2007 WAIRC 00469
WESTERN AUSTRALIA FIRE SERVICE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2006
WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

PARTIES FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES AUTHORITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA AND UNITED FIREFIGHTERS UNION AUSTRALIA WEST AUSTRALIAN BRANCH
APPLICANT
-V-
(NOT APPLICABLE)
RESPONDENT
CORAM COMMISSIONER J L HARRISON
HEARD 4 DECEMBER 2006, 5 DECEMBER 2006, 6 DECEMBER 2006, 7 DECEMBER 2006, 18 DECEMBER 2006
DELIVERED TUESDAY, 22 MAY 2007
FILE NO. AG 68 OF 2006
CITATION NO. 2007 WAIRC 00469

Catchwords Agreement - Application for registration of an Agreement - Application for an order as to specified matters on which agreement has not been reached - Order issued - Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA) s 6, 3s 26 s 41, s 42G
Result Order issued

Representation Mr R Andretich of counsel for the Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia

Mr M Bromberg of counsel and Mr A Bandt of counsel for the United Firefighters Union Australia West Australian Branch


Contents
Paragraph
Background



2–5
Glossary of Terms


6
FESA Stations and Specialist Competencies

7
The Union’s claim


8-38

Enhanced Rescue Allowance (ERA)

9-30

Advanced First Aid Allowance (AFAA)

31-35

Communications Allowance (CA)

36-38
FESA’s Response to the Claim and Counter Proposal

39-48

Enhanced Rescue Allowance (ERA)

42-44

Advanced First Aid Allowance (AFAA)

45-47

Communications Allowance (CA)

48
Site Visits

49
Evidence

50-285

Union’s Witnesses

50

FESA’s witnesses

50

Union’s Evidence

51-187

FESA’s Evidence

188-285
Submissions

286-373

Union’s Submissions

286-348

FESA’s Submissions

349-373
Findings and Conclusions

374-435

ERA

380-411

AFAA

412-426

CA

427-433
Appendix A




Reasons for Decision

1 This is a joint application pursuant to s42G of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (“the Act”) whereby the parties have referred a range of matters to the Commission to be arbitrated for inclusion in an industrial agreement.
Background
2 After an application was lodged by the Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia (“FESA”) pursuant to s44 of the Act on 21 June 2006 the Commission convened conciliation conferences on 21 and 22 June 2006. At the conference held on 22 June 2006 FESA tabled a proposal to deal with the issues in dispute between the parties to progress negotiations towards the finalisation of a new industrial agreement to replace the Western Australian Fire Service Certified Agreement 2004 (“the 2004 Agreement”), an agreement registered in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission with an expiry date of 26 May 2006. Members of the United Firefighters Union Australia West Australian Branch (“the Union”) endorsed this proposal at a meeting held on 29 June 2006 and at a conference held on 30 June 2006 the parties agreed on a memorandum of understanding which detailed what was agreed and how the remaining issues in dispute were to be progressed.
3 The memorandum of understanding was as follows:
“The United Firefighters Union Australia (West Australia Branch) (“the Union”) and the Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia (“FESA”) endorse the following agreement:
1. Wages Increases
The Union and its members accept the following wage increases offered to the Union by FESA on 20 June 2006:
a. a wage increase of 4.5% from the first pay period commencing on or after 24 May 2006; and
b. a further 4% from the first pay period commencing on or after 24 May 2007.
These increases shall be paid upon receipt by FESA of the Union’s final claim of allowances and finalisation of areas of disagreement and actions to be taken to progress outstanding matters.
2. Allowances
In addition to the wage increases specified in point 1 the Union is to claim payment for a number of allowances which it believes its members should be paid. The Union will detail the allowances and quantum for each allowance it is seeking and the allowances and associated quantum not agreed to by FESA will be arbitrated by the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission (“the Commission”).
The range of allowances the Union will claim is quarantined to those allowances paid in the eastern states as set out in the comparison of interstate allowances document given to the Union on 16 June 2006 and allowances set out in attachment ‘C’ of FESA’s letter to the Union dated 20 June 2006.
If the Union wishes to claim any additional allowances it may do so but the operative date specified in point 5 will not apply to these allowances.
3. Additional Matters requiring further discussion
Within 21 days of the finalisation of this agreement the Commission will convene a conference to clarify outstanding areas of disagreement between the parties and to finalise a course of action to reach a resolution with respect to these issues, which will include regular feedback to the Commission and arbitration if necessary.
4. Industrial Agreement
The final outcome with respect to issues relating to points 1, 2 and 3 shall be registered in an industrial agreement pursuant to s41 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1979 which ceases on 24 May 2008.
5. Operative Date
The operative date for the payment of the first wage increase in point 1 above and any allowances resulting by agreement or by arbitration by the Commission in relation to point 2 will be the first pay period on or after 24 May 2006.
6. No further industrial action
It is a condition of this agreement that the Union and its members will not place any bans or limitations or take industrial action in support of its claims whilst the processes outlined in points 2 and 3 are taking place.
7. The parties accept that all matters that are arbitrated are in full and final settlement of this application.”
4 Given the consent of the parties the Commission as constituted determined that an order should issue in the terms of this agreement between the parties (see C 67 of 2006 unpublished 2006 WAIRC 04688 issued 30 June 2006).
5 Prior to the hearing of the outstanding matters the parties made a joint application to progress the issues in dispute under s42G of the Act as detailed in the agreed memorandum of understanding. Given the consent of the parties to this course of action and the Commission’s powers under s42G of the Act the issues in dispute will now be determined under s42G of the Act.
6 Glossary of Terms
2002 Agreement
Western Australian Fire Service Certified Agreement 2002
2004 Agreement
Western Australian Fire Service Certified Agreement 2004
Act
Industrial Relations Act 1979
AFC
Australian Fire Competencies
AFA
Advanced First Aid
AFAA
Advanced First Aid Allowance
AOES
Administer Oxygen in an Emergency Situation
BOMS
Brigade Operating Management System
CA
Communications Allowance
Cat 1, 2, 3
Category 1, 2, 3 (level of training)
CBR
Chemical, Biological, Radiological
CC
Communications Centre
CSO
Communications Systems Officer
CSR
Confined Space Rescue
DBA
Direct Brigade Alarms
EMR
Emergency Medical Response
ERA
Enhanced Rescue Allowance
ESL
Emergency Services Levy
FESA
Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia
Hazmat
Hazardous Materials
HR
Heavy/Technical Rescue
LR
Line Rescue
MD
Mass Decontamination
MFESB (Victorian)
Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Brigade (Victorian)
MPHR
Medium Pump Heavy Rescue
POD
Platform on Demand
PPE
Personal Protective Equipment
Proposed agreement
Western Australia Fire Service Enterprise Agreement 2006
RCR
Road Crash Rescue
SES
State Emergency Services
SET
Special Equipment Tender
SOP
Standard Operating Procedure
TR
Trench Rescue
Union
United Firefighters Union Australia, West Australian Branch
USAR
Urban Search and Rescue
VR
Vertical Rescue
WA
Western Australia
FESA Stations and Specialist Competencies
7 It was not in dispute that FESA currently has the following stations in both metropolitan and country areas staffed by career firefighters and these stations have a range of designated specialist rescue competencies and appliances/equipment specific to these stations:
METROPOLITAN STATIONS
RESCUE COMPETENCIES
Armadale

Bassendean
CBR Incident Response and Rescue.
POD deployment for specialist areas
Belmont

Butler

Canning Vale
POD Deployment for specialist areas
Claremont

Daglish
HR
Duncraig

Fremantle
HR
Hope Valley

Joondalup
CSR
Kensington

Maddington

Malaga
CBR Incident Response and Rescue.
POD deployment for specialist areas
Mandurah

Midland

Murdoch
CBR Incident Response and Rescue, CSR
Osborne Park
CBR Incident Response and Rescue, CSR
Perth
HR, VR, USAR, TR, CSR
Rockingham

