments in future years”. Again, it is not unreasonable to suspect the amount of sickness we are 'allowed' to have will be reduced.
Promotion
Genuine Statutory sick leave is also taken into account when deciding on an individual’s eligibility for promotion. Merit and ability are subordinate to the individual’s certificated sickness record.
Recently, all Crew managers who were acting up to Watch manager were required to complete a Role map to be allowed to continue acting up in the higher rank. Because an insufficient number of Crew manages fulfilled this task, all Crew managers acting in the role of Watch manager were automatically afforded this right (starred). It would be reasonable to assume that if every Crew manager had applied for a Star, sickness levels would have formed part of the criteria for eligibility to perform in the higher rank. Because the majority of Crew managers did not comply with the Authority policy, the policy was ignored.
It does not take a lot of imagination to realise how we can change other unjust policies such as the PAO policy.
Managed Sickness
One aspect of these policies the Authority fails to acknowledge is that, if an individual is abusing their sickness, that individual will manage their sickness to stay below the 21 days in a 3 year rolling period. If you are abusing your sickness you can do this. If your sickness is genuine you cannot. These policies work in reverse. Individuals who are abusing their sickness are still eligible for PAO, OE, CPD and Promotion, because they manage it. Those who are genuinely ill are penalised and awarded sanctions.
The Appeals Process
There is, as we know, an appeals process if an individual has been penalised for eligibility for PAO or OE as a result of sickness levels being above the Authority standard. There are however defects in this appeals process.
The Human Rights Act states as an implied Right that 'everybody is to be presumed innocent until proven guilty'. Our own Discipline Regulations state under the Auspices of Natural Justice that 'justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done'.
When an individual reaches the prescribed 21 days sick in 3 years they are automatically penalised; they are found guilty of abusing their Statutory Right to sick pay. They are then awarded sanctions; they lose the right to eligibility for PAO and OE. This whole process takes place without an investigation or a hearing. We are presumed 'guilty until proven innocent'. This conflicts with an Implied Right under the Human Rights Act, and conflicts with the Auspices of Natural Justice. It also conflicts with the Absence - Guidance for Managers, as the individual’s line manager has carried out an investigation and decided on no further action. This is not a Just appeals process.
Secondary effect
There are several secondary effects of these policies that are of particular concern.
Firstly, there is no longer a structured pay scale on stations. All members of the watch are earning vastly different amounts of pay. On many stations FF's are taking home larger amounts of money than the Watch officers. This causes Watch officers to re-evaluate their own worth, many asking themselves “What is the point?” It also affects their professionalism and their moral.
On many stations there have been reports of FF's waving their pay slips at Junior Officers boasting that they earn more money. This has the effect of FF's re-evaluating their worth and position on the Watch. It is genuinely accepted that the person in the highest authority, in any working team, is the person who earns the most money. In turn, this will lead to a breakdown in discipline on the Watch. A breakdown in discipline is detrimental to us, and detrimental to the London Fire Brigade.
These vastly different pay scales negate any chance of our Union campaigning for better pay or for better London Weighting. Those eligible for all the benefits will be financially secure. Those not eligible for the benefits will be struggling to make ends meet. If our Union tries to better our pay, half the watch will support this action and the other half will not. Until of course, they become ill and lose their eligibility.
Lastly, these policies can cause resentment on a Watch; it divides us - those who get it and those that do not. By complying with these policies, we are not 'looking after each other' - the most essential component of being a fire-fighter.
Conclusion
To recap
● We already have a policy to deal with absence control.
● The decisions of Line Managers are ignored.
● There is no Statutory distinction between DTSS and non-DTSS.
● The Outside Employment policy is unjust and possibly unlawful.
● With regard to PAO, we save the Authority vast amounts of money whilst complying with a policy that is detrimental to us.
● The Authority will step outside of its own policies when it suits.
● We have now accepted a link between sickness and pay.
● A reduction in 'allowed' sickness is plausible.
● Individuals who manage their sickness are not penalised.
● Those with genuine sickness are awarded sanctions.
● Genuine sickness affects Promotional prospects.
● Non-compliance from Crew managers has changed Authority policy.
● The appeals procedure is unjust.
● A breakdown of discipline is likely.
● Individuals’ moral on Watches is affected.
● Individual worth is re-evaluated.
● Unionised action is negated.
● We ignore the most essential element of being a Fire Fighter, 'we are not looking after each other'.
The Authority's year on year obsession with reducing sickness levels, has led it to tag a sickness policy onto every positive element of our Contract of Employment. Forgetting that it needs our compliance to these elements to function effectively. This has led to un-thoughtful, unjust, and possibly unlawful policy. This is policy on the hoof.
The policies are Draconian in the true meaning of the word, i.e. everybody is treated equally, and everybody is treated harshly. Statute, Medical Certification, Mitigation, Authority Policy, Fairness and Managerial Investigation are all ignored.
The Authority already has a policy to deal with any individual who is abusing their right to Statutory sick pay. If its own policy is not fit for purpose, the onus is on the Authority to change this. The rest of us must not suffer by default for an inadequate policy.
In the wake of the Warwickshire disaster every one from the Prime Minister down has been queuing up to pay tribute to Fire-Fighters. Surely as a group of workers, we are entitled to a proactive management style, rather than a reactive management style, i.e. the carrot before the stick. Why not an incentive such as; any individual who has an exemplary sickness record be allowed to take all four ACAS leave periods on duty days.
A moratorium needs to take place now, whilst our Regional officials and Management discuss a way to implement a more reasonable approach to certificated sickness. If this is not forthcoming we need to start a campaign now, which could possibly include legally balloted action of non-compliance, to make such a meeting happen.
I will end on a foot note. As a Watch Commander I recently had to carry out a Return to Work Interview for a fire-fighter who had been placed certificated sick by his Doctor, for a skin disease on his index finger. He asked me; if his Doctor had placed him Certificated sick, how can the Brigade tell him he is not entitled to CPD, PAO, or OE. I could not give him an answer, because there isn't one.
Support the Union. Remember, you are the Union.
Brendan French.
Blaze Bear
Just had this emiled to me
Officials at the FBU’s head office are currently in the process of producing further literature in respect of the campaign to defend ill-health and injury pensions. In particular, they are keen to hear from London members who attended the 7/7 bombings. It is a bitter irony that, if such an incident were to occur again, any firefighter who was seriously injured in the process of saving lives would be retired without a pension. Sadly, but entirely understandably, it might make firefighters think twice before entering such situations in the future.
Any firefighter wishing to comment on this – particularly those who attended 7/7 – is encouraged to respond, and we will forward your remarks to head office to be considered for publication.
smudger22
I've heard this banded around a few times recently, surely they can't be serious?
If so, why are we even attending incidents that may pose a danger to us?
The Brigade always wants that extra pound of flesh. Well if that's the way they want to go then we should stick together and refuse to enter any building involved in fire or that is anyway dangerous (after our own DRA) and stay safe outside.
I know that in reality all FFs will put the safety of others first before their own, but if that's what the Brigade want, maybe we should give it to them!
p.s.
As a foot note, if anyone knows who comes up with these hair brained ideas, please let us know.