Success
CSR
Wangarra

Welshpool
HR
COUNTRY STATIONS
RESCUE COMPETENCIES
Albany
HR, CSR
Bunbury
HR, CSR
Geraldton
HR, CSR
Kalgoorlie
HR, CSR
The Union’s claim
8 The union’s claim is that the following allowances be included in the Western Australia Fire Service Enterprise Agreement 2006 (“the proposed agreement”) backdated to the first pay period on or after 24 May 2006:
ALLOWANCE
PAYABLE TO
QUANTUM
Enhanced Rescue Allowance (“ERA”)
All employees in firefighting classifications
4% on total rate of pay, phased in with 4x6 month increments over 2 years
Advanced First Aid Allowance (“AFAA”)
All employees in firefighting classifications
$1.70 per each hour worked
Communications Allowance (“CA”)
All employees in communications classifications
4% on total rate of pay
(Exhibit R1)
The union is claiming that the payment of the ERA and AFAA allowances be made to all employees in firefighting classifications covered by the proposed agreement regardless of a firefighter’s level of skill and competency and the union is seeking the payment of the CA allowance to all Communications Systems Officers (“CSO”). The union maintains that firefighters and CSOs should be paid the allowances being claimed because there has recently been substantial changes to the work required of firefighters and CSOs in a range of areas which has resulted in firefighters and CSOs gaining and using a range of enhanced skills and undertaking responsibilities and work in new areas. The union argues that some of these changes and responsibilities have already occurred and that other changes will be taking place during the life of the proposed agreement.
Enhanced Rescue Allowance (ERA)
Background
9 The union proposes that this allowance compensate firefighters for the skills gained and the additional work they have been required to perform to date and the additional skills and work that firefighters will be required to perform during the life of the proposed agreement in the following areas:
· Urban Search and Rescue (“USAR”) training, skills maintenance and performance.
· Heavy/Technical Rescue (“HR”) training, skills maintenance and performance.
· Line Rescue (“LR”)/Vertical Rescue (“VR”) training, skills maintenance and performance.
· Confined Space Rescue (“CSR”) training, skills maintenance and performance.
· Trench Rescue (“TR”) training, skills maintenance and performance.
· Chemical Biological Radiation (“CBR”) training, skills maintenance and performance.
· Enhanced Road Rescue training, skills maintenance and performance.
· Additional work resulting from the Emergency Management Act 2005.
· Additional work resulting from the Agreement on Australia’s National Counter-Terrorism Arrangements 2002.
(Extract Exhibit R1)
10 The union maintains that in recent years the training required of firefighters in these enhanced rescue capabilities has increased significantly and that re-training in these areas and skills maintenance as well as the nature of the work to be performed has also changed. The union argues that all firefighters are now required to have, maintain and perform a range of enhanced rescue capabilities at both basic and/or higher levels (for example USAR specialists) and the union maintains that the skills included in the ERA covers a greater range of skills than the rescue skills that firefighters have traditionally exercised in the normal course of their duties in recent years. The union argues that since 1989 and until recent times firefighters were only required to be trained in and undertake skills maintenance in basic road accident rescue and the only pre-requisite for performing these duties was the holding of a basic first aid certificate and this was the type of rescue referred to in the 1994 work value decision (see Commission in Court Session United Firefighters Union of Western Australia v W.A. Fire Brigades Board (1994) 74 WAIG 575). The union also claims that apart from basic USAR and CBR skills, the other enhanced rescue skills acquired and available to be used by firefighters as set out in their claim have not been compensated for.
Enhanced Rescue Capabilities being claimed
URBAN SEARCH AND RESCUE (USAR)
11 USAR is the mobilisation of resources required to safely and expeditiously locate and remove trapped and often injured victims from partially or totally collapsed structures or environments (see Exhibit A20 paragraph 32).
12 The union claims that during 2003 all employees were required to be competent in USAR Category 1 level (“Cat 1”) (PUA SAR 001A – Participate in Rescue Operation) and that since 2003 PUA SAR 001A has been part of firefighters’ recruit course. The union maintains that since 2005 approximately 50 employees have been trained at USAR Category 2 level (“Cat 2”) and the union argues that no additional remuneration has been paid to a firefighter for having this level of training. The union maintains that USAR techniques have been used on many occasions in Western Australia (“WA”), for example an explosion at Yokine and major storm damage at Melville and Australind. International disaster assistance to Java for operation Java Assist also had the benefit of USAR trained personnel from WA.
HEAVY/TECHNICAL RESCUE (HR)
13 HR involves the use of an extensive range of specialist tools that are specifically designed to enable extrication of casualties and victims that are involved in heavy duty transport and industrial machinery (see Exhibit A20 paragraph 44).
14 The union maintains that the relevant national competency for HR is PUA SAR 003 – Undertake Technical Rescue and this competency requires firefighters to hold Advanced First Aid (“AFA”) as a pre-requisite. The union maintains that firefighters at all country stations and at all new stations have or will be required to hold this competency and the union maintains that over one quarter of WA firefighters are currently trained in and perform HR (PUA SAR 003A). The union also claims that all firefighters working at Medium Pump Heavy Rescue (“MPHR”) stations, both metropolitan and country, have been or will be trained in the PUA SAR 003A competency.
15 The union argues that during the life of the proposed agreement there will be a requirement that firefighters be competent in HR and the union claims that all firefighters who do not hold Cat 2 HR skills will soon participate in a Cat 1 HR workshop. The union also claims that country firefighters will also be required to be competent at the HR Cat 2 level.
LINE RESCUE/VERTICAL RESCUE (LR/VR)
16 LR/VR involves the rescue of persons in danger from height or the danger of catastrophic fall. It involves extensive training in rope mobility or being able to move up and down a rope using varied techniques and equipment. It allows the technician to conduct mid pitch rescues of persons in danger of suspension syndrome or falling to their death from heights. It also allows crews to raise or lower casualties from height to safety (see Exhibit A20 paragraph 55).
17 The union argues that Cat 2 LR skills relate to the national competency PUA SAR 004A and claims that over 250 firefighters are qualified in LR at this level. The union is of the view that this competency will be reintroduced by FESA and that firefighters will be trained in LR during the life of the proposed agreement.
CONFINED SPACE RESCUE (CSR)
18 Confined space has the following Occupational Safety and Health definition:
“Confined space means an enclosed or partially enclosed space which.
a) Is not intended or designed primarily as a work place
b) Is at atmospheric pressure during occupancy and
c) Has restricted means for entry and exit
And which either-
a) Has an atmosphere containing potentially harmful levels of containment
b) Has an atmosphere containing potentially harmful levels of contaminant
c) Is of a nature or is likely to be of a nature that could contribute to a person in the space being overwhelmed by an unsafe atmosphere or a contaminant”
(Exhibit A6 point 7)
19 Confined space also has an Australian Standards definition:
“An enclosed space partially enclosed space which is at atmospheric pressure during occupancy; is not intended or designed primarily as a place of work: may have restricted means for entry and exit; and may have an atmosphere which contains potentially harmful levels of contaminant; not have safe oxygen level; or cause engulfment.”
(Exhibit A6 point 8)
20 The union maintains that all firefighters have now undertaken Cat 1 CSR training, the relevant national competency being PUA SAR 005A and that firefighters at designated CSR stations and Special Equipment Tender (“SET”) support stations are or will be trained to the PUA SAR 005A level in this rescue area during the life of the proposed agreement. The union claims that over 250 employees have completed Cat 2 CSR training which corresponds to the national competency PUA SAR 007A and the union maintains that most firefighters, if not all, will be trained in this competency during the life of the proposed agreement and the union claims that firefighters will be required to regularly update these skills. The union also maintains that firefighters at designated CSR stations are regularly involved in multi-station drills on ships and other confined spaces as a normal part of maintenance training in this area.
TRENCH RESCUE (TR)
21 TR requires the ability to enter trenches and rescue persons trapped or engulfed or covered by soil or debris. This is a very dangerous speciality rescue due to danger of the ground subsiding (see Exhibit A20 paragraph 73).
22 The union claims that over one third of firefighters are qualified in TR competency PUA SAR 006A and that they are required to regularly maintain their skills and perform work using this competency. The union also maintains that a Cat 1 TR workshop will be delivered to all firefighters during the life of the proposed agreement.
ROAD CRASH RESCUE (RCR)
23 The union maintains that since the 1994 work value decision firefighters have been required to develop competencies in Road Crash Rescue (“RCR”) over and above those of competency PUA SAR 002A – Undertake Road Crash Rescue, the level at which all firefighters are trained. The union claims that new skills and competencies in this area include the way in which casualties are removed, the opening up of vehicles and the performance of rescues at an enhanced level which are underpinned by additional medical and technical knowledge. The union maintains that firefighters regularly utilise enhanced RCR duties.
CHEMICAL BIOLOGICAL RADIATION (CBR)
24 CBR events are characterised by terrorist or criminal acts. CBR preparedness involves training, acquisition of knowledge and preparedness to respond to incidents involving chemicals, biological agents and/or radiological agents (see Exhibit A5)
25 The union argues that at the time of the 2004 Agreement there was minimal defined training or competencies in this area. The union maintains that CBR skills have been extensively developed within FESA’s workforce as demonstrated by the existence of a number of CBR specialist stations and that from 2004 onwards firefighters have undergone basic CBR familiarisation via workshops and courses to update their basic skills when dealing with hazardous materials. The union claims that CBR equipment is constantly being improved and updated which requires the acquisition of new skills and competencies and the union maintains that all firefighters have been trained to Cat 1 CBR standard which the union claims is over and above the training envisaged in the 2004 Agreement. The union also claims that further training and skills maintenance will be required and conducted in this area during the life of the proposed agreement and firefighters will be required to participate in a number of ‘one-off’ drills and scenarios and major state exercises every year involving multi-agency response and consequence management.
Other Relevant Information
26 The union argues that a new relieving system being implemented by FESA will require more firefighters to gain Cat 1 and Cat 2 skills in the areas of enhanced rescue being claimed.
27 The union argues that high levels of training and skills maintenance now required of firefighters has arisen because of a general increase in perceived threat levels and a resultant adjustment to the role of fire agencies and that a high level of readiness on the part of WA firefighters and an ability to respond with other agencies to critical incidents is necessary and the union claims that the ongoing need for drills to update and maintain these specialised skills will continue to increase during the life of the proposed agreement. The union maintains that the ‘National Counter-Terrorism Plan’ and the passage of the Emergency Management Act of 2005 requires FESA and firefighters to undertake additional responsibilities, reinforces this proposition. The union also argues that firefighters are increasingly being required to be able to perform enhanced rescue duties at any given moment and that this is becoming a part of the core function of fire services within WA and throughout Australia.
28 The union maintains that fire and rescue responsibilities required of firefighters are much broader today than prior to 1996 especially in the areas of hazardous materials, rescues and chemical, biological and radiological incidents.
Quantum
29 The union argues that an ERA of 4 per cent is an appropriate quantum to be paid to all firefighters given the range of skills required to deliver an enhanced rescue service to the WA community particularly when taking into account the previous payment of 2.2 per cent to firefighters in the 2004 Agreement in return for basic USAR and CBR training and the union argues that the proposed ERA encompasses more work than that undertaken by firefighters when using basic USAR and CBR skills. The union submits that no science was applied to determine whether the 2.2 per cent paid to firefighters was an appropriate quantum and the union claims that when the 2004 Agreement was entered into the potential scope of USAR and CBR duties was not properly comprehended by the parties at the time.
30 The union maintains that as the additional skills and work required of firefighters with respect to enhanced rescue will be widespread and will over time be consolidated as part of the core duties of a firefighter then it is appropriate that the payment be expressed as a percentage of a firefighter’s salary and should be calculated on the weekly rates payable to firefighting employees inclusive of the 2.2 per cent previously paid for limited USAR and CBR training.
Advanced First Aid Allowance (AFAA)
Background
31 The union argues that there is a need for firefighters to perform AFA on victims at accidents and that this activity is increasingly becoming part of a firefighter’s ordinary duties. Additionally the holding of AFA competencies is now a pre-requisite for many of the rescue competencies included in the union’s ERA claim.
32 The union claims that in the past paramedics would have performed first aid duties at incidents attended by firefighters but because of the excellent response time of the fire services over the last 10 to 12 years and because of a firefighters increased first aid skills , firefighters are now often providing ‘first responder’ medical assistance to victims. The union believes that it is therefore appropriate that an AFAA be paid to all firefighters.
First Aid Training of Firefighters
33 The union detailed the following history with respect to the first aid skills of firefighters in WA since 1994:
· At the time of the 1994 work value decision firefighters were required to be trained to perform some limited and basic first aid.
· In 2000 first aid skills of firefighters were reviewed and after a report into this issue was completed firefighters were more extensively trained in first aid in the following competencies:
AFC 1.17A (Basic First Aid)
AFC 1.17B (Basic Medical Oxygen Resuscitation)
AFC 1.17C (Spinal immobilisation, splints and patient handling)
· Currently all recruit firefighters are required to complete the following units:
PUA EME 001A – Provide Emergency Care (for which a Senior First Aid certificate is pre-requisite).
PUA EME 002B – Manage Injuries at Emergency Incident.
· In 2006 all firefighters will be required to be trained in and undertake skills maintenance to the following levels:
PUA EME 001A - Provide Emergency Care (for which a Senior First Aid certificate is pre requisite).
PUA EME 002A – Manage Injuries at Emergency Incident.
PUA EME 003B – Administer Oxygen in an Emergency Situation.
Other relevant information
34 The union submits that all firefighters employed by FESA since 1994 have been expected to use and have used their first aid skills in the performance of their work and firefighters will continue to be required to use the new skills they have acquired in this area. The union maintains that these new skills include the provision of emergency care by identifying the need for emergency care, ensuring personal safety of carer and casualty, reassuring casualties, assessing casualties and implementing emergency care procedures, working cooperatively with personnel from other organisations, recovering and restoring first aid equipment, and completing relevant documentation. Additionally, firefighters administer oxygen in emergency situations which entails assessing the casualty and developing a management plan and they check equipment, maintain unobstructed airways, resuscitate casualties, use oxygen to provide therapy and firefighters recover and restore equipment. Injuries are also managed at emergency incidents by assessing the scene, assessing the casualty, implementing emergency management procedures, moving the casualty, completing documentation and using equipment including defibrillators, stretchers and immobilisers. The union maintains that firefighters are also required to develop and maintain knowledge about the various systems of the body, unconsciousness, bleeding, principles of initial casualty management, burns, air passages, disease and chronic airway lesions, hypoventilation, respiratory system and respiration, crush injury syndrome, contraindications, wound management, basic toxicology, injuries of various types, shock, legal and ethical issues, anatomy and physiology, haemorrhage, cardiovascular emergencies, hypoxia and triage.
Quantum
35 The union argues that the increasing paramedic function that firefighters are expected to undertake requires compensation and the union has used the first aid payments made to Victorian firefighters as a benchmark to determine the quantum being claimed. The union proposes that WA firefighters should be paid $1.70 per hour to be paid in addition to the base rate of pay for all hours worked by a firefighter. The union claims that all firefighters in Victoria including those who have not undertaken the training and volunteered to perform the Emergency Medical Response (“EMR”) duties are paid an hourly allowance of $1.70 per hour on top of their base rate and the union claims that this amount was paid to Victorian firefighters when they were available to be rostered for EMR duties in recognition of this additional work becoming a brigade function. The union acknowledges that FESA appliances are not necessarily being dispatched as the first response in the same way as in Victoria but argues that firefighters usually arrive at an incident before paramedics due to the comparative low level of resources of the WA ambulance service. Given the requirement on firefighters to attend enhanced rescue situations the union maintains that the importance of firefighters to be able to perform AFA is only likely to increase.
Communications Allowance (CA)
Background
36 The union claims that as there have been numerous and major changes to both the roles and duties of a CSO and the systems used by CSOs in the Communications Centre (“CC”) in recent years CSOs should be paid a CA of 4 per cent to be added to their total rate of pay.
Changes to Duties
37 The union detailed the following changes to the roles and duties of CSOs in the past 10 years:
· In 1996 FESA became a state wide CC when it started taking ‘000’ calls for fire for all areas of WA (previously CSOs took calls for metro and outer metro and the major country towns) and this change necessitated an upgrade of computer facilities as more detail was required to be recorded by CSOs.
· A new Brigade Operating Management System (“BOMS”) was introduced in 1996 and all operators were trained in its use and this system has been upgraded several times since it was first implemented.
· A new Computer Aided Dispatch System is proposed to be in place before the coming fire season and this will necessitate in-depth training for CSOs and ongoing training will also be required.
· FESA recently decided that all country Direct Brigade Alarms (“DBA”) are to be monitored by the CC and once this is completed there will be approximately another 500 premises being monitored by the CC in addition to the 3,000 to 3,500 DBAs currently being monitored. The union claims that the procedures for dealing with country DBA calls will be more complicated than a normal metropolitan area call.
· The CC is responsible for all radio communications across two channels, 6AR and 6IP. In 2000 Channel 25 (6IP) was introduced into the CC so that metro and outer metro bush fire brigades could maintain contact with the CC whilst at incidents.
· The union argues that as there is only minimum staffing levels of four CSOs in summer months it is difficult for the CSOs to take all of the required ‘000’ calls, State Emergency Service (“SES”) calls, calls from other emergency services and general enquiry calls, monitor the DBA network and monitor and maintain the radio networks separately and the union maintains that the introduction of Channel 25 was done without increasing staffing levels or any additional monetary remuneration. CC staff have been advised that FESA is currently updating its radio network and CSOs have been advised that the CC will be taking on state wide radio communications.
· In 2001 SES Call Taking was brought into the CC after hours and this required CSOs to learn another computer application and after a number of years FESA has introduced this call taking on a 24 hour, seven days a week basis. At the same time FESA reduced minimum staffing in winter down to two (this was later upgraded to three) and no additional remuneration was paid in recognition of the extra skills required for SES Call Taking.
· The CC has the ability to page personnel and this facility has evolved and can now mobilise metro and outer metro bush fire brigades directly instead of passing on the information to local government authorities as was the previous practice. This paging facility was converted into a computer application and is now accessible on all consoles and this facility has grown extensively since it was implemented and now brigades expect and management has directed that the CC undertake general paging not just emergency paging which was the original role.
· The CC mobilises a range of volunteer fire brigade units and emergency services throughout the state and the current computer system does not cater for all the different scenarios that CSOs deal with on a daily basis and ensuring that mobilising calls are correct often falls to the experience of CSOs and the Supervisor Communications Centre.
Quantum
38 The union submits that an allowance of 4 per cent of each employee’s total rate of pay payable to all CSOs is an appropriate quantum to be paid to CSOs given the extent of the changes in the roles and responsibilities of a CSO since 1996 which have not been compensated for in previous wage increases.
FESA’s Response to the Union’s Claim and Counter Proposal
39 FESA believes that the union’s claim for an ERA and AFAA does not sufficiently recognise payments previously made to firefighters in the areas being claimed and FESA maintains that the union is seeking to increase basic remuneration by the payment of an allowance for duties that should have been the subject of a work value case and/or a claim to adjust wage rates.
40 Even though FESA believes that the claims are not justified on a work value basis it makes the following counter proposal which is to be paid in addition to the wage increases already being paid to firefighters (8.5 per cent) under the proposed agreement if the Commission finds that additional payments to firefighters and CSOs are warranted:
· A General Allowance of $12 per week to be paid to employees in firefighting classifications as compensation for any disabilities associated with, or changes that may have occurred in, performing rescue and first aid duties.
· A Specialist Rescue Allowance of $10 per week to be paid to those employees trained to Category 2 or 3 in USAR and/or rostered at a designated CBR station.
· Specific allowances for on call and availability to be extended by an extra hour with some changes to the application of availability allowance to District Officers and Superintendents.
· A Communications Allowance of $12 per week to be paid to employees in the Communications Systems Officer classification.
(Extract from FESA’s revised response and counter proposal dated 16/11/06)
41 FESA maintains that an increase of $12 per week, which equates to an average increase of approximately 1 per cent on a firefighter’s base rate of pay is an appropriate amount to be paid to all firefighters and that it is appropriate to recompense specialist firefighters in only two areas, USAR and CBR. FESA maintains that the estimated cost of the union’s claim over and above FESA’s counter proposal in the 2005/2006 and 2007/2008 financial years will result in an increase to the Emergency Services Levy (“ESL”) for 2007/2008 of approximately $13.00 on average as $13.448 million in addition to the $9.682 million will be needed to fund the union’s claim already agreed to be paid as wage increases by FESA and FESA maintains that its counter proposal would equate to an increase of approximately $1 on the average metropolitan residential ESL charge which it considers is sustainable.
Enhanced Rescue Allowance (ERA)
42 FESA acknowledges that some change has occurred in the level of skill, training and responsibility associated with the seven rescue functions included by the union in its claim however FESA does not accept that the degree of change the union is claiming has occurred nor does it agree with the union about the extent of the impact of these capabilities on firefighters. FESA also argues that USAR and CBR can be differentiated from the other five rescue functions identified by the union given the potentially catastrophic nature of these incidents. FESA agrees with the union that all employees in firefighting classifications have completed basic USAR and CBR training and claims that firefighters have been adequately compensated for in these areas via the payment of 2.2 per cent in the 2004 Agreement which was given in recognition of the new operational response skills and additional responsibility associated with USAR and CBR incidents (see Clause 53.1 of the 2004 Agreement). FESA also relies on the payment of an additional 1 per cent allowance which was paid to firefighters in the Western Australian Fire Service Certified Agreement 2002 (“the 2002 Agreement”) in recognition of community safety activities, the requirement for firefighters to undertake new and ongoing training and for the initial adoption of the USAR role as compensation for additional skills being gained in the other rescue areas being claimed.
43 FESA acknowledges that it has a number of trained specialist firefighters who may be called upon to assist with major USAR incidents at a national or international level and FESA argues that it is reasonable to specifically recognise individuals trained to Cat 2 or 3 levels in USAR as they have additional skills and responsibility as a USAR response specialist and they make up a defined group that has been selected as part of a 50 person USAR taskforce. FESA maintains that it is also reasonable to pay an allowance to those individuals trained in the use of specialist CBR equipment who are rostered at one of the designated CBR stations (approximately 120 employees).
44 FESA argues that a separate allowance for enhanced rescue should not be created as the General and Specialist Rescue Allowances contained in its counter proposal adequately compensates firefighters for any disabilities associated with or changes that may have occurred in performing rescue duties.
Advanced First Aid Allowance (AFAA)
45 FESA accepts that there has been some change in the standard of first aid competencies required to be gained and used by firefighters but does not accept the extent of the changes being claimed by the union. FESA claims that the AFAA being claimed by the union is excessive as it equates to a payment of $71 per week or an average of 6.1 per cent on top of the weekly payment to firefighters for ordinary hours worked and that this quantum is further compounded when overtime is undertaken.
46 FESA agrees that a Senior First Aid certificate is now a pre-requisite for employment as a firefighter and that once employed, firefighters undertake higher level first aid training to enable them to be competent in a range of areas and FESA agrees that it intends to train all existing employees in firefighting classifications to the new first aid standard within the next 12 months.
47 FESA maintains that the primary patient care function at an incident still remains with ambulance officers and FESA refutes the union’s comparison with Victorian firefighters who undertake EMR as this allowance is paid to firefighters for providing a response to ‘Priority 0’ cases which in WA is undertaken by ambulance officers. FESA also argues that the quantum being claimed is well in excess of the first aid allowances paid to firefighters in other states and well in excess of any changes that have occurred since the 1994 work value decision. FESA argues that any changes in this area have not been significant enough to warrant the $1.70 per hour allowance being claimed and FESA also argues that a separate allowance for AFA should not be created as the General Allowance proposed in its counter proposal adequately compensates for any disabilities associated with or changes that may have occurred in performing first aid duties.
Communications Allowance (CA)
48 FESA argues that this claim, which equates to an increase of approximately $43 per week for CSOs is excessive. FESA acknowledges that some changes have occurred in the duties required of a CSO but argues that these changes are not sufficient to justify a 4 per cent increase on top of wage increases of 8.5 per cent in the proposed agreement granted to CSOs. FESA argues that the allowance of $12 per week for CSOs that it proposes is an appropriate quantum.
Site Visits
49 The Commission undertook two site visits; one on 14 December 2006 and the other on 15 December 2006 (see paragraph 383).
Evidence
50 The following witnesses gave evidence in these proceedings:
Union’s witnesses
· Mr Frank Martinelli was employed as a fitter/machinist for five years and was a volunteer firefighter for six years prior to becoming a relieving firefighter for FESA in 1983. In 1990 Mr Martinelli was promoted to a Station Officer and in 1992 he was an Acting District Officer in the Country Fire Division for the Southern District for 12 months. Mr Martinelli has acted in various District Officer positions in the past ten years and is currently a Station Officer. Mr Martinelli is an expert in RCR.
· Mr Hendrik Lieftink was the Para rescue team commander for the National Safety Council of Australia Victorian Division located in Townsville from 1985 to 1989 and in 1998 he became an Operational Fire Officer. Mr Lieftink has worked in the area of CBR hazards and he is currently FESA’s USAR Task Force leader, FESA’s Hazardous Materials (“Hazmat”) advisory coordinator, a senior assessor in HR, CSR and he is an instructor in LR/VR. Since 2004 Mr Lieftink has been and is currently FESA’s Rescue Manager.
· Mr Allan Morton joined the Victorian Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Brigade (“the MFESB”) in July 1985 as a firefighter and is currently employed in the position of Station Officer, Emergency Medical Services Department. Mr Morton has held this position for approximately 12 years. Mr Morton was involved in the original development and implementation of the EMR role for the MFESB Melbourne and he has been involved in the introduction, implementation and ongoing management of first aid and EMR for MFESB firefighters since its introduction in 1991.
· Mr Peter Jones is FESA’s Manager in Charge of Hazmat and CBR and has held this position since its creation in 2003.
· Mr Geoffrey James O’Day was employed as a heavy duty mechanic with the City of Wanneroo for 10 years and became a firefighter in 1988. In 1995 Mr O’Day was promoted to his current position of Station Officer.
· Mr Leigh Allister Bishop has been employed as a firefighter since May 1999. Mr Bishop is currently a Senior Firefighter and he has been stationed at Belmont Fire Station for two and a half years.
· Mr Kevin Jolly became a firefighter in April 1985 and served for seven years as a firefighter relieving at all metropolitan and two country fire stations. Mr Jolly was promoted to his current position in 1992 as Station Officer relieving at all metropolitan and two country fires stations and he is qualified as a Breathing Apparatus and Rescue Officer and a Fire and Rescue Service Driving Instructor.
· Mr Kelly Wyeth became a firefighter in October 1997 and in August 2006 became a Senior Firefighter. This remains his current position and he is responsible for organising relieving firefighters at Perth fire station.
· Mr Len Hull became a firefighter in February 1989 and after six years was promoted to his current position of Station Officer. Mr Hull has been a Career Training and Development Officer, a Rescue Officer and a Special Projects Officer with FESA and he is a qualified Instructor and Assessor. Mr Hull is also qualified as a SAS Patrol Medic and a Grade 2 Ambulance Officer.
· Mr Jan Szczygiel has worked in the fire service for over 24 years, 20 years in the United Kingdom and the last four years with FESA. Mr Szczygiel has been an operational Fire Officer for 18 years and a full time instructor for six years. He holds a number of fire, training and first aid qualifications and is currently a Station Officer, Training and Development Officer at FESA’s Training Centre.
· Mr Les Holden became a firefighter in March 1987 and was promoted to Station Officer in 1997. In 1999 Mr Holden became the Acting District Manager Perth Fire Station and he commenced work as a Supervisor Communications Centre in December 2000. From 2000 onwards Mr Holden was Acting District Manager North Coastal, ADO Stirling and ADO Hills and in 2001 he returned to be the Supervisor Communications Centre. At separate times in 2002 and 2003 Mr Holden was deployed to NSW as an Air Attack Supervisor. In 2005 Mr Holden became a Station Officer and he is currently the Supervisor Communications Centre, Relief Officer.
· Ms Julie Dawn Duxbury commenced employment with the Western Australian Fire Brigades Board (now FESA) in September 1993 as a CSO in the CC and this is her current position.
FESA’s witnesses
· Mr Russell John Stevens commenced as a career firefighter in 1983, he became a Station Officer in 1990, a District Manager in 1997 and FESA’s Assistant Chief Operations Officer in 2003. Mr Stevens currently holds this position.
· Mr Paul Murray Critchison was employed by the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection for three years and since April 2006 he has been employed by FESA as an Employee Relations Officer.
· Mr Howard Geoffrey Fiedler commenced as an operational firefighter in 1988, he was promoted to Station Officer in 1994, he became a District Officer Prevention and Risk Management in 1997 and he then undertook various managerial roles. In 2002 he was FESA’s Fire Services Acting Director for Perth South and in 2002/2003 he was seconded to the ESL Team and the Office of the Chief Executive Officer. In November 2003 he became FESA’s Special Risk Manager and in October 2006 Mr Fiedler took on his current position of Acting Assistant Chief Operations Officer, Country.
· Mr Craig Anthony Hynes commenced as a firefighter in 1985, he became a Station Officer in about 1992 and was then promoted to the position of District Officer which he held until 1998. Mr Hynes then worked in a variety of management positions and he has been FESA’s Acting Chief Operations Officer since February 2006.
· Mr Kevin William Cuneo commenced as a firefighter in 1973 and worked in a variety of roles including Director, Perth Central prior to taking on the position of Operational Resourcing overseeing FESA’s Hazmat and CBR capability. For the last six years Mr Cuneo has been responsible for FESA’s planning and resourcing in the areas of counter terrorism response capability, specialist operations and international exchanges and training programs. Mr Cuneo is currently a Director with FESA.
· Mr Franco Pasquale is an Accountant and has been a public sector employee since June 1989. Mr Pasquale worked for the Office of the Auditor General for seven years and then joined the Bush Fires Board in September 1996. In February 1999 Mr Pasquale was appointed as the FESA Management Accountant, in July 2002 he was seconded to the ESL Project Implementation Team as the finance specialist and in March 2004 he was appointed as the FESA Manager Funding Services which is his current substantive position. Mr Pasquale has also held the role of Acting Executive Director Business Services and Acting Executive Director Human Services with FESA and he is currently the Acting Executive Director Corporate Services.
· Mr Gregory John Pobar worked for the Department of Conservation and Land Management and then the Bush Fires Board until the formation of FESA in 1999. In 1999 Mr Pobar became FESA’s District Manager for Perth North and he remained in this position for approximately six years. Mr Pobar then held the position of Manager, Coordination within FESA’s Operations Division for 13 months and in this role he had direct responsibility for the CC. Since October 2006 Mr Pobar has held the position of FESA’s Acting Director Risk, Planning and Evaluation.
· Ms Catherine Felicity Holmes was employed in various public sector positions prior to commencing employment with FESA in February 2005 where she has held the positions of Acting Manager Employee Relations and Acting Manager Workforce Management. In April 2006 Ms Holmes commenced her current position as Principal Employee Relations Officer with FESA.
· Mr Lindsay John Cuneo commenced as a firefighter in 1976 and during 1990 and 1991 he was posted to the Training Cadre at the Training Centre where he assisted in writing the Firefighter Modular Training Program. Mr Cuneo became the Acting Superintendent Training Academy in 1992 which became permanent in 1995 and in this role his responsibilities included the initial and maintenance training for firefighters and Station Officers. Mr Cuneo currently holds the position of Assistant Chief Operations Officer Coordination with FESA.
Union’s Evidence
Mr Frank Martinelli
51 Mr Martinelli gave evidence about RCR and HR.
RCR
52 Mr Martinelli stated that firefighters routinely attend motor vehicle accidents and industrial incidents and he gave evidence that appliances frequently arrive prior to the arrival of the St John Ambulance service and often a firefighter is required to disentangle the victim to enable their release. Mr Martinelli stated that firefighters must therefore have an advanced level of extrication skills as rescues can vary from removing someone from a passenger vehicle to dealing for example with a large number of people involved when a train hits a bus.
53 Mr Martinelli gave evidence that since 1989 firefighters have increased their RCR capabilities and he stated that since that time there has been a dramatic increase in subject matter, knowledge and expertise required of firefighters to enable them to meet and maintain the high levels of rescue techniques and patient care which was not required in the past.
54 Mr Martinelli stated that all firefighter recruits are trained in the basic elements of RCR corresponding to the national competency PUA SAR 002A - Undertake Road Accident Rescue which is a basic ‘familiarisation’ course and corresponds to the basic road accident rescue training that has been given to firefighters for a number of years. Mr Martinelli stated that additional RCR training is given to all firefighters after recruits complete their course. This training includes:
· More complex extrication procedures which are now undertaken
· Use of glass management kits to further improve casualty care and rescuer protection, this involves use of glass cutting, casualty protection sheets, glass breakers
· In depth discussion of various alternative vehicle fuels
55 Mr Martinelli stated that due to increased personal injury risk, new equipment was introduced across all fire stations in WA both for the rescuer and the casualty including hard and soft protection, C Spine immobilisers (stiffneck select) half and full casualty boards for patient removal and transfer and he stated that this has required additional training and ongoing assessment for all firefighters.
56 Mr Martinelli stated that enhanced road rescue training, PUA SAR 003 – Undertake Technical Rescue, consists of the following:
· Pre-requisites
· PUA SAR 002A - Road Accident Rescue
· PUA EME 002 - Manage Injuries at Emergency Incidents (this was not required prior to 2005 but is now undertaken by all firefighters)
57 Mr Martinelli stated that since 2005 firefighters undertake advanced rescue procedures using new tools and equipment and Mr Martinelli stated that recent changes to vehicle construction and the technology associated with a range of new vehicles has meant a new approach to how rescues are performed. Mr Martinelli stated that in 2005 four enhanced rescue appliances, which have new equipment with a higher tonnage cutting capability were introduced in the metropolitan area at Perth, Daglish, Welshpool and Fremantle stations and he stated that in late 2005 four sets of enhanced rescue equipment including casualty boards, stiffneck collars, hooligan tool, Holton foot side stabilisation, sill adaptors, fifty tonne jacks, high pressure air bags and a variety of minor equipment and a large number of minor items were deployed to country stations at Kalgoorlie, Geraldton, Bunbury and Albany. Mr Martinelli gave evidence that since the deployment of this specialist equipment, firefighters at these four country stations have had to be trained in the enhanced rescue and firefighters at surrounding stations have also now been trained. Mr Martinelli understands that most metropolitan firefighters have also been exposed to the use of this equipment through experience.
58 Mr Martinelli stated that in principle the methods of removing people from vehicles after an accident have changed as the vehicles are now made of different materials requiring different rescue techniques and an awareness of new vehicle components, for example, air bags and seat belts and Mr Martinelli stated that in the last four years these changes have been implemented with some rapidity. Mr Martinelli stated that the recent introduction of hybrid vehicles has also brought in a new set of dangers for firefighters to deal with. Mr Martinelli stated that casualty boards are on a range of appliances and Mr Martinelli stated that a MPHR vehicle attends the majority of calls.
59 Mr Martinelli stated that firefighters are educated about changes to vehicle design and construction via DVDs and handouts and he stated that the ultimate aim is to include these new techniques in refresher courses.
HR
60 Mr Martinelli stated that PUA SAR 003A – Undertake Technical Rescue is a new competency not undertaken prior to 2005 and training in this competency requires firefighters to have prerequisite in vehicle rescue, PUA SAR 001A – Participate in Rescue Operation, vehicle construction, legislation, WA FRS roles and responsibilities.
61 Mr Martinelli specified a range of areas covered in HR training including powered hydraulics, hand operated hydraulic equipment, high pressure lifting bags, stabilisation equipment and power tools and he gave examples of new work he now undertakes after receiving this training.
62 Mr Martinelli stated that the maintenance of HR skills and competencies consists of approximately 60 hours of training, ongoing familiarisation and maintenance of equipment is also required. Mr Martinelli stated that MPHR stations train with firefighters from surrounding stations to ensure a timely and professional extrication using specialist equipment as and when required.
63 Mr Martinelli maintained that whilst all firefighters will not be trained in specialist Cat 2 HR, a majority of firefighters will receive enhanced rescue training. Mr Martinelli stated that in the last 12 months he has been involved in training firefighters at the stations surrounding the four MPHR stations in HR skills because these staff are likely to respond to HR incidents with staff at their adjoining stations and Mr Martinelli estimates that in approximately 12 months time almost all staff in stations surrounding MPHR stations will have enhanced HR knowledge. Mr Martinelli stated that whilst this training will not be to the same level as specialist MPHR training this will result in almost all of the employees in metropolitan fire stations having an enhanced understanding of HR.
64 Mr Martinelli stated that he has heard the terms Cat 1 and Cat 2 being used for HR capabilities and he stated that he uses these terms. Mr Martinelli stated that although some of the equipment used for HR is a ‘bigger’ version of that used for RCR, he maintains that a lot of the equipment is different. Mr Martinelli stated that some of the equipment now used by firefighters requires greater information and knowledge, for example, new pneumatic cutters which cut a wider range of materials and a reciprocating saw which requires a different way of cutting materials to that used previously and the use of large cribbing blocks.
65 Under re-examination Mr Martinelli stated that he was a Station Officer attached to the Perth relieving pool and that in this role he relieved at “any of the metropolitan stations and, in fact, I'm a qualified SET operator which is CBR and confined space. I also do vertical line rescue. I also do general rescue.” (transcript pages 67-68).
66 Mr Martinelli stated that firefighters started receiving training in vehicle airbags four years ago.
67 Mr Martinelli maintains that medical assistance given to casualties by firefighters has been at a higher level since 1994 and Mr Martinelli stated that the majority of cases that firefighters are called out to involve major trauma and that FESA’s MPHR vehicles contain casualty boards to assist when necessary. Mr Martinelli stated that firefighters at stations surrounding MPHR stations are being trained to assist in the removal of casualties:
“… we are in (sic) process of training all peripheral stations to the MPHR stations so we have at least a knowledge and understanding of how we want those firefighters to assist us in the removal. The application of the cervical collar is done by any firefighter. The application of the speed blocks and the half casualty board is usually done by MPHR but when we introduce the full spine board or casualty board the other firefighters have been shown how to use it and the reason is because there is (sic) only three firefighters plus a station officer on each truck, and that's not enough to do the initial - - to do all the work.”
(Transcript page 70)
Mr Henrik Lieftink
68 Mr Lieftink gave evidence in support of the union’s claim for an ERA allowance.
69 Mr Lieftink described the skills levels and competencies of firefighters as follows:
“13. CAT 1 is generally a basic level of competency with an understanding of hazards and risks, isolation and mitigation procedures, location and general knowledge of CAT 2 technical stations their equipments and capabilities. CAT 1 certified staff are assessed in theory and practical components.
14. CAT 2 is a specific FESA competency which is world best standard and meets the specific requirements of the types of incidents that FESA responds to. Staff who are designated to stations (sic) which is identified as a specialist technical station (eg in Heavy Rescue) would generally be required to have CAT 2 training. Similarly, staff who are trained as specialists in a particular area would have CAT 2 training.
15. CAT 3 is a specific command based competency. CAT 3 level in USAR, for example, is what is necessary to be a USAR Task Force Leader or Divisional Commander. It covers extensive additional elements and performance criteria not covered in any other competency.”
(Exhibit A3 page 3)
USAR
70 Mr Lieftink stated that USAR technicians have frequently responded to incidents - up to 10 incidents in the past 12 months.
71 Mr Lieftink stated that in 2003 FESA required all firefighters to be competent in USAR Cat 1 and he stated that all recruits now undertake this training before graduating.
72 Mr Lieftink stated that Cat 2 USAR specialists are required to hold the following competencies: Cat 1 USAR, RCR, HR, VR, CSR, TR and structural collapse rescue, as well as a range of fire competencies including Hazmat, Breathing Apparatus, atmospheric monitoring and others. Mr Lieftink stated that training for USAR Cat 2 takes approximately 160 hours and this includes a multi shift exercise of from 30 to 72 hours and Mr Lieftink stated that these specialist competencies are maintained through regular training.
73 Mr Lieftink stated that the changing role of USAR has seen the introduction of a POD system which he described as a specially built state of the art “tool box” which supplies specialist equipment to USAR technicians. Firefighters who deliver the PODs to the required destination undertake 16 hours of training and he claimed that over 90 firefighters will be trained in this area, including USAR Cat 2 technicians, over the next two years.
74 Mr Lieftink stated that USAR Category 3 (“Cat 3”) courses are being developed nationally and will be implemented once developed and he stated that FESA currently has three employees trained to this level.
HR
75 Mr Lieftink stated that until about 2003, only crews allocated to an appliance called the Heavy Rescue Tender (previously called Emergency Tenders and Rescue trucks) were trained in HR.
76 Mr Lieftink gave evidence that since 2003, the new equipment firefighters are being trained to use in this area includes special airbags capable of lifting up to 80 tonnes in a single lift, special jacks capable of lifting up to 110 tonnes in a single lift, reciprocating saws, concrete and metal cutting disc saws, pneumatic disc saws for cutting through special metals to release limbs trapped in commercial and industrial machinery. Mr Lieftink stated that HR technicians are also trained in specific casualty transfer board systems which provide safer extrication systems for casualties and rescuers and HR technicians are now trained in safer techniques of cribbing which is a way of stabilising heavy weights and vehicles to prevent slippage or drop due to equipment failure.
77 Mr Lieftink stated that during the life of the proposed agreement FESA will implement a requirement that all firefighters become generally familiar with HR and he claimed that all firefighters will be required to undertake a Cat 1 HR workshop. Mr Lieftink stated that as part of this training firefighters are and will be trained in HR (as opposed to RCR), where HR crews are located, additional hazards and isolation required, the capabilities of the HR crews and their equipment and additional safety procedures when dealing with or assisting at incidents involving heavy rolling stock, transport and/or industrial machinery. Mr Lieftink stated that firefighters are also being trained in new operational checklists and tag out procedures which involves the safe isolation of hazards.
78 Mr Lieftink stated that FESA’s Executive Leadership Team has endorsed as a minimum a requirement that all firefighters undergo refresher training every six months and further refresher training, enhancement training and validation every 12 months in HR skills.
79 Mr Lieftink gave evidence about HR Cat 2. Mr Lieftink stated that since 2004 firefighters and relievers at eight HR stations have been or will be trained in PUA SAR 003A – Undertake Technical Rescue. Mr Lieftink stated that this training involves 16 hours of instruction, demonstrating capability over nine scenarios and two days of confirming competencies. Mr Lieftink stated that in the future HR crews will receive enhanced training in civil aircraft rescue and then military aircraft rescue and he stated that FESA’s intention is to continue to enhance the level of skill within HR and to continue to provide an increasing service to the community. Mr Lieftink stated that the following training resources have been developed and introduced to firefighters since 2004:
· A new HR /TR Training Resource Kit written to PUA SAR 003A and course.
· New HR equipment schedule to all HR stations both metro and country.
· Metro HR enhancement on site training package.
· A new HR Cat 1 and Cat 2 workshop and technical training DVD.
80 Mr Lieftink stated that the HR training DVDs refer to Cat 1 and Cat 2.
LR/VR
81 Mr Lieftink stated that VR within FESA remains a specific competency which at this time is still aligned to the former Australian Fire Competencies (“AFC”) of 2.17D High Angle Rescue Techniques and Mr Lieftink stated that the requirements of this competency are in excess of the corresponding current national competency PUA SAR 004A.
82 Mr Lieftink stated that the FESA VR course consists of approximately 130 hours of training and assessments and is by far the most complex and demanding competency conducted by FESA and its predecessors due to the height and risk of fall in this area. Mr Lieftink stated that there has been a recent increase in the amount of incidents requiring VR skills and he stated that following a review this year he understand that FESA will reintroduce Cat 1 VR training to all firefighters within the next two years.
83 Mr Lieftink is currently facilitating the enhancement of VR training within FESA and he stated that FESA plans to introduce a nationally endorsed rescue competency in this area in 2007. Mr Lieftink anticipates that the new course will be similar to the FESA LR/VR course aligned to the AFC competency, but he stated that this is yet to be determined. Mr Lieftink confirmed that over 350 employees are currently qualified in LR and this includes all USAR Cat 2 trained firefighters.
CSR
84 Mr Lieftink stated that prior to 2004 when the CSR training package was introduced there was no recognised CSR training within FESA.
85 Mr Lieftink stated that in 2005/2006 all firefighters received Cat 1 CSR training and he stated that firefighters must ensure that they maintain these skills by undertaking refresher courses and skill levels in this competency which will be validated annually.
86 Mr Lieftink stated that Cat 2 training involves approximately 40 hours of training, scenarios and assessment and Mr Lieftink estimates that over 450 employees will complete Cat 2 CSR training during the life of the proposed agreement, if not all firefighters, and he stated that this training includes training in VR.
87 Mr Lieftink stated that the following CSR training resources have been developed and introduced since 2004:
· A new CSR Training Resource Kit written to PUA SAR 005A and course.
· New CSR equipment schedule to all CSR stations both metro and country.
· New FESA Cat 1 CSR workshop DVD (which refers to Cat 1 training).
· A new Cat 2 technical training DVD is in production.
TR
88 Mr Lieftink stated that historically no one within FESA was trained to the AFC competency in TR or any other recognised competency. He also stated however that TR training formed part of the Heavy Rescue Tender and Emergency Tender training and since 1990 all firefighters were theoretically trained in TR in the module system of qualification.
89 Mr Lieftink stated that in 2007 a TR Training Resource Kit will be produced and he maintains that all USAR Cat 2 technicians will be trained in the new TR competency. Mr Lieftink stated that Cat 2 TR training will involve a minimum of 16 hours for trained Cat 2 USAR technicians and it will cover competencies over and above PUA SAR 006A.
90 Mr Lieftink maintains that a Cat 1 TR workshop resource will be produced and delivered to all firefighters during the life of the proposed agreement and that this training will provide all firefighters with the necessary awareness to assess hazards and the knowledge about relevant technical capability.
91 Mr Lieftink gave evidence that under his supervision as Rescue Manager, a new TR Training Resource Kit corresponding to national competency PUA SAR 006A is being produced.
RCR
92 Mr Lieftink stated that all firefighters are and have always been trained in some form of RCR and he maintained that since 1994 there have been a significant increase in the skills required by firefighters to perform a successful RCR and he claimed that the necessary training and competencies required have increased accordingly. Mr Lieftink stated that some of the new car technologies, especially restraint systems and alternative fuels, have created additional hazards and risks to rescuers, some of which are life threatening. Mr Lieftink stated that during the life of the proposed agreement, all firefighters will receive enhancement training in new RCR techniques and equipment.
93 Mr Lieftink stated that during the past two and a half years in his role as FESA Rescue Manager he has produced and introduced the following resources:
· A new RCR training resource kit written to the standards of the Australian Public Safety Training Package so as to correspond to the unit PUA SAR 002A.
· RCR DVD workshop featuring new techniques and highlighting safety procedures.
· RCR new car technology (SRS systems) DVD.
· Alternate fuel DVD workshop featuring new hybrid vehicle technology, compressed natural gas and hydrogen buses.
· HOLMATRO Road Rescue DVD and book package to all rescue stations.
· RCR enhancement to rescue crews.
94 Mr Lieftink stated that the competency of PUA SAR 002A underpins a number of other competencies such as HR and Cat 2 USAR (Structural Collapse Rescue).
CBR
95 Mr Lieftink stated that CBR is related to terrorist or extremely lethal criminal acts and Mr Lieftink stated that all firefighters over the past three years have received training in the basic concepts of CBR and that specialist crews from SET stations have received over six days of extensive initial training as well as continuous enhanced training.
96 In summing up his evidence about the enhanced rescue capabilities of WA firefighters, Mr Lieftink stated that based on his knowledge of FESA and of other fire services, he considers that within three years FESA career firefighters have gone from having an average rescue capacity to a world and national leader in standards, equipment and capability.
97 Mr Lieftink stated that Cat 1 training in all areas of enhanced rescue to all firefighters has and will greatly increased firefighters’ skill levels and FESA’s enhanced rescue capability and he stated that a large proportion of firefighters now have specialist or Cat 2 competencies in at least one area of enhanced rescue.
98 Mr Lieftink maintained that FESA’s Training Centre records are inaccurate because FESA has only had a system to record a firefighter’s level of training in the past three to four years and as a result many firefighters who hold pre-existing AFC competencies have not had these recorded.
99 Mr Lieftink stated that the extent of Cat 1 training for firefighters in each of the enhanced rescue areas being claimed by the union varied but he maintained that Cat 1 training in all areas was more than an awareness about that particular rescue skill even though the Cat 1 training did not always correspond to a national competency. Mr Lieftink stated the following about Cat 1 training:
“You - - you were - - it was suggested to you that the term "workshop" is just information and your answer was "no". Can I ask you to expand on that. If it's not just information what else is it?- - -It - - it's a whole range of factors like - - of knowledge of hazards and how to - - how to operate those hazards, how to utilise the isolations, how to utilise the tag-outs, how to use an operational check guide which has specifically been written to guide them through and how to make the correct decisions which related to it. They are then used in conjunction when they do their multi-agency drills and they train together with the other stations that are specialists so all these things are important but it's - - all these things you can't just call them knowledge because they have to - - they have to use this. They have to demonstrate the ability to use this and they must use this because it locks them into the mobilising procedures. An example of this is in a confined space incident if they didn't identify - - if they didn't have the knowledge (a) to first identify, "Is it a confined space?" that will slow down the process of - - of getting technicians there which have the correct equipment. If they don't - - if they aren't taught about the hazards they could go - - they could go the way of 80 per cent of other confined space entrance deaths around the world which are rescuers and that's why we've introduced it. So it is - - it is a practical - - it is a knowledge base but it is a practical application of that.”
(Transcript page 111)
100 Mr Lieftink reiterated that he estimated that over 450 firefighters would be trained at CSR Cat 2 level during the life of the proposed agreement and he stated that as the Rescue Manager he has facilitated the training of these firefighters and Mr Lieftink stated that he would have a better idea than Mr O’Day of the number of firefighters trained in this area. Mr Lieftink maintains that the frequency of rescues does not impact on a firefighter’s training regime and he stated that ‘we train as we rescue’ (transcript page 113). Mr Lieftink reiterated that FESA’s training records are incomplete as FESA has not put into its database skills and qualifications previously acquired by many firefighters and Mr Lieftink stated that hundreds of firefighters have qualified in areas such as RCR and LR but have not received certificates. Mr Lieftink again stated that the Cat 1 VR course should be in place within two years.
Mr Allan Morton
101 Mr Morton gave evidence in support of the union’s claim for an AFAA and he detailed the history of the first aid training of Victorian firefighters from the early 1990s.
102 Mr Morton stated that the arbitrated decision of Deputy President Bryant of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission which issued in December 1996, determined that a trial of the provision of emergency medical service by Victorian firefighters on a ‘first response’ system should proceed and DP Bryant determined that the following allowances should be paid:
· $1.00 per hour to every employee who elected to make themselves available for the emergency medical services training and to perform those medical duties when required;
· a further $0.50 per hour for those who participated in a trial of the provision of emergency medical services on a first response basis;
· a further unspecified amount could be claimed if and when the trial became permanent.
103 Mr Morton stated that to provide the type of emergency medical service envisaged by the trial it was necessary to train firefighters over and above the level 2 first aid that they had been trained to at the time. Mr Morton stated that as a result of this decision all firefighters who volunteered to participate in the training and to make themselves available to perform the emergency medical services duties thereafter were paid $1.00 per hour. Mr Morton stated that this training involved a 72 hour course run over eight full days and covered matters such as:
· Legal Considerations
· Universal Infection Control
· Primary and Secondary Survey
· Oxygen therapy, IPPV and CPR
· Oxygen Resuscitation including the use of Bag-Valve-Mask and MTV-100 resuscitator unit
· Respiratory Distress
· Altered Conscious State
· Major trauma including bleeding, burns, eye injuries
· Painful Musculoskeletal Injuries including Soft Tissue Injuries and Fractures
· Moving a Patient
· Certified use of Semi-Automatic External Defibrillator (SAED) unit
104 Mr Morton stated that by 1999 all except a few employees had volunteered to do the emergency medical services training and were receiving the $1.00 per hour allowance, and those participating in the trial received an extra $0.50.
105 Mr Morton stated that in a certified agreement covering Victorian firefighters in 1999 the $1.00 per hour paid in respect of the training and skills enabling a firefighter to offer first aid to victims when the firefighter, whether participating in the trial or not, arrived on the scene was rolled into the base rate of all firefighters ($37.43 per week) and this amount was paid for all purposes of the agreement (see Exhibit A4, Attachment 2 which is an extract from the MFESB, United Firefighters Union of Australia, Operational Staff Agreement 1999 that records the ‘rolling in’ of $37.43 per week) and an additional $0.50 per hour was also paid to those participating in the pilot. Mr Morton stated that around 2001 the pilot was completed and the MFESB determined that EMR would be extended throughout the whole of the MFESB district.
106 Mr Morton stated that the MFESB 2002 certified agreement (which replaced the 1999 agreement) recognised EMR as a ‘core function’ of the MFESB and Mr Morton stated that the first dispatch of fire appliances was still limited to a number of defined ‘Priority 0’ calls. Mr Morton stated that in recognition of EMR becoming a core function of firefighters in Victoria, an additional allowance of $1.50 per hour was to be paid to all employees available to be rostered to perform EMR duties and this allowance was paid for every hour worked but not for those times when the employee was not available (such as when on annual leave).
107 Mr Morton stated that after 2002 employees who had completed the EMR training were now receiving:
· the initial $1.00 per hour awarded in 1996 now rolled into their base rate at the rate of $37.43 per week (now multiplied by the wage increases received in the MFESB 2002 agreement); plus
· a further $1.50 per hour in recognition of EMR being a core function of the MFESB.
COMPARISON OF FIRST AID TRAINING OF VICTORIAN AND WA FIREFIGHTERS
108 Mr Morton stated that he considers that the skills required to be exercised by firefighters in WA are comparable to those required to be exercised in Victoria and he disagreed with FESA’s assertion that Victorian firefighters undertake limited paramedic functions. Mr Morton stated that he has read the witness statements of the union’s witnesses and reviewed the Australian National Training Authority material relating to the modules PUA EME 001A - Provide Emergency Care, PUA EME 003B - Administer Oxygen in an Emergency Situation and PUA EME 002B - Manage Injuries at Emergency Incident. Mr Morton stated that the first aid skills of WA firefighters trained in these three modules would be very similar to that of an MFESB firefighter who had completed EMR training. Mr Morton stated that the competencies set out by Mr Hull in his witness statement at point 23 are also taught as part of the EMR course within the MFESB and he stated that there are some competencies referred to by Mr Hull that are not taught at EMR level because it involves material and equipment that MFESB does not use or cover.
109 In summary Mr Morton stated that firefighters in WA are capable of performing emergency medical duties at incidents that are:
· greater than those performed by Victorian firefighters at the time of DP Bryant’s decision;
· comparable to those performed by firefighters who now perform EMR duties in Victoria.
110 Mr Morton stated that as a function of EMR in Victoria when an incident is called in both an ambulance and fire appliance are despatched simultaneously. Mr Morton stated that if firefighters arrive first at an incident they are medically and legally responsible for patient care until ambulance officers arrive and then primary responsibility goes to the ambulance officers. Mr Morton stated that this situation is not much different to pre-EMR. Mr Morton also stated that Victorian firefighters are not at ‘near paramedic level’. Mr Morton gave evidence that firefighters undertake more first aid training days in Victoria than WA firefighters because of a bigger concentration on practical work but notwithstanding this he maintains that the first aid competencies required of WA firefighters are comparable to those required of Victorian firefighters. Mr Morton stated that appliances in Victoria do not have speed blocks or casualty boards.
111 Under cross-examination Mr Morton stated that if a firefighter attended an incident prior to the introduction of EMR he/she would deliver first aid to casualties if they were first on the scene and he stated that firefighters undertook this role in addition to their normal roles. Mr Morton stated that as part of an EMR response which arose from a ‘Priority 0’ call firefighters can be called to attend a medical emergency only and that EMR responses involve a high probability of an unconscious, non-breathing/pulse patient. Mr Morton confirmed that part of a firefighter’s assessment to undertake EMR requires firefighters to undertake 12 months on the job training and assist qualified first responders.
Mr Peter Jones
112 Mr Jones gave evidence about CBR.
113 Mr Jones stated that prior to 2003 CBR training consisted of awareness training only. Mr Jones stated that CBR training introduced in 2003 consisted of the following areas and he stated that all firefighters have been trained in these areas:
· Awareness of the chemical, biological and radiological risks and material
· Personal Protective Equipment (“PPE”) required
· Mass Decontamination (“MD”) procedures
· Understanding SOPs
114 Mr Jones gave evidence that there is no national training standard for CBR and that the levels of training and the elements and outcomes of this training are currently being discussed at a national level and he stated that there is a possibility that there will be specific competencies that arise as a result of this process.
115 Mr Jones stated that FESA’s CBR equipment is constantly being improved and updated, which in turn requires firefighters to acquire new skills and competencies. For example FESA has recently commenced training in the use of the SUMA Canister which is used to sample gases in a “hot zone” and Mr Jones stated that training in this equipment has so far taken place at SET stations. Mr Jones stated that FESA has a number of CBR specialist stations, Malaga and Bassendean were designated MD stations in 2004 and 2005 respectively and Murdoch and Osborne Park stations were designated SET stations in 2005 and 2004. Mr Jones stated that FESA has also trained District Managers over a three day training course in CBR Managing of Emergencies which involves inter-agency training and he stated that specialist crews from the SET stations receive extensive initial training of over six days and continuous enhanced training which covers an extensive range of state of the art detectors and that the crews at Osborne Park and Murdoch have undertaken specialised SET training.
116 Mr Jones stated that specialist SET training consists of:
· Introduction to CBR
· Chemical detector training – Photo Ionisation Detector (PID), Bruker Raid AP2C Detector and Multi Pro gas detector
· Radiological detection, including R200 detector and DMC Personal Dosimeter
· Use of SE400 Respirators
· Use of rescue trolleys and stretchers
· Use of the relevant PPE
Mr Jones stated that there is a practical assessment of these skills and regular reviews are required to maintain competency in these skills and he stated that it is envisaged that further training will be required and conducted during the life of the proposed agreement.
117 Mr Jones stated that FESA has trained firefighters at Malaga and Bassendean to operate a MD system which consists of:
· Construction of MD tent, and setting up associated equipment
· Operation of heating and water units
· Casualty control and procedures
· Operation and use of SE400 respirators
· Liaison with St John Ambulance personnel
· Casualty care and re-dress
118 Mr Jones stated that Cat 2 trained firefighters will be required to undertake CBR skills maintenance.
119 Mr Jones believes that FESA’s firefighters are trained to a much higher level in CBR than firefighters in other States and he stated that their skills compare more than favourably with firefighters in these jurisdictions.
120 Mr Jones maintains that it will be necessary to train more staff in specialist Cat 2 CBR to ensure sufficient trained relievers are available at specialist CBR stations.
121 Mr Jones maintains that significant differences exist between a Hazmat and a CBR incident. Mr Jones claims that CBR incidents involve multiple agencies and are usually bigger and more complex than a Hazmat incident. Mr Jones stated that Hazmat training has always been done by firefighters and that it covers procedures and PPE equipment but did not prepare firefighters to successfully respond to a CBR event. Mr Jones stated that CBR training covers additional PPE, equipment used and more procedures than Hazmat.
122 Under cross-examination Mr Jones stated that CBR Cat 1 awareness training of firefighters and new recruits is delivered at the Training Centre over five hours and includes a CBR table top exercise at the end of the training session and the course covers signs, symptoms and PPE.
123 Mr Jones stated that state of the art equipment is used to assess the exact chemical involved in an incident and Mr Jones stated that FESA trains firefighters in the use of these machines.
Mr Geoffrey O’Day
124 Mr O’Day gave evidence in support of the union’s claim about CSR. Mr O’Day stated that prior to the inception in the last 18 months of a recognised national public safety competency in CSR, there was no appropriate CSR training within FESA. Mr O’Day stated that in 2006 FESA introduced the CSR capability to firefighters throughout WA to make certain that the systems and equipment firefighters use when attempting to rescue a person in a confined space meet the regulations and requirements governing CSR.
125 Mr O’Day stated that all firefighters have been trained to Cat 1 level in CSR. Mr O’Day stated that CSR Cat 1 training, which is referred to as Cat 1 on the training DVD, gives firefighters an understanding of how to define, identify and initiate appropriate action when confronted with a CSR situation and he stated that this knowledge reduces the demand for firefighters to conduct inappropriate CSRs. This qualification also allows crews to provide vital support functions necessary for a successful CSR for example haulage team, crowd control, Incident Command Systems and Breathing Apparatus servicing procedures. Mr O’Day stated that a firefighter who has completed Cat 1 CSR would have an understanding of how to define, identify the hazards and initiate the appropriate procedures and actions when confronted with a CSR and that this knowledge should reduce the demand for firefighters to initiate inappropriate responses during a CSR and this qualification also allows crews to provide the vital support functions necessary for a successful CSR for example haulage team, crowd control, Incident Command Systems and Breathing Apparatus servicing procedures and these are not skills that a firefighter would have been required to have or exercise prior to 2006.
126 Mr O’Day stated that Cat 2 CSR training is currently being introduced at nine stations and some volunteer stations across WA and he stated that when firefighters at the nine stations are qualified approximately 290 firefighters will be able to perform all aspects of a CSR. In addition Mr O’Day stated it is envisaged that there will need to be a minimum of 40 additional firefighters trained to Cat 2 CSR level as relieving staff to adequately cover permanent staff vacancies.
127 Mr O’Day stated that a firefighter who has completed Cat 2 CSR would be able to exercise the following skills and would be expected to perform them where necessary as part of their job:
· CSR checklist
· Isolation and tag out procedures
· Implement control measures
· Atmospheric testing, monitoring and recording
· CSR ventilation principals and equipment
· Use of Mini BD96 escape packs
· Use of Air cart and airlines
· Hazard assessment
· Risk assessment
· Interrogate standby person
· Utilise new tripod, equipment, lifting systems and removal techniques
· Develop and implement a rescue plan that conforms to SOPs, safety procedures and recognised standards.
Mr O’Day stated that these are not skills that a firefighter prior to 2006 would have been required to have or exercise.
128 Mr O’Day stated that an extensive range of new equipment has been introduced to firefighters to deal with CSR. This equipment includes:
· Rescue lines
· Ropes/tapes
· Tripod
· Rescue harnesses
· Hardware
· Litters/stretchers
· Hauling systems
· Air cart and airlines
· Atmospheric monitoring equipment
· Escape sets/mini BD96
· Isolation equipment
· Confined Space Rescue Ventilation equipment (coppus cadet)
· 2KVA Generator
129 Mr O’Day gave evidence that as a result of the introduction of CSR competencies firefighters are now required to understand and adhere to a comprehensive new series of procedures and skills that complies with occupational safety and health legislation, Australian Standard 2865 2001, industry standards and FESA Standard Operating Procedures (“SOP”) when conducting a CSR.
130 Mr O’Day stated that all firefighters are expected to maintain their CSR skills and competencies.
131 Mr O’Day maintained that the following stations have at least the number of firefighters listed who are required to be CSR specialists:
· Osborne Park Fire Station 36 firefighters
· Murdoch Fire Station 52 firefighters (including relief component)
· Joondalup Fire Station 28 firefighters
· Success Fire Station 18 firefighters
· Perth Fire Station 72 firefighters (including relief component)
· Kalgoorlie Fire Station 20 firefighters
· Bunbury Fire Station 20 firefighters
· Albany Fire Station 20 firefighters
· Geraldton Fire Station 20 firefighters
· Kununurra Fire Station 2 firefighters
· Karratha Fire Station 2 firefighters.
Mr O’Day stated that a number of CSR instructors are trained in CSR to specialist level, and that this number exceeds the 148 personnel recorded at the Training Centre.
132 Mr O’Day stated that the procedures for a CSR rescue have changed dramatically in the past 18 months. Mr O’Day stated that firefighters who have undertaken CSR Cat 1 training are now aware of the equipment used by Cat 2 CSR firefighters and he stated that much of the rescue line equipment currently used is new.
Mr Leigh Bishop
133 Mr Bishop gave evidence in support of the union’s claim for an AFAA. Mr Bishop stated that fire service personnel are now required to have an advanced level of first aid to be able to deal with the variety of life threatening situations faced and that these range from advanced resuscitation skills, burns victims, spine immobilisation, triage, bleeding and crush syndrome.
134 Mr Bishop stated that in his role as a firefighter he routinely attends traffic accidents and with the excellent response times of firefighters to accidents combined with the advent of a hospital bypass system has resulted in firefighters increasingly becoming the first responders to an emergency. Mr Bishop stated that this forces firefighters into the role of first responders who administer medical assistance pending the arrival of paramedics. Mr Bishop stated that firefighters are also being called to assist ambulance officers in non-life threatening incidents such as heavy lifting of patients or retrieval from difficult places such as multi-level residences or persons confined in bathrooms/toilets.
135 Mr Bishop stated that the roles and responsibilities of today’s firefighters extend way beyond what is expected of persons with first aid skills in workplaces. Mr Bishop stated that eight years ago when he commenced as a firefighter the only requirement was to hold a Senior First Aid certificate and he stated that now the first aid required of firefighters has markedly increased. Mr Bishop stated that firefighters have advanced first aid knowledge as a result of extensive training and experience.
136 Mr Bishop stated that some examples of new medical and paramedical equipment used by firefighters include the stiff neck cervical collar, the oxyviva unit which includes Oropharangeal Airways, casualty transfer boards and speed blocks. Mr Bishop stated that a number of medical tasks associated with this equipment have only been required of him and other firefighters in the last three to four years and Mr Bishop stated that he did not have the training or the skills to use this equipment when he commenced with FESA in 1999 as he was only trained in Senior First Aid at that time. Mr Bishop stated that the level of assistance that firefighters provide to casualties and that firefighters can give to ambulance officers is much greater now than it used to be.
Mr Kevin Jolly
AFAA
137 Mr Jolly gave evidence in support of the union’s claim for an AFAA and detailed the history of first aid training that WA firefighters have been given since he became a firefighter in 1985 and the recompense given to firefighters for this training.
138 Mr Jolly maintains that the 1994 work value case recognised extra RCR duties undertaken by firefighters and he gave evidence that the increased pay given to firefighters as a result of this decision did not include any payment for first aid skills because St John’s Ambulance was responsible for medical care at all traffic accidents and all other incidents at the time.
139 Mr Jolly stated that between 1996 and 2006 there have been changes to the level of skills of firefighters with respect to first aid qualifications/requalifications and he stated that improved equipment has also been provided to firefighters to perform first aid functions since 1996.
140 Mr Jolly stated that crews are attending more and more traffic accidents before ambulance officers arrive (eight or nine times out of ten) and as a result administer their AFA skills and knowledge to the general public and he stated that this is saving lives.
141 Mr Jolly referred to four incidents that his platoon attended in the previous five weeks where firefighters carried out or were available to undertake first aid duties.
ERA
142 Mr Jolly also gave evidence about the union’s ERA claim. Mr Jolly stated that since the 2004 Agreement was registered FESA has significantly increased the training and workloads of firefighters in the areas that fall under enhanced rescue.
143 Mr Jolly stated that he was a member of the union’s committee of management when the 2004 Agreement was entered into and Mr Jolly gave evidence that the negotiating team reported back to the committee about the progress of the negotiations and the agreement reached. Mr Jolly claimed that the payment referred to at Clause 53 of the 2004 Agreement was made to firefighters for having basic knowledge and training in the areas of USAR and CBR and he stated that this payment did not include any component for HR, VR, CSR, TR, RCR and MD. Mr Jolly considers that the Cat 1 USAR and CBR training and work required of firefighters since then is more than “basic”.
USAR
144 Mr Jolly detailed the major changes in USAR training:
· all firefighter crews have been upskilled to Cat 1 USAR PUA SAR 001A;
· all firefighter recruits now graduate competent in Cat 1 USAR;
· every career firefighter conducts maintenance training on USAR Cat 1 regularly.
145 Mr Jolly stated that there have also been further updates by way of DVD and Training Resource Kits and firefighters are required to complete these packages and undertake maintenance training to remain competent in this area.
CBR
146 Mr Jolly stated that the training for CBR contemplated by the payment in the 2004 Agreement only involved an updating of the Hazardous Materials Incident training however the training required in this area has turned out to be much more than this. Mr Jolly stated that since CBR was implemented FESA has introduced new PPE equipment and procedures and also new MD equipment to supplement CBR and he stated that all firefighters from Malaga and Bassendean fire stations are fully trained in all aspects of the MD system. Mr Jolly stated that many hours of training are required to operate the complex MD systems and that with initial training and ongoing maintenance training in the first year crew training hours would exceed 50 hours. Mr Jolly stated that as the MD system is stored in a POD, all crews must be trained and competent to operate the Transporter and Delivery system which requires an additional 16 hours of training.
CSR
147 Mr Jolly stated that CSR is a new qualification introduced in the last two to three years and he stated that firefighters are now fully trained to the national competency in this area. Mr Jolly stated that FESA has trained four metropolitan and four country station crews to Cat 2 level in CSR and he believes that firefighters at most metropolitan stations will be trained in CSR within two years.
HR
148 Mr Jolly stated that HR training has been implemented in the last two to three years to complement the vehicle rescue capability and Mr Jolly stated that modern vehicles now require firefighters to have improved skills and knowledge in extrication techniques and vehicle design and construction.
149 Mr Jolly stated that FESA has trained four metropolitan and four country fire station crews to Cat 2 level in HR and he stated that all other firefighters who work with these crews must know the capabilities of the HR equipment in use. Mr Jolly believes that FESA’s HR capability and training will flow through to all career fire stations especially where areas of risk exist, such as heavy industry and high heavy haulage traffic areas.
FESA’S RELIEVING SYSTEM
150 Mr Jolly stated that the 2004 Agreement indicates that FESA wanted to go to a ‘dispersed’ relieving arrangement and would create eight relief stations. FESA indicated that Perth, Fremantle, Daglish, Duncraig, Belmont, Maddington, Midland and Rockingham would be relieving stations and that each of these stations would be allocated three relief firefighters and one relief officer. Mr Jolly stated that the principle behind the system is that the closest designated relief station would send the relieving firefighter/officer to the station requiring a relief, however, for a variety of reasons including holidays, sick leave and other duties, at times the closest relief station may not be able to send a relief and in such an instance, the reliever would have to come from the next closest, and so on. Mr Jolly maintained that given the number of stations that now have specialist functions that staff who relieve to these stations will have to be trained in the area of the station’s particular speciality and most if not all relievers will need to be trained in every extra discipline to cover the problem of a reliever to a specialist station not coming from the immediately closest station. Mr Jolly stated that this will inevitably require large numbers of firefighters to be trained in a large number of specialist areas. Mr Jolly stated that relief is also required for country areas, where many of the stations have specialisations.
151 Mr Jolly referred to a table identifying all of the career country and metropolitan stations in WA, their specialities and firefighter numbers (see Exhibit A8 point 4 - reply witness statement). Mr Jolly stated that this table relates to the current situation and does not take into account the proposed dispersed relieving system. Mr Jolly calculates that on the basis of the numbers of firefighters on shift at any one time, a minimum of 66 per cent (112 out of 169) of firefighters will be required to be trained to a specialist Cat 2 level in one of the enhanced rescue areas and Mr Jolly stated that when POD deployment at Canning Vale is taken into account the figure is 70 per cent (118 out of 169). Mr Jolly stated that these figures are for one shift only and that when the percentage of enhanced rescue specialisation is applied to the whole workforce of 853 firefighters this amounts to approximately 596 firefighters being trained in at least one specialist level. Mr Jolly maintains that this figure is a minimum and does not take into account the fact that some employees will have specialist training over and above the minimum required for the station at which they are at any particular time and he stated that some employees may be trained to a specialist level and be located at a non-specialist station. Mr Jolly maintains that as just over two thirds of the firefighters on shift in WA at any one time have a specialist enhanced rescue capacity, this indicates that there has been a general skill increase and a change in the nature of work expected of firefighters and Mr Jolly rejects FESA’s argument that the requirement to specialise has been confined to small groups of firefighters.
152 Mr Jolly set out FESA’s assessment of the number of ‘units’ of specialisation, at least 0.75 to 0.77 per firefighter, and compared this to the union’s assessment of 1.4 units per firefighter in the following table (the reference to ‘para’ in the table is a reference to the paragraph in the witnesses’ statements):
Specialisation
FESA Estimate
UFU Estimate
USAR
34 (Hynes para 17)
50 (Lieftink para 27)
Heavy Rescue
321 (Hynes paras 30, 33)
350 (Lieftink reply para 7)
Line Rescue
35 (Hynes para 40)
350 (Lieftink para 62)
Confined Space Rescue
148 (Hynes para 49)
290+ (Lieftink para 75; O’Day para 24)

Trench Rescue
2 (Hynes para 51)
50 (Lieftink paras 27, 89)
CBR
100 (Hynes para 64)
100 (Jones Reply para 5)
TOTAL
640 - 656
1190 +
(Exhibit A8 reply witness statement page 6)
Mr Jolly stated that if training to a specialist level is taken to be one ‘unit’ of specialisation, then based on FESA’s witnesses’ figures there are 640 to 656 ‘units’ of specialisation within a workforce of 853 people. Mr Jolly stated that on average therefore, even when accepting FESA’s figures, every firefighter can be said to have at least 0.75 to 0.77 ‘units’ of specialisation. Mr Jolly stated that on the union’s figures, every firefighter can be said to have 1.4 units of specialisation and he stated that when the FESA workforce is considered as a whole, this represents a very high level of enhanced rescue training. Mr Jolly stated that there will be some firefighters who have three Cat 2 units and some who have none, however, he maintains that what the table identifying all of the career country and metropolitan stations shows is that the requirement to be trained to a specialist level is spread throughout the fire service and is not confined merely to a few groups of select specialists.
153 Mr Jolly stated that in addition to the specialist qualifications all of the workforce has enhanced rescue capabilities in the form of Cat 1 or basic CSR, CBR, HR and USAR.
154 Mr Jolly stated in summary that:
· all firefighters have (or will have by the end of the proposed agreement) enhanced rescue capabilities by being trained to Cat 1 or basic level in CSR, CBR, HR, RCR and USAR;
· each firefighter has at least the equivalent (on the union’s witnesses’ figures) of 1.4 ‘units’ of specialisation in an enhanced rescue area; and
· this level of training is spread throughout the workforce and not concentrated in a few select specialists, as at least 66 to 70 per cent of the workforce will be required to be trained to specialist level in at least one area of enhanced rescue.
155 Mr Jolly believes that firefighters at two additional stations will be trained in CSR within two years due to insufficient numbers of trained firefighters in this area and he maintained that there will be more firefighters trained in HR in areas where heavy haulage traffic exists, for example, Bassendean station due to the existence of the train line.
156 Under cross-examination Mr Jolly stated that under current procedures specialist crews carry out specialised rescues and firefighters who arrive first at an incident wait for these specialists to arrive to undertake the rescue and Mr Jolly stated that it is preferable to wait for ambulance officers before extracting casualties from a vehicle however this is not always possible, for example, when cars catch fire. Mr Jolly contrasted this with previous requirements where firefighters who arrived at an incident would undertake the rescue whether or not they had specialised skills. Mr Jolly stated that since the 2004 Agreement there has been a significant increase in the training and workload of firefighters in a range of areas including cross training where for example MPHR vehicles or CSR vehicles will go to other stations and train and this has resulted in raising the skill base of every firefighter.
157 Under re-examination Mr Jolly stated that FESA’s MPHR vehicles have only been introduced in the past 12 months and he stated that they are nothing like the previous Emergency Tender vehicles.
Mr Kelly Wyeth
158 Mr Wyeth gave evidence about FESA’s new relieving system in the metropolitan area referred to as the ‘dispersed relieving’ system.
159 Mr Wyeth stated that in six out of eight relief districts half or more of firefighters on shift at any one time will be required to be trained to specialist level in at least one area of enhanced rescue and in the other two relief districts, Maddington and Rockingham, staff are trained in POD deployment and Hazmat respectively.
160 Mr Wyeth stated that at least 62 per cent of firefighters (72 out of 117) on shift at any time in the metropolitan area will be required to have more than one level of specialist competency and 26 per cent will be required to have more than two competencies. Mr Wyeth stated that the number of specialist firefighters is likely to increase as further areas of specialisation are extended to other stations such as HR to Mandurah and stations in the northern corridor. Mr Wyeth stated that as firefighters can be required to relieve outside of their district, greater amounts of specialisation may also be required.
161 Mr Wyeth prepared tables in support of his claims and he stated that the following table summarises the specialisation that will be required given FESA’s relief matrix:
Relief District
Regular Crew
(Firefighters)
Number of FF with one or more specialist qualifications
Number of FF with two or more specialist qualifications
Perth
23
20
14
Belmont
16
8

Midland
8
5

Duncraig
16
13
8
Maddington
13


Murdoch
19 (maybe 20)
19 (maybe 20)
8 (maybe 9)
Rockingham
11


Butler
11
7

TOTAL
117 (maybe 118)
72 (maybe 73)
30
(Exhibit A9 page 13)
Mr Len Hull
162 Mr Hull gave evidence in support of the union’s claim for an AFAA and he detailed the history of the first aid training of WA firefighters prior to and post the early 1990’s.
163 Mr Hull stated that in the last ten years he has seen a considerable improvement of first aid skills of firefighters and he maintains that this improvement is well above the skills involved in Senior First Aid and what was expected of a firefighter ten years ago.
164 Mr Hull stated that since the implementation of regular first aid training through to the present competency of ‘Manage Injuries at an Emergency Incident’ he has observed that firefighters’ skills have progressed from a level below what is expected of Senior First Aid to a level of competency expected of an emergency service. Mr Hull stated that some of these competencies and underpinning knowledge that firefighters now have that they did not have before include:
· Patient Ethical and Legal requirements;
· Anatomy and Physiology;
· Patient Assessments;
· Working with Ambulance Crews;
· Removal and Operation of Ambulance Stretchers;
· Application of Extrication Collars;
· Suction Tubes/yankier;
· Casualty Handling Devices;
· Automatic External Defibrillation.
165 Mr Hull stated that it is not uncommon for fire crews to arrive at a vehicle accident before ambulance crews and he stated that before the recent upskilling of firefighters in first aid, crews did not do much more than reassure the patient that an ambulance was on the way. Mr Hull stated that he was aware of instances in the last ten years where fire appliances have been dispatched at the request of the ambulance service to attend an incident and assist paramedics until a second ambulance arrives. Mr Hull estimated that where fire appliances are dispatched before ambulances, more often than not the fire appliance arrives first and where AFA is required firefighters will be required to perform AFA duties in the absence of paramedics and Mr Hull stated that sometimes firefighters deal solely with medical emergencies.
166 Mr Hull stated that in recent years he has seen firefighters confidently deal with multiple casualties whilst waiting for ambulance crews, ambulance crews having the confidence to allow firefighters to administer analgesics, firefighters being left to treat a number of injured people (including severe head injuries) whilst the only ambulance at the scene left with one patient and he stated that in a recent USAR exercise firefighters packaged and removed all the casualties.
167 Mr Hull gave evidence that the ability of firefighters to use spinal equipment has also increased over time.
168 Mr Hull disagreed with FESA’s assertion that firefighters are not being trained in defibrillation techniques as the St John first aid refresher course that all firefighters are required to do, which has been in place for at least four years, includes training in using automatic defibrillators.
169 Mr Hull stated that since 1995 substantial first aid kits were placed on appliances including collars for spinal injuries and he stated that the level of first aid training of firefighters prior to this date was basic. Mr Hull stated that after 1996 there was not only maintenance training in first aid but training in additional areas.
Mr Jan Szczygiel
170 Mr Szczygiel gave evidence in support of the union’s claim for an AFAA. Mr Szczygiel stated that all recruit firefighters are required to complete the following units:
· PUA EME 001A – Provide Emergency Care (by achieving Senior First Aid)
· PUA EME 002B – Manage Injuries at Emergency Incident
· PUA EME 003a – Administer Oxygen in an Emergency Situation
Mr Szczygiel stated that from 2006 all firefighters employed at MPHR stations will be required to be trained at the following level:
· PUA EME 001A – Provide Emergency Care (by achieving Senior First Aid)
· PUA EME 002a – Manage Injuries at Emergency Incident
· PUA EME 003a – Administer Oxygen in an Emergency Situation
171 Mr Szczygiel stated that all FESA recruit firefighters are now required to complete both PUA EME 001A – Provide Emergency Care (by achieving Senior First Aid) and the higher level PUA EME 002B – Manage Injuries at an Emergency Incident and Mr Szczygiel stated that since 2006 the higher level of first aid is now a competency required of all new firefighters. Mr Szczygiel stated that all new firefighters will be trained in PUA EME 002B – Manage Injuries at an Emergency Incident and he gave evidence that a firefighter trained to this level does not have the same paramedic training as an ambulance officer might receive, however the course incorporates skills for persons who deal with injured people at emergency incidents. Mr Szczygiel stated that the initial training for AFA lasts approximately two days and is reinforced throughout the remainder of the recruit school. Mr Szczygiel stated that Mr Stevens advised the union in August 2006 that all current firefighters will also receive training to this level of competency (see Exhibit A11, Attachment 1).
172 Mr Szczygiel stated that after completing PUA EME 002B, a firefighter would be expected to perform the following:
· Assess the scene;
· Assess the casualty;
· Implement emergency management procedures and evaluate;
· Move the casualty and continually assess;
· Complete documentation;
· Use equipment including oxygen equipment (for example oxyviva), stiff neck collars and patient transfer boards.
173 Mr Szczygiel stated that all firefighters who are currently employed will be trained for the first time this year in PUA EME 003a – Administer Oxygen in an Emergency Situation.
174 Mr Szczygiel stated that AFA is an essential component of firefighting skills.
175 Mr Szczygiel stated that the higher level first aid competency is a prerequisite for a number of other higher competencies, including PUA FIR 302A - Suppress Urban Fire and PUA SAR 002A - Undertake Road Accident Rescue, which is in turn a prerequisite for PUA SAR 003A - Technical Rescue (FESA Heavy Rescue).
176 Mr Szczygiel stated that compared to a firefighter who held only a Senior First Aid certificate, a FESA firefighter in 2006 is required to exercise skills approaching those of a first responder with significantly higher level skills than Senior First Aid.
177 Mr Szczygiel stated that whilst there are distinctions between the first responder role of the MFESB in Victoria and the role of firefighters in WA (the former provides a ‘first dispatch’ emergency response to medical emergencies whereas firefighters in WA do not) he believed that the role of ‘first responding’ firefighters in each state at fire and rescue incidents appears substantially the same. Mr Szczygiel stated that there are only slight differences in the competencies they are trained to perform and the only difference in training appears to him to be mainly in the amount of time made available for the training to occur as firefighters in Victoria were given more time to consolidate the skills learned. Additionally, Victorian firefighters are trained in aspects of the Victorian pre-hospital system.
178 Mr Szczygiel stated that he does not consider that firefighters in Victoria perform a ‘limited paramedic’ role and that firefighters in WA do not provide such a response. Mr Szczygiel stated that he believes that the role of firefighters in Victoria does not equate to that of a paramedic as paramedics undergo years of training but he stated that their skills are closer than firefighters in Australia have ever been and that WA firefighters are only slightly behind.
179 Mr Szczygiel stated that because of the medical response role of Victorian firefighters they will use their skills in a wider variety of scenarios than WA firefighters but he maintains that a Victorian firefighter’s first aid skills are basically the same as WA firefighters and he claims that the skills and equipment utilised by the Victorian firefighters (including defibrillators) are only slightly above those of firefighters in WA.
180 Mr Szczygiel stated that he believes that defibrillators are not carried on all appliances in WA due to financial constraints.
181 Mr Szczygiel maintained that much of the Senior First Aid training was theoretical which contrasts with training under managing injuries.
Mr Les Holden
182 Mr Holden gave evidence in support of the union’s claim for a CSO allowance. Mr Holden stated that major changes have taken place in the roles and responsibilities of the Supervisor Communications Centre and CSOs since commencing shift reliefs in the CC in December 2000. Mr Holden stated that these changes range from the computer systems used to track and record appliance movements to the mobilising of resources from the Bush Fire Service and SES on a state wide basis.
183 Mr Holden maintains that since 2000 mobilising duties have increased and that an additional radio channel was added to a CSO’s duties, without additional staffing or remuneration. Mr Holden stated that CSOs are required to undertake additional duties due to an upgraded BOMS system, the way in which DBAs are handled, changes to the paging system, the introduction of SES call taking in 2001, the introduction of Vehicle Status Units in 1994/1995 and Mobile Data Terminals in 2004/2005.
184 Mr Holden stated that when the new 6IP country radio network was introduced statewide each local government authority had a different procedure for turning out crews and he stated that CSOs would have to tailor their call outs accordingly. Mr Holden stated that it is unlikely that the CC supervisor would have time available to assist CSOs due to his/her own heavy workload.
185 Under cross-examination Mr Holden stated that his experience in the CC covered four months in the summers of 2000 to 2002.
Ms Julie Duxbury
186 Ms Duxbury gave evidence in support of the union’s claim for a CSO allowance. Ms Duxbury gave evidence about the impact of the introduction of 000/BOMS, DBAs, radio 6IP, SES call taking, the paging facility, mobilising and Vehicle Status Units/Mobile Data Terminals has had on the workload of CSOs and the stress this has caused to CSOs. Ms Duxbury stated that apart from enterprise bargaining agreement increases CSOs have not received any additional remuneration in return for undertaking these increased duties. Ms Duxbury prepared a table of the recent staffing levels in the CC (see Exhibit A14, Attachment 1).
187 Ms Duxbury stated that the proposed new Computer Aided Dispatch system should assist CSOs but this was difficult to assess given implementation problems to date. Ms Duxbury stated that the introduction of Almos, a company external to FESA that assists with DBAs, involved different computer application and she stated that now this system was privatised there were fewer technicians on call to assist CSOs and customers. Ms Duxbury stated that the monitoring of DBAs by the CC is currently being phased in and she stated that there are 500 DBAs in total.
FESA’s Evidence
Mr Russell Stevens
ERA
188 Mr Stevens confirmed that FESA employs firefighters with specialisation in areas such as USAR and CBR however, he stated that these specialist capabilities are confined to certain groups of employees and he stated that up to 50 firefighters will be trained in Cat 2 USAR.
189 Mr Stevens stated that not all firefighters are now performing tasks which require them to possess higher level, specialist capabilities in all of the enhanced rescue as claimed by the union and Mr Stevens rejects the union’s claim that all firefighters have enhanced skills and other than having an overall awareness Mr Stevens sees a firefighter’s rescue skills as being within the level and scope of rescue competencies that a firefighter has traditionally been required to obtain, maintain and perform. Mr Stevens does not agree that all firefighters are increasingly being required to have and maintain ‘all round’ skills in enhanced rescue and other than having an overall awareness FESA’s maintenance program does not require all firefighters to undertake specialist or enhanced rescue.
190 Mr Stevens was a member of FESA’s negotiating committee for the 2004 Agreement and he stated that the allowance paid to firefighters for undertaking USAR and CBR training in the 2004 Agreement was in recognition for firefighter’s developing skills and responsibilities associated with these activities.
HR
191 Mr Stevens stated that approximately 320 firefighters have been trained to undertake HR and he maintained that the technology, skills and responsibilities in respect of road accident rescue have not changed materially over the last ten years.
192 Mr Stevens stated that after 2003 an additional four HR vehicles were introduced by FESA and Mr Stevens does not believe that this HR capability will be extended to all firefighters.
CSR
193 Mr Stevens confirmed that firefighters at designated CSR stations and SET support stations are required to be trained in CSR. Mr Stevens stated that sixteen of the 22 metropolitan fire stations operate without a CSR capability and that the firefighters working at those stations are not required to be trained to undertake CSR. Mr Stevens stated that CSR training is a pre-requisite for LR/VR and he stated that this competency will be established at Perth station. Mr Stevens stated that he did not see the requirement of this competency spreading to all firefighters during the life of the proposed agreement.
CBR
194 Mr Stevens stated that firefighters who do not work at the two specialist CBR stations only receive basic CBR awareness training. Mr Stevens maintained that existing Breathing Apparatus and Hazmat processes, which all firefighters are trained in, allows firefighters to safely respond to a CBR incident should one ever occur in WA. Mr Stevens stated that firefighters have always had skills and responsibilities in CBR as part of the Hazmat response function and Mr Stevens stated that it is not envisaged that any further specialist CBR training will be required and conducted during the life of the proposed agreement to upgrade firefighters’ skills to that of specialist CBR.
195 Mr Stevens stated that FESA is currently unaware of what effect the Emergency Management Act 2005 will have on firefighters’ responsibilities.
TR AND LR/VR
196 Mr Stevens stated that FESA’s TR capability is very limited and that there is not a great need for this rescue capacity and Mr Stevens stated that it is something only selected people have gained qualifications in and FESA is yet to determine its future capability in this area. Mr Stevens stated that FESA’s LR capability is similarly limited with a capability being progressively established at Perth fire station.
RELIEVING SYSTEM
197 Mr Stevens maintains that FESA’s system of dispersed relieving that is to be implemented in the near future will make little difference to the number of firefighters required to be trained in the specialist areas of enhanced rescue. Mr Stevens maintains that with the dispersed relieving system there will ultimately be eight relieving ‘hubs’ made up of Perth fire station and seven others which will service the metropolitan area. Mr Stevens maintains that as the relieving hub will generally be providing relief firefighters to a much smaller number of prescribed stations it will be possible to align the training of the relieving firefighters to match any enhanced capability that a specialist station within the hub might possess.
AFA
198 Mr Stevens stated that Victorian firefighters who are designated to undertake EMR are at times performing a role which is well in excess of the skills currently performed by WA career firefighters or the skills which it is anticipated they will be required to perform during the life of the proposed agreement and Mr Stevens maintains that Victorian firefighters are qualified to provide medical assistance above that which WA firefighters do, Victorian firefighters are trained to a higher level than WA firefighters and they carry more medical equipment than WA firefighters. Mr Stevens stated that WA firefighters are trained to sustain life prior to the arrival of more qualified medical assistance and that primarily WA firefighters are trained to administer first aid to their colleagues but if they are the first to arrive at the scene of an accident they will do all they can to assist those who are injured until the paramedics arrive and take over.
199 Under cross-examination Mr Stevens stated that additional resources have been allocated by FESA for equipment and the training of firefighters in the past 3 to 4 years and Mr Stevens stated that FESA’s specialist rescue response is better than it was a few years ago. Mr Stevens stated that whilst he is not directly involved in the day to day activities of firefighters he is aware of the risks faced by firefighters. Mr Stevens stated that the basic functions undertaken by firefighters with respect to RCR remain the same but he conceded that there have been changes in processes and techniques, for example patient extrication. Mr Stevens conceded that when firefighters deal with a CBR incident this could involve new equipment, new processes and a different approach which impact on the nature of the response to an emergency incident however he stated that FESA has addressed this by having specialist firefighters trained to deal with CBR.
Mr Paul Critchison
200 Mr Critchison researched the history of awards covering firefighters in WA, the provision of allowances and entitlements that have been provided historically and where major changes have occurred. Mr Critchison also prepared summaries of relevant allowances paid to firefighters in other states and territories of Australia (see Exhibit R8, Appendix 3A and 3B).
Mr Howard Fiedler
ERA
201 Mr Fiedler stated that FESA, along with other fire services, has developed various specialist rescue capabilities over the past few years and that FESA trains specialists in these capabilities. Mr Fiedler disputes, however, that all firefighters have been trained in or are expected to perform specialist duties.
202 Mr Fiedler stated that FESA has decided that only a proportion of firefighters will hold specialist skills and capabilities and that firefighters with these specialist skills are located at stations which are designated to deliver that capability. Mr Fiedler stated that this decision was based upon the likelihood and consequence of an event occurring in WA and the time and cost involved in training firefighters to the necessary specialist level in each capability, as well as the cost of maintaining these specialist skills.
USAR
203 Mr Fiedler confirmed that all firefighters are trained in basic or Cat 1 USAR and as a result all firefighters are equipped to attend a USAR incident and provide immediate assistance to people on the surface of a collapsed building or similar structure. Firefighters may remove survivors from the surface of collapsed structures and firefighters with Cat 1 USAR training also mark out areas under which they believe survivors may be trapped but they do not attempt to reach those trapped survivors as this is undertaken by Cat 2 USAR technicians. Mr Fiedler stated that currently FESA has 35 employees trained to Cat 2 level in USAR and that this number will increase to between 45 and 50 within the next two years. Mr Fiedler confirmed that the Cat 3 USAR course is under development.
204 Mr Fiedler disputes the union’s assertion that USAR techniques have been used on many occasions.
205 Mr Fiedler stated that presently only Malaga fire station has been designated as requiring a POD delivery crew and he maintains that the PODs which Malaga are responsible for are specially designed for responding to CBR incidents. Mr Fiedler stated that in the future FESA intends to have a POD delivery crew for USAR based at Canning Vale fire station and he maintains that this capability will only be required at Malaga and Canning Vale.
HR
206 Mr Fiedler stated that HR equipment is used when standard rescue equipment will not suffice and he stated that much of the HR equipment is basically the same as standard rescue equipment on a larger scale and/or with a greater capacity. Mr Fiedler did concede however, that some HR equipment is specific to particular roles.
207 Mr Fiedler stated that appliances at each of the MPHR stations are equipped with HR equipment and Mr Fiedler stated that firefighters who work at the four MPHR stations are required to be trained in HR which is aligned to the national competency PUA SAR 003 – Undertake Technical Rescue. Mr Fiedler disputes the union’s claim that HR training will be undertaken by all firefighters and he stated that HR is only undertaken by firefighters who are trained as specialists in HR and Mr Fiedler maintains that only firefighters trained in specialist skills such as USAR, CSR and HR undertake a skills maintenance training program.
208 Mr Fiedler stated that during the life of the proposed agreement FESA’s HR capability will not extend beyond the currently designated metropolitan and country fire stations and he stated that this is necessary to minimise the number of firefighters that need to be trained in order to keep maintenance training requirements manageable.
LR/VR
209 Mr Fiedler did not know the exact number of firefighters trained in VR but he stated that he would be surprised if over 250 firefighters are qualified in this area. Mr Fiedler stated that he understands that the number of firefighters with the VR competency may be increased during the life of the proposed agreement but this will be confined to a specialised group of firefighters based at Perth station. Mr Fiedler stated that FESA is not reintroducing VR training to all firefighters and he stated that training in VR is to be introduced to Perth station along with a few additional firefighters at other stations and he stated that this training will not flow through to all firefighters.
CSR
210 Mr Fiedler confirmed that all firefighters are aware of basic CSR which he maintains is not called Cat 1 CSR training.
211 Mr Fiedler confirmed that advanced CSR training is completed once a firefighter attains competency in both PUA SAR 005A – Undertake Confined Space Rescue and PUA FIR 307A – Atmospheric Monitoring. Mr Fiedler stated that according to FESA’s Training Centre records 148 firefighters have completed both competencies and are therefore qualified in advanced CSR. Mr Fiedler stated that it is not anticipated that the requirement to be trained in specialised/advanced CSR will be extended beyond the current group of specialists during the life of the proposed agreement. Mr Fiedler stated that firefighters at CSR designated stations will be required to perform appropriate skills maintenance.
212 Mr Fiedler stated that the basic training for CSR comprises of a DVD and awareness program and he stated that this does not equate to a recognised competency and this basic training simply conveys the existence of the specialised CBR group and its capabilities.
213 Mr Fiedler disputes Mr Lieftink’s estimate that over 450 employees have completed Cat 2 CSR training as the Training Centre records provided to him show that as at 23 November 2006 151 firefighters had completed the two units of competency which constitute advanced CSR training (PUA SAR 005A and PUA FIR 307A).
TR
214 Mr Fiedler stated that Training Centre records show that only two firefighters are qualified in PUA SAR 006A – Undertake Trench Rescue and he stated that the union’s assertion that over one third of the workforce is qualified in TR is incorrect. Mr Fiedler stated that a number of firefighters may have previously been trained in TR when the role was assigned to the HR tender that was stationed in Perth but competencies in this discipline may have lapsed by now. Mr Fiedler stated that as TR incidents are very rare it is not anticipated that the requirement to be trained in TR will be extended beyond a limited group of firefighters during the life of the proposed agreement.
215 Mr Fiedler stated that if a Cat 1 TR workshop was introduced during the life of the proposed agreement this would be awareness raising as to the existence and functions of FESA’s specialist TR capability.
RCR
216 Mr Fiedler stated that there is no doubt that RCR skills, equipment and procedures have evolved since 1994 as FESA has had to keep up with progress being made by car manufacturers over the same period and he stated that as cars are advancing so too are firefighters RCR skills. Mr Fiedler stated that even though firefighters have received updated training in this area as equipment and procedures have evolved the core RCR duties of firefighters have not changed significantly since 1994.
CBR
217 Mr Fiedler confirmed that since the introduction of FESA’s CBR capability in 2003 all firefighters have been trained in a basic knowledge of CBR. Mr Fiedler stated that basic CBR training comprises knowledge of likely CBR agents and dissemination devices, instruction on the prepared “Westplan” for CBR, signs to indicate that an incident may involve CBR substances or be a deliberate act and the equipment that is now available in the state to detect and counter CBR incidents. Mr Fiedler stated that firefighters at designated CBR stations have received specialist training which equips firefighters with a thorough knowledge of and ability to use all the detection equipment, PPE and state plans carried on the SETs. Mr Fiedler stated that according to Training Centre records about 100 firefighters have received specialist CBR training and he stated that during the life of the proposed agreement it is not anticipated that the requirement to be trained in specialist CBR will be extended beyond the current group of firefighters.
218 Mr Fiedler stated that CBR skills are very similar to those which firefighters already possess because of the training firefighters receive in responding to Hazmat. Mr Fiedler maintains that basic training in CBR is by way of a workshop intended to raise awareness as to the features of a CBR incident and the function of FESA’a specialist CBR team and he confirmed that CBR skills have been practiced at various exercises.
AFA
219 Mr Fiedler stated that unlike Victorian firefighters, WA firefighters are not part of the medical response service as first responders as this task belongs to the ambulance service in WA. Mr Fiedler stated that WA firefighters undertake a rescue if required and do what can be done for a patient within the limits of their training until the St John Ambulance Service arrives to take over medical care of the patient.
220 Mr Fiedler stated that casualty transfer boards and blocks are only found on MPHR appliances and they are not available generally nor are firefighters trained in their use unless they are at one of those specialist MPHR stations.
221 Mr Fiedler stated that most of the training programs developed by Mr Lieftink were approved by him in his role as Special Risk Manager.
222 Mr Fiedler stated that the Training Centre records on courses completed by firefighters may be slightly less than the actual amount.
223 Mr Fiedler detailed the expectations of a firefighter that does not have a specialist capability as follows:
“Well, we’ve got an obligation to make sure that our people are trained and they recognise situations. I think also there’s an obligation there. One of the first things that we try and instil in our firefighters is that you don’t - - you don’t put your own life at risk. There’s no use having the rescuers being injured or killed as well. So what we’re trying to do is get an awareness to firefighters so they recognise situations, and if they haven’t got the tools and skills to actually do something about that incident then they call in these specialist groups.”
(Transcript page 319)
224 Under cross-examination Mr Fiedler confirmed that FESA has made a deliberate decision to review processes and procedures and implement training and skill enhancement of firefighters to approach rescues in a more sophisticated manner. Mr Fiedler stated that non-specialist firefighters are aware of the hazards and risks associated with a rescue and provide practical support at an incident. Mr Fiedler stated that Mr Lieftink is a highly skilled firefighter and that he and Mr Jones have a good understanding of the rescue model adopted by FESA. Mr Fiedler stated that Cat 1 USAR training was different to the awareness training of the other ERA capabilities. Mr Fiedler stated that this awareness training, which uses interactive DVDs and is completed under the supervision of a Station Officer, gives firefighters an awareness of the specialist capabilities and equipment as well as the initial assessments they are required to provide and firefighters are required to practice these skills to support the specialised rescue function.
225 Mr Fiedler reiterated that as vehicle technology has improved, techniques and skills used by firefighters have altered accordingly. Mr Fiedler stated that he had no reason to doubt Mr Lieftink’s evidence that Cat 1 USAR technicians have also had POD delivery training. Mr Fiedler stated that he was aware that basic training for HR is referred to as Cat 1 training and he stated that this was a working title and Mr Fiedler then stated that the only officially recognised Cat 1 training was in USAR.
226 Mr Fiedler stated that he understood that RCR refresher training for specialist levels would take place every six months and enhancement and validation every 12 months however he stated that this may have changed since he left this area. Mr Fiedler conceded that his statement that RCR uses the same basic skills and principles notwithstanding updated equipment and procedures does not explain the extent of the skills now used by firefighters.
227 Under re-examination Mr Fiedler stated that specialist training was introduced because previously firefighters did the best they could at an incident. Mr Fiedler stated that the approval process for programmes that Mr Lieftink asked to be implemented depended on the size and consequence of the programme.
Mr Craig Hynes
228 Mr Hynes gave the following evidence in support of his claim that the union’s claim for the ERA and AFAA should be rejected.
ERA
229 Mr Hynes stated that he does not agree with the union’s assertion that enhanced rescue skills have increased significantly throughout the entire workforce in recent years. Mr Hynes stated that from 1994 to the present day he did not believe that there has been a significant increase in the basic skill levels which firefighters are required to possess and he stated that in recent years there has been selective specialisation in various elements of FESA’s rescue capability. Mr Hynes acknowledged that a firefighter’s core rescue skills have evolved over time but in his view they have not changed or increased so significantly as to be what the union is claiming as “enhanced” beyond the specialist group trained to Cat 2 level. Mr Hynes stated that FESA has introduced various enhanced rescue capabilities to respond to changing circumstances and as a result of this, selected firefighters have become specialists in specific elements of FESA’s rescue capability.
USAR
Mr Hynes stated that FESA’s records indicate that 786 employees have been trained in USAR Cat 1 and he claimed that no more than 50 firefighters will be trained in Cat 2 during the life of the proposed agreement. Mr Hynes stated that USAR Cat 1 training includes a self-paced CD and a half day of practical work at FESA Training Centre’s rockpile, which is assessed. Mr Hynes rejects the union’s claim that USAR techniques have been used by firefighters on many occasions.
HR
230 Mr Hynes stated that FESA has aligned its existing HR training with the national competency PUA SAR 003 - Undertake Technical Rescue. Mr Hynes stated that to achieve this competency a firefighter must complete MPHR – Phase 1, PUA SAR 002A – Undertake Road Crash Rescue and PUA EME 002B – Manage Injuries at Emergency Incident and that PUA EME 002B is a pre requisite for PUA SAR 002A.
231 Mr Hynes stated that according to records held by FESA’s Training Centre 321 firefighters (37 per cent) are trained in MPHR – Phase 1, 47 have been trained in PUA SAR 002A – Undertake Road Crash Rescue and 53 are trained in PUA EME 002B – Manage Injuries at Emergency Incident. Mr Hynes stated that FESA intends to train all employees at MPHR stations to PUA SAR 003A – Undertake Technical Rescue level and he claimed that only ten firefighters currently have completed all three competencies necessary to achieve this level but they have not yet been assessed. Mr Hynes stated that FESA does not envisage that the requirement to be competent in HR will spread throughout the service during the life of the proposed agreement. Mr Hynes disputes the existence of Cat 1 and Cat 2 HR training.
LR/VR
232 Mr Hynes stated that the relevant national competency for this capability is PUA SAR 004A – Undertake Vertical Rescue. Mr Hynes disputes the union’s claim that over 250 employees are qualified in VR and he stated that currently 35 firefighters have been trained in FESA’s LR course. Mr Hynes also stated that Training Centre records show that one firefighter is currently qualified to undertake VR in accordance with the national competency PUA SAR 004A. Mr Hynes stated that FESA does not anticipate that this competency will be reintroduced to all firefighters during the life of the proposed agreement.
233 Mr Hynes confirmed that firefighters who are trained in CSR have been trained in VR and he stated that at this point in time FESA had not made a decision to expand LR training.
CSR
234 Mr Hynes gave evidence that all firefighters are trained in Cat 1 CSR which is an awareness level program and he acknowledged that specialist CSR training is described as Cat 2 training. Mr Hynes confirmed that firefighters who work at Murdoch, Osborne Park, Success and Joondalup stations are required to be trained to Cat 2 level in CSR. Mr Hynes stated that according to FESA’s Training Centre records 148 firefighters have been trained in PUA SAR 005A – Undertake Confined Space Rescue and he stated that FESA does not intend to extend this competency to all firefighters.
TR
235 Mr Hynes stated that according to Training Centre records only two firefighters are qualified to PUA SAR 006A - Undertake Trench Rescue and he stated that FESA does not intend to extend this competency to all firefighters.
236 Mr Hynes disagreed with Mr Lieftink’s estimate that a large proportion of firefighters are trained in TR and this training will be expanded in the next 12 to 24 months and Mr Hynes believed that the TR capability would remain with specialist roles such as USAR trained firefighters.
RCR
237 Mr Hynes stated that all firefighters are required to be trained to PUA SAR 002A - Undertake Road Crash Rescue and Mr Hynes disputes the union’s claim that since 1994 firefighters have been required to develop competencies over and above those prescribed in PUA SAR 002A. Mr Hynes maintains that the core skills to perform RCR remain the same and the skills used by firefighters in this area are not enhanced skills.
CBR
238 Mr Hynes stated that FESA’s CBR capability has been introduced and developed over the last few years and that all firefighters are trained in basic CBR through an awareness program. Mr Hynes gave evidence that the principles that apply to Hazmat incidents can be applied to a CBR incident and he maintains that the procedures and equipment used are very similar if not exactly the same. Mr Hynes disputes that Cat 1 CBR exists and he disagrees that the basic CBR awareness training currently undertaken by firefighters is above the level which has been compensated for in the 2004 Agreement.
239 Mr Hynes stated that the requirement to be trained in specialist CBR is limited to those firefighters working at the two specialist stations, Osborne Park and Murdoch, which are supported by Malaga and Bassendean stations where MD may be required. FESA estimates that 100 firefighters have been trained to a specialist standard in CBR and Mr Hynes stated that there is no intention to extend the requirement for all firefighters to be trained in specialist CBR skills during the life of the proposed agreement.
AFA
240 Mr Hynes disputes that there is a requirement on firefighters to perform AFA on victims of accidents is increasingly becoming an ordinary part of a firefighter’s duties. Mr Hynes stated that it has always been and remains the case that firefighters are trained in first aid for the main purpose of ensuring that they can look after themselves and their fellow firefighters and assist casualties until specialist medical treatment arrives. Mr Hynes stated that firefighters are not called out to attend medical emergencies and he stated that firefighters do not perform the role of paramedics but are trained to sustain life.
241 Mr Hynes stated that the use of defibrillators is not part of the ‘Manage Injuries’ course undertaken by firefighters and he stated that defibrillators are not carried on any FESA appliances.
242 Mr Hynes stated that it is not the case that all currently employed firefighters will be required to be trained in PUA EME 002A - Manage Injuries at Emergency Incident in 2006 and he claims that it is only recruit firefighters, recruit instructors and firefighters working at MPHR stations who are required to be trained in this competency. Mr Hynes did state however, that this competency will be included as part of the core requirement for firefighters in the future.
243 Mr Hynes maintains that designated Victorian firefighters are trained in first aid to a higher level than WA firefighters and perform functions similar to that of a limited paramedic function and Mr Hynes does not believe that the two to three days of first aid training that FESA firefighters receive as recruits can be equated to the extensive training both on and off the job which Victorian EMR first responders undertake prior to receiving their clinical certification. Mr Hynes stated that the Victorian MFESB has designated EMR first responder appliances which are called out in conjunction with ambulances in the event of particular types of medical emergencies including cardiac arrests, drownings, suicides and drug overdoses. Mr Hynes stated that FESA appliances will not be called out to attend at these types of medical emergencies.
244 Mr Hynes stated that he did not agree with the union’s claims that the training in PUA EME 002B - Manage Injuries at an Emergency Incident that will be extended to all career firefighters represents a significant change in the skills or responsibilities expected of firefighters when attending incidents.
245 Under cross-examination Mr Hynes stated that he was not involved in the development or delivery of training since 2003 and Mr Hynes stated that his statements about the areas of training firefighters have was based on Training Centre records and estimates when no nationally recognised units of competency exist. Mr Hynes then stated that he would be surprised if the Training Centre did not keep records of firefighters who have completed Cat 2 CBR. Mr Hynes gave evidence that since 2000 FESA has been upgrading its training records using past and new records and he stated that some records may have been lost during this process. Mr Hynes stated that some firefighters will receive specialist training in VR and that not all firefighters will receive specialist training in this area. Mr Hynes confirmed that firefighters not trained in specialist VR will be trained in basic level skills in this rescue and Mr Hynes stated that VR was not a stand alone specialist area and that FESA had not determined its future capability in this area and Mr Hynes then stated that Cat 1 training to all firefighters and Cat 2 training to specialists in this area would be consistent with FESA’s current model of training. Mr Hynes stated that firefighters in both Victoria and WA provide an initial medical response if they are first at the scene of an accident and he stated that in both WA and Victoria paramedics take over when they arrive at the scene.
Mr Kevin Cuneo
246 Mr Cuneo gave evidence about FESA’s CBR capability. Mr Cuneo stated that following the introduction of FESA’s CBR capability in 2003 all firefighters were given basic training in CBR which built upon the pre existing knowledge and skills that firefighters possessed via the Hazmat training they had already received. Mr Cuneo stated that basic CBR training also focuses on developing an awareness of the cause of a CBR incident.
247 Mr Cuneo confirmed that most if not all firefighters stationed at Osborne Park and Murdoch stations have received specialist CBR training and he stated that this training is at a higher level than the basic CBR training that all firefighters are required to undergo. Mr Cuneo also stated that crews at Malaga and Bassendean stations have been trained in MD techniques.
248 Mr Cuneo disputes the existence of Cat 1 CBR training and claims that all firefighters are given what is called “Basic Awareness Training” in CBR.
ERA
249 Mr Cuneo stated that FESA’s rescue functions have evolved and in some instances been given new labels or titles however they remain substantially the same as they have been for many years.
250 Mr Cuneo stated that there are currently 40 specialists trained in USAR.
251 Mr Cuneo stated that PODs are not new as FESA has had CBR/Hazmat SETs for some years and he stated that just like a POD, a SET can be described as a state of the art “tool box” for use by a specialist response team.
252 Mr Cuneo maintained that appliances carrying special airbags, special jacks and reciprocating saws were in place when he commenced as a firefighter in 1973 and they were in place when the new rescue tenders were introduced in about 1975 and Mr Cuneo rejects the union’s assertion that FESA intends to enhance the level of skill in HR and he maintains that the current specialist HR capability is sufficient to meet the needs of the community.
253 Mr Cuneo stated that firefighters have always performed rescues in confined spaces and have been adequately trained to do so for many years and he maintained that even though the rescue function may not have been aligned to a national competency standard until a year and a half ago this capability has been around for a long time.
254 Mr Cuneo disagreed with Mr Jones’ claim that more CBR Cat 2 firefighters will need to be trained and he maintained that FESA’s current capability is adequate. Mr Cuneo stated that even though a CBR incident is complex to manage the procedures and equipment used by firefighters are the same as a Hazmat responses. Under cross-examination Mr Cuneo conceded that there are different operating procedures for a CBR and a Hazmat incident, firefighters now use an upgraded chemical splash suit, and there are specific respirators for a CBR incident. Mr Cuneo was unaware that 16 hours of training was required by firefighters to deliver a POD.
255 Under re-examination Mr Cuneo stated that in 2003 new CBR equipment was purchased using Federal Government funding and he stated that this equipment included:
“---There was specialist detection equipment, monitoring equipment, respirators, power operated respirators, there was gas suits, there was some Tiveck? Barrier Man F, radiation equipment, a whole range of equipment that was provided to us by other agencies, such as body bags for - - for the Health Department. That's about sort of in general terms. I can't remember exactly what we got.”
(Transcript page 391)
256 Mr Cuneo stated that training was required to use the new detection equipment however this was not provided to all firefighters only those at the two specialist CRB stations. Mr Cuneo claimed that he was unaware that FESA had agreed to refresher training every six months and assessment every 12 months for all competencies at Cat 1 level and he maintained that he would have been aware of this given his role as Rescue Manager up to July 2005 and as a result of his current position with FESA.
Mr Franco Pasquale
257 Mr Pasquale gave evidence about the cost of the union’s claim and FESA’s counter proposal, the impact on the ESL and how the ESL is quantified and how FESA is funded.
258 Mr Pasquale understands the estimated cost of the union’s claim over the 2005/2006 to 2007/2008 financial years is $13.448 million which are the financial years that the proposed agreement will operate over and he understands that the estimated cost of FESA’s counter proposals for the same period is $2.628 million. Mr Pasquale stated that these costs are in addition to the 8.5 per cent wage increase to firefighters already agreed to by FESA ($9.682 million over this period).
259 Mr Pasquale stated that as a general rule a $1 million increase in the ESL budget results in a $1 increase in the annual average metropolitan residential ESL charge.
260 Mr Pasquale made the following comments about possible increases to the ESL if the union’s claim or FESA’s counter proposal is granted based on the estimated 2007/08 costs provided to him:
· an estimated $6.060 million is required to fund the 2007/2008 impact of the already approved 8.5 per cent wage increase;
· in addition to the wage increase, an estimated $7.232 million would be required to fund the 2007/2008 impact of the union’s allowance claims;
· in addition to the wage increase, an estimated $1.268 million would be required to fund the 2007/2008 impact of FESA’s counter proposal; and
· an anticipated increase of $7.005 million has already been factored into FESA’s approved ESL forward estimates for 2007/2008.
261 On the basis of the above cost estimates Mr Pasquale stated that a further ESL budget adjustment of approximately $6.287 million would be required to fund the union’s claims. Mr Pasquale stated that this would result in an estimated increase of $6 in the average metropolitan residential ESL charge for 2007/2008 and he maintained that this would translate to a total increase of approximately $13 in the average metropolitan residential ESL charge for 2007/2008 for the wage increases already granted and the unions allowance claims.
262 Mr Pasquale stated that only a minor ESL budget adjustment would be required if FESA’s counter proposal was accepted and he stated that that the total cost impact of the wage increase already granted and FESA’s counter proposal would translate to a total increase of approximately $7 in the average metropolitan residential ESL charge for 2007/2008.
263 Mr Pasquale stated that if the costs for 2005/2006 and 2006/2007 are not directly funded by Government out of Consolidated Revenue and the costs for the period 2005/2006 to 2007/2008 were to be ESL funded this would result in an increase of $23 in the average metropolitan ESL charge for 2007/08 if the union’s claim was awarded and approximately $12 increase if FESA’s counter proposal was awarded.
264 Under cross-examination Mr Pasquale stated that the ESL funds emergency services in WA and that all of the money collected is provided to FESA. Mr Pasquale stated that the ESL rate is:
“…determined by the total sum of the budget that needs to be collected, then put through a number of parameters in terms of number of properties, their gross rental value, their location, et cetera, which then determines a rate …for instance, if you're in Perth, you multiply the rental value of your house by, at the moment, 0.146??---Correct.”
(Transcript page 398)
265 Mr Pasquale agreed with the assumption that as property prices rise so does a property’s gross rental value but Mr Pasquale stated that this is only one part of the equation when setting the ESL. Mr Pasquale stated that the ESL changes on an annual basis to collect the amount of money required for FESA’s budget.
Mr Gregory Pobar
266 Mr Pobar gave evidence about FESA’s CC. Mr Pobar stated that there have been some changes in the way in which CSOs have performed their duties in the period from the mid 1990’s to today but he believed that these changes are no different to those which any other employee has faced due to the evolution of their job and development of the organisation over the last decade and he maintained that these changes have not redefined the role CSOs perform within the CC. Mr Pobar claimed that a recent review of the CSO’s job description form suggested only terminology and title changes and there were no changes to the responsibility or work of CSOs. Mr Pobar also maintained the increased workload of CSOs claimed by the union’s witnesses have occurred over time and have been addressed through increased staffing and remuneration.
267 Mr Pobar gave evidence that in recent years there have been changes in the scope of the work performed by CSOs and that there have also been changes in the systems used by CSOs, however he claimed that in the main these changes have arisen out of the natural evolution of both the CSO role and the technology which the CC relies upon to provide a service.
000/BOMS
268 Mr Pobar confirmed that in about the mid 1990’s FESA’s CC took on the responsibility for emergency calls for fire from anywhere in WA and he stated that it is intended that the new Computer Aided Dispatch System will make it easier and simpler for CSOs to undertake their roles. Mr Pobar stated that it is expected that the system will be less complicated, more streamlined and of far greater assistance to CSOs than the computer system currently being used in the CC.
DBA
269 Mr Pobar stated that CSOs respond when notified of a DBA being activated by dispatching an appliance in the case of a fire call or by liaising with building management when a fault is reported. Mr Pobar agreed with the union’s claim that when FESA engaged Almos to assist with DBAs this changed the way CSOs logged DBA fire and fault calls and Mr Pobar stated that the involvement of Almos has generally been considered as an improvement in the DBA alert system and has ultimately assisted CSOs.
270 Mr Pobar estimates that the decision to take on responsibility for approximately 12 country DBAs has resulted in the CC fielding only a few additional calls each week.
RADIO 6AR AND 6IP
271 Mr Pobar confirmed that the CC’s two radio channels are split during very busy times to ensure that overriding traffic does not interfere with the respective broadcasts.
STAFFING LEVELS
272 Mr Pobar maintained that provision is made for four CSOs to be rostered on at one time during busy times and he stated that a supervisor always oversees and assists CSOs. Mr Pobar maintained that whilst it was the practice to roster three CSOs during the quieter winter months he stated that during his time as Manager, Coordination he kept manning levels at four throughout the year for the purposes of orientation, ongoing training of new recruits and administration. Mr Pobar believed that minimum manning levels for summer were raised to four CSOs in response to the introduction of Channel 25 (6IP).
273 Mr Pobar stated that if four CSOs are working on any one shift and the radio systems are split then two CSOs may be required to monitor each of the systems. Mr Pobar stated however that the remaining two CSOs are able to take the range of incoming calls and given that there is a priority system in place it is almost certain that they will at least be able to respond to the most urgent calls.
274 Mr Pobar stated that there were times when he witnessed CSOs being faced with more incoming calls than they could handle during instances of what is known as “call surge” or on days where activity was well beyond the normal business usually encountered. Mr Pobar stated that in such instances when the CC is inundated with calls CSOs are sometimes unable to answer all of them within the performance measures that FESA aims for.
SES CALL TAKING
275 Mr Pobar confirmed that the CC takes SES calls and that SES call numbers tend to go up in the winter months when the number of storms is higher.
276 Mr Pobar rejected the union’s claim that only two CSOs were in the CC in winter and he stated that the minimum manning level in the CC is three and that in 2006 four CSOs were rostered to work throughout the winter months.
PAGING FACILITY
277 Mr Pobar confirmed that the CC has always had the ability to page brigades, on-call employees or key personnel and he understood it used to be the case that this was done through a stand alone console. Mr Pobar stated that now CSOs are able to page employees from their own console which is more convenient than the old system.
278 Mr Pobar confirmed that CSOs now mobilise active metropolitan bush fire brigades using a Hutchinson Paging system rather than mobilising certain brigades by liaising with the relevant Local Government Authority. Mr Pobar claimed that this had made it easier for CSOs when mobilising brigades as there is a single procedure which is applied across the board and he stated that mobilising by pager involved less work than liaising with Local Government Authorities. Mr Pobar stated that when CSOs receive requests to do general paging they are directed to decline such requests.
MOBILISING
279 Mr Pobar stated that the current computer system does not cater for all the different call out scenarios CSOs face during the course of their duties but he maintains that the new Computer Aided Dispatch System which will be introduced in 2007 is intended to fix the majority of the problems faced by CSOs in this area.
280 Mr Pobar confirmed that Ms Duxbury worked in the CC when he worked there which was between approximately September 2005 and November 2006. Mr Pobar stated that even though FESA decided to have four CSOs on shift in 2006 this did not always happen due to lack of staff being available and the number of CSOs on a shift was adjusted to reflect demand and absence of available staff. Mr Pobar stated that ease of mobilisation of bushfire brigades depended on where the incident occurred.
281 Under cross-examination Mr Pobar stated that the changes to the scope of work that he gave evidence about in the use of systems developed for metropolitan and country career services and some of the volunteer fire rescue services and the scope of the change was in mimicking that responsibility for bush fire brigades and more recently the SES. Mr Pobar stated that changes to the workloads of CSOs which were not evolutionary included the completion of fire incident reports. Mr Pobar had no reason to doubt Ms Duxbury’s evidence that when FESA took on statewide responsibility for 000 calls this involved significant changes to the work of CSOs and he also conceded that the introduction of 6IP resulted in a substantial change in the work done by CSOs. Mr Pobar also did not dispute that when FESA took on the 24 hours, seven days per week responsibility for SES calls that CSOs had to learn new computer applications to deal with the changes in relation to SES calls. Mr Pobar reiterated that he understood that CSOs had been remunerated in the past for these changes.
Ms Catherine Holmes
282 Ms Holmes prepared costings of the union’s claim and FESA’s counter proposal and Ms Holmes stated that these calculations give an indicative cost of the positions presented by both parties for the 2005/2006, 2006/2007 and 2007/2008 financial years.
283 As at 13 November 2006 FESA had 946 full time equivalent employees to be covered by the proposed agreement to result from this application:
· 919 full time equivalent in firefighting classifications;
· 19 in CSO classifications;
· 8 employees in the Community Safety Advisor and Fire Safety Assistant classification.
284 Ms Holmes stated that it can be seen that the total estimated cost of the union’s claim is $13.292 million for 2007/2008 and the total estimated cost of FESA’s counter proposal is $7.328 million. Ms Holmes stated that she has been advised by FESA Financial Services that the current forward estimates for 2007/2008 includes an adjustment of $7.005 million for anticipated wage increases.
Mr Lindsay Cuneo
285 Mr Cuneo gave evidence about FESA’s first aid training between 1990 and 1997 by witness statement and he was not cross-examined.
Submissions
Union’s Submissions
286 The union submits that when determining the terms of any order under s42G of the Act the Commission has a wide scope to have regard to any matter it considers relevant including s26 of the Act, as s42G gives the Commission a broad discretion. The union argues that this broad discretion has been deliberately given to the Commission because when industrial parties negotiate an agreement they are free to take into account any matter which they consider relevant. The union also argues that the Commission’s role is to effectively conclude the bargain between the parties and the proper question for the Commission to decide is whether the claim is one that on its merits could justifiably form part of a s41 agreement.
287 The union argues that the Commission is not obliged to consider the Principles when determining this application as proceedings under s42G of the Act are designed to give effect to what would normally be a bargain between parties however the union submits that even if the Principles did apply to this application there was sufficient evidence before the Commission to demonstrate that there has been widespread changes to the nature of work required of firefighters and CSOs and productivity sufficient to meet the work value tests set out in the Principles. The union also submits that the Commission should have regard to any changes in the productivity of firefighters that are likely to occur during the life of the proposed agreement.
288 The union argues that there has been recent significant productivity improvements in the work undertaken by firefighters in relation to enhanced rescue, first aid and the work performed by CSOs which ought to be recognised and the union maintains that it is appropriate therefore that its claim for additional remuneration be granted in the form being sought. The union claims that as the arbitration of these allowances by the Commission arose out of a consent agreement it is therefore not permissible for FESA to suggest that the claim should have been pursued through a work value claim by way of an award variation and the union also relies on the 2004 Agreement between the parties which pays all firefighters for basic CBR and USAR familiarisation in the form of an across the board allowance. The union urges that a similar approach should be applied to the other areas of rescue that form part of the ERA that the union is claiming and the union also highlighted that monies were paid to firefighters in Victoria for EMR training and skills acquisition as an allowance and this allowance has subsequently been rolled into a firefighter’s base rate of pay.
ERA
289 The union claims that WA firefighters currently have or will have during the life of the proposed agreement a range of enhanced rescue skills which justifies the payment of the ERA to all firefighters. The union maintains that since the 1994 work value decision all firefighters have either been given basic training and/or have gained or will gain skills in all of the seven specialist areas for the first time and in recent years firefighters have significantly increased the work and skills required in these areas. The union calculates that about 70 per cent of firefighters have been trained to a specialist level in one or more of the seven specialist areas and claims that this level of specialisation is widespread across the workforce. The union also argues that the significant enhancement of firefighters’ rescue skills has produced a quantum leap in the productivity provided by firefighters to FESA and the WA public and that this higher productivity in rescue capabilities (including an anti-terrorist capability) has resulted in a much improved and wider range of rescue capabilities.
USAR
290 The union maintains that FESA’s USAR capability has grown rapidly in recent years. In 2003 FESA required all firefighters be competent in Cat 1 USAR and prior to this date no such competency or skills were taught in this area. The union maintains that Cat 1 training is more than just awareness training about USAR as this training involves understanding hazards, understanding isolation and mitigation procedures, being able to perform a surface search of collapsed structures, knowledge of Cat 2 equipment and capabilities and being able to perform a surface rescue. Additionally, all firefighters complete regular USAR skills maintenance programmes and from time to time must complete updated packages delivered through interactive DVDs which are conducted under the supervision of a Station Officer. Approximately 50 firefighters are or will shortly be trained to USAR Cat 2 level and they must also undertake regular training and maintain the currency of their skills at this level. USAR Cat 3 level is a specific command based competency which will be rolled out across FESA once the competency is determined nationally and does not form part of this claim.
291 The union argues that USAR now forms part of FESA’s core activities and the union claims that the FESA USAR taskforce has been utilised more often in WA than in any other state. The union maintains that firefighters are constantly exposed to multi-agency exercises and operations and that these operations are on a significantly larger scale than previously undertaken, sometimes involving hundreds of firefighters at a time. Even though USAR incidents are infrequent the union maintains that firefighters must have the relevant USAR skills and be regularly trained in order to meet the requirements involved in attending a USAR incident.
292 POD containers have been specifically built to contain a state of the art “tool box” for the USAR Taskforce and are precision delivered by firefighters to the required destination and the union claims that approximately 90 firefighters have recently undertaken POD training relevant to USAR activities.
HR
293 The union maintains that HR work is regularly performed by firefighters and the union claims that prior to 2003 only crews allocated to the HR tender were trained in HR. The union argues that since 2004 and with the introduction of a new public safety competency, the requirements of HR specialists have substantially increased and the union claims that during the life of the proposed agreement FESA will require all firefighters to undertake a Cat 1 HR workshop. The union claims that the Cat 2 HR course involves approximately 40 hours of training and approximately 60 hours of ongoing skills maintenance training for firefighters stationed at the eight HR stations and that all staff in these stations, including relievers, must now attain the Cat 2 HR competency. The union also claims that in the future, specialist HR technicians will receive additional training in Civil Aircraft Rescue and Military Aircraft Rescue.
294 The union claims that although only those firefighters at designated specialist HR stations have been trained to Cat 2 HR level, employees in stations adjoining the HR stations have been trained in the use of HR equipment as firefighters at designated HR stations are sent to serious road accidents and as they are not always the first at the scene firefighters from the nearest station are dispatched first and may have to perform a RCR/HR until specialist firefighters arrive to assist.
295 As an example of a new HR skill the union cited the current extrication of casualties whereby a vehicle would now be ‘cut out’ around the casualty, peeled away from the victim and the injured person would then be placed on a casualty board and removed, which is done to minimise any movement of the casualty’s spine, thereby enhancing the prospect of the casualty’s survival and thus providing a more effective rescue. The union maintains that in the past ‘skull drag’ would have been used which involved firefighters reaching inside a crashed vehicle to grab a casualty, steady the casualty’s head and then ‘drag’ the casualty out.
LR/VR
296 The union maintains that FESA intends to reintroduce VR training during the life of the proposed agreement and the union argues that there is no reason to assume that LR/VR would not be dealt with under the same training model that FESA has adopted in the other rescue areas. The union maintains that there is no dispute between the parties that VR Cat 2 specialists will be trained and even though Mr Hynes maintained that no formal decision had been taken to provide Cat 1 VR training to all firefighters Mr Hynes conceded that unless the model currently being pursued by FESA was altered that it would logically follow that Cat 1 training for all firefighters will accompany VR Cat 2 specialist training.
297 The union maintains that the Cat 2 VR course is extensive as it consists of approximately 130 hours of training and specialists must regularly train to maintain these skills and the union argues that this is an extremely complex and physically demanding competency and is by far the most complex and demanding of FESA’s training courses. The union also claims that all firefighters at the eight designated CSR stations plus firefighters at Perth station will attain this specialist competency.
CSR
298 The union argues that CSR has seen the most dramatic increase in the level of competency within FESA. The union maintains that prior to 2004 there was no recognised CSR training within FESA and that the only training in place with respect to this rescue area was limited training in rope systems using tripod frames at a few stations. The union maintains that all firefighters have undertaken CSR Cat 1 training, which was carried out in 2005/2006 and that a significant number of firefighters now have the more advanced CSR Cat 2 skills.
299 The union disputes FESA’s assessment that 151 firefighters have had CSR Cat 2 training as nine stations have CSR specialisation which equates to 290 plus employees (see evidence of Mr O’Day - Exhibit A6). The union also argues that the Commission should take into account Mr Lieftink’s evidence about the inaccuracy of the Training Centre’s figures and the union also relies on the evidence of Mr Hynes and Mr Fiedler who conceded during cross-examination that the Training Centre’s current records could not be relied upon to accurately reflect competencies held by firefighters as competencies obtained under the former AFC system had not been ‘mapped across’ to the new system.
300 The union maintains that CSR Cat 2 competent firefighters require extensive training, including in the area of VR and the union argues that it is envisaged that one more station in the eastern district will become a CSR station. The union also claims that a minimum of 40 relievers will be required to be Cat 2 trained in this area thus increasing the number of firefighters trained in CSR Cat 2.
TR
301 The union concedes that historically no firefighters were trained in TR to the level of any recognised competency but the union maintains that since 1990 all firefighters have been trained in the theory of TR, for example, knowledge of collapse patterns and soil types. The union claims that a Cat 1 TR workshop will be delivered to all firefighters during the life of the proposed agreement and argues that this training will correspond to the relevant national competency.
RCR
302 The union acknowledges that since 1989 RCR equipment has been on all appliances and that the 1994 work value decision altered the relativities of firefighting classifications and granted a wage increase due in part to RCR changes. The union argues that since 1994 there has been new and significant developments in the skills required of firefighters to perform a successful RCR as a result of new technology creating additional hazards for firefighters, for example air bag technology, retract systems and the increasing use of alternative fuels in vehicles. The union argues that increased knowledge and skill is also required by firefighters when conducting safe and expeditious extraction techniques of casualties given these changes in technology. The union argues that the introduction of enhanced RCR (heavy rescue) appliances to eight stations in 2005 has dramatically increased the scope of work in this area and that since the deployment of the MPHR equipment firefighters at MPHR stations firefighters at adjacent stations have also received enhanced RCR training. The union argues that new RCR equipment has also been introduced including speed blocks and casualty boards for patient removal which has required firefighters to undertake additional training and ongoing assessment.
303 The union maintains that all recruits are now trained in the basic RCR course which corresponds to the relevant national competency standard and that these skills are different to the RCR skills held and exercised by firefighters in 1994.
CBR
304 The union argues that prior to the introduction of CBR training in 2003 the only training with any similarity to this area was Hazmat training which consisted of basic training on Hazmat equipment. The union argues that Hazmat is distinguishable from CBR as a Hazmat incident involves dealing with hazardous materials like a chemical spill on a roadway and involves an accidental incident as opposed to a deliberate criminal or terrorist act designed to take life. The union also argues that a CBR incident is a lot more complex than a Hazmat incident as it involves a more complex diagnosis (Hazmat incidents involve easily identifiable chemical agents whereas CBR agents are numerous and unlikely to be apparent) and CBR incidents involve interaction with a large number of other agencies. The union also maintains that different SOPs apply to Hazmat incidents and CBR incidents.
305 The union claims that since 2003 all firefighters have undertaken basic training in CBR consisting of awareness of the chemical, biological and radiological risks and material, the PPE required, MD procedures and understanding relevant SOPs in this area and the union maintains that PPE and procedures that were used to deal with hazardous materials have been replaced with CBR specific items. The union claims that specific training and upskilling in this area involves approximately 40 hours of initial training plus ongoing training to maintain this competency.
306 The union maintains that in 2004 and 2005 four specialist CBR stations were created, 26 firefighters at Malaga and 18 at Bassendean were trained to operate a MD system and POD training involving 16 hours has also taken place. The union maintains that the range of skills involved in CBR is regularly maintained at stations and through regular drills and the union argues that WA firefighters are trained to higher levels in this area than in other services throughout Australia. The union also argues that a CBR response involves considerable skill risk to firefighters in a setting not foreseeable as recently as 10 years ago.
TRAINING LEVELS
307 The union rejects FESA’s argument that Cat 1 training received by all firefighters in the seven rescue areas amounts only to an awareness of the existence of specialist skills and is therefore not worthy of compensation. The union submits that the evidence of Mr Lieftink and Mr Fiedler in cross-examination supports the union’s claim that Cat 1 level training involves a basic knowledge of the rescue area, including knowledge of potential hazards and a capacity to conduct risk assessments, instructions on how to act when confronted with such a rescue, the use of check lists to determine the correct procedures to be used, a capacity to mitigate hazards and a knowledge of and capacity to support rescue specialists whilst in operation, as well as putting into practice all of these skills. The training provided by DVDs prepared for each rescue area is interactive and Cat 1 training requires the demonstration of skills acquired through an assessment and is conducted under the supervision of the Station Officer. Mr Lieftink described these exercises as “workshops” and Mr Fiedler agreed they were an efficient way to deliver “tutorials”. Mr O’Day also confirmed that Cat 1 level training allows an employee to correctly understand the risks and make a decision as to whether the work they are about to perform is safe compared to the way in which rescues were previously carried out.
308 The union argues that Cat 1 training and the knowledge gained from this training allows for a rescue to be efficiently and safely performed with a lower likelihood of risk to the victim or to the firefighter compared with previous rescues undertaken in these areas and the union claims that this new rescue capability cannot be seen as anything other than a major gain for FESA and the community. The union also relies on FESA paying 2.2 per cent in the 2004 Agreement for basic Cat 1 training in CBR and USAR.
309 The union maintains that there was no dispute that a specialist competency (Cat 2) involves a far higher level of training, skills and competency than Cat 1 and the union argues that the extensive training of firefighters at both the Cat 1 and Cat 2 levels and the skills gained by them as a result of this training should result in all firefighters being paid an ERA.
310 The Union argues that just over two thirds of firefighters on any one shift are required to hold specialist capabilities. The union provided the following table, which it maintains was not challenged by FESA, detailing the union’s summary of the number of firefighters holding Cat 2 qualifications. This table also confirms that of FESA’s 27 career stations, 15 are designated as being a specialist station:
STATION
SPECIALISATION(S)
NORMAL CREWING LEVEL (PER SHIFT)
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES WITH AT LEAST ONE SPECIALIST QUAL. (PER SHIFT)
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES WITH AT LEAST TWO SPECIALIST QUALS. (PER SHIFT)
Albany
Heavy Rescue
Confined Space Rescue
1 FO
3 FF
4
4
Armadale

1 FO
3 FF


Bassendean
Chemical, Biological & Radiological Incident Response and Rescue.
POD deployment for specialist areas
1 FO
3 FF
4

Belmont

2 FO
5 FF


Bunbury
Heavy Rescue
Confined Space Rescue
1 FO
3 FF
4
4
Butler

1 FO
3 FF


Canningvale (sic)
POD Deployment
1 FO
5 FF
*

Claremont

1 FO
3 FF


Daglish
Heavy Rescue
2 FO
6 FF
8

Duncraig

1 FO
3 FF


Fremantle
Heavy Rescue
2 FO
8 FF
10

Geraldton
Heavy Rescue
Confined Space Rescue
1 FO
3 FF
4
4
Hope Valley

1 FO
3 FF


Joondalup
Confined Space Rescue
1 FO
5 FF
6

Kalgoorlie
Heavy Rescue
Confined Space Rescue
1 FF
3 FF
4
4
Kensington

1 FO
3 FF


Maddington

1 FO
3 FF


Malaga
Chemical, Biological & Radiological Incident Response and Rescue.
POD deployment for specialist areas
1 FO
5 FF
6
*
Mandurah

1 FO
3 FF


Midland

1 FO
3 FF


Murdoch
Chemical, Biological & Radiological Incident Response and Rescue.
Confined Space Rescue
2 FO
6 FF
8
8
Osborne Park
Chemical, Biological & Radiological Incident Response and Rescue.
Confined Space Rescue
2 FO
6 FF
8
8
Perth
Heavy Rescue
Vertical Rescue
USAR
Trench Rescue
Confined Space Rescue
3 FO
11 FF
approx 20-25 relievers
34-39
(depending on the number of relievers)
34-39
(depending on the number of relievers)
Rockingham

1 FO
3 FF


Success
Confined Space Rescue
1 FO
3 FF
4

Wangara

1 FO
3 FF


Welshpool
Heavy Rescue
2 FO
6 FF
8

TOTAL

169-174
112-117
66-71
(Exhibit A20 – closing submissions)
311 The union relies on the following conclusions drawn by Mr Jolly from the above figures which the union claims were not challenged by FESA:
“On shift at any one time, therefore, a minimum of 66% (112 out of 169) of firefighters will be required to be trained to specialist level in one of the enhanced rescue areas.
When POD deployment at Canningvale is taken into account (POD deployment being an integral and recently introduced support capacity for Urban Search and Rescue teams, dealt with in more detail paragraph (sic) 36 of the Statement of Mr Lieftink dated 16 November 2006), the figure is 70% (118 out of 169).
The figures above are for one shift only. When the percentage of enhanced rescue specialisation is applied to the whole workforce of 853 firefighters (this figure being obtained from Hynes 33), this amounts to approximately 596 firefighters being trained to at least one specialist level.
This figure is a minimum and doesn’t take into account the fact that some employees will have specialist training over and above the minimum required for the station at which they are at any particular time. Some employees may also be trained to a specialist level and be located other than at a specialist station.
Given that just over two-thirds of the workforce on shift in Western Australia at any one time has a specialist enhanced rescue capacity, it is clear that there has been a general skill increase and change in the nature of work expected to be performed by firefighting employees in the Western Australia fire and rescue service. It is not the case that the requirement to specialise has been confined to small groups of people.”
(Exhibit A20 – closing submissions)
312 With respect to the dispute between the parties about how many firefighters are or will be trained to specialist Cat 2 level during the life of the proposed agreement (FESA claimed 60 per cent and the union 70 per cent) the union argues that Mr Lieftink’s evidence in relation to this issue should be preferred to the evidence given by FESA’s witnesses as FESA relied on records from its Training Centre which were inaccurate. The union argues that even using FESA’s figures and making no allowance for inaccuracies in its training records there are 640 to 656 ‘units’ of specialisation within a workforce of 853 people which on average, results in every firefighter having at least 0.75 to 0.77 ‘units’ of specialisation.
313 The union claims that on the evidence of its witnesses every firefighter can be said to have on average 1.4 units of specialisation which the union maintains represents a very high level and density of enhanced rescue training and the union argues that even though some firefighters have three units of specialisation and some have none the requirement to be trained to a specialist level is widespread throughout FESA and is not confined to a few select specialists.
314 In summary, the union claims that:
· all firefighters have (or will have by the end of the proposed agreement) enhanced rescue capabilities by being trained to Cat 1 or basic level in CSR, CBR, HR, TR and USAR;
· all firefighters have enhanced RCR skills;
· all firefighters are likely to receive general training in LR/VR;
· each firefighter currently has on average at least the equivalent (on the union’s witnesses’ figures) of 1.4 ‘units’ of specialisation in an enhanced rescue area; and
· this level of training is spread throughout the workforce and not concentrated in a few select specialists, as at least 66 to 70 per cent of the workforce will be required to be trained to specialist level in at least one area of enhanced rescue.
315 The union submits that it is appropriate that the ERA be paid to all employees and not just those who have received specialised training for the following reasons:
· The parties have previously agreed to the payment of an all purpose allowance in relation to rescue to be paid to all firefighters whether or not they possess particular qualifications.
· All firefighters have or will have received Cat 1 (or equivalent) training in the various areas of rescue that form part of the union’s claim for an ERA which is an “across the board” enhancement of skills.
· A large proportion of the workforce (70 per cent) has at least one specialised rescue skill.
· The union has 100 per cent membership of the workforce and can properly be regarded as giving voice to the preference of the employees and significant weight should be given to the method of payment preferred by the employees, especially where that involves no disadvantage to the employer.
· As 70 per cent of the workforce has a specialist qualification, and “non-specialist” firefighters from stations adjacent to specialist stations are required to work “side by side” with specialist firefighters on a regular basis, the union claims that there would be significant industrial disharmony if some employees were paid the allowance and others were not. Additionally an employee who has a specialist qualification may be moved to another station where that station is not designated as a specialist station in the area that the employee has specialist skills and this employee would not receive the allowance despite having undertaken specialist training and holding specialist skills. Further disharmony could arise between stations and between firefighters if the allowance was not paid across the board and a direction to move stations by FESA which would result in a lower rate of pay which is both unfair to the trained specialist and not conducive to industrial harmony. FESA’s capacity to move employees and to recruit employees to non-specialist stations will also be compromised if there is diversity of pay amongst the stations.
· Putting aside Perth fire station, the evidence demonstrated that specialisations were distributed throughout most fire stations and there is a pattern of distribution of specialisation amongst fire stations, and therefore amongst staff.
· With FESA’s approach, whether or not a firefighter receives the allowance will depend on which station the firefighter is at and FESA’s proposal to only pay a specialist allowance in respect of CBR and USAR gives no recognition to specialists in CSR, HR or any other areas. There is no logical reason for drawing a distinction between specialisation in CBR and USAR and other areas of rescue.
316 The union also relies on a history of the payment of “all purpose” allowances being paid in the past to employees across a variety of classifications.
317 The union disputes FESA’s suggestion that the rescue skills covered by the ERA that the union is claiming is something that firefighters have always done because rescue is not a new function. The union argues that the nature and level of sophistication now expected of firefighters is so vastly different to before that the current rescue functions can properly be described as new. The union also claims that work is now being performed by firefighters who have greater knowledge, skill and there is a likelihood of a better result and lives are more likely to be saved and the risks to firefighters is lower.
QUANTUM
318 The union submits that the quantum being claimed for the ERA is appropriate to be paid to all firefighters even though basic level CBR and USAR training and RCR work undertaken as at 1994 has already been paid for.
319 The union maintains that the following is not in dispute between the parties:
· 2.2 per cent was paid in respect of general Cat 1 level training for two areas of rescue, namely CBR and USAR.
· There are a number of areas of rescue where all firefighters have received or will receive a similar level of training and that have never been compensated, namely CSR, LR, TR and HR.
· Although basic RCR has been compensated for, the union submits that enhanced skills in this area gained by firefighters since 1994 have not been compensated.
· None of the specialist level qualifications of any of the enhanced rescue areas have ever been compensated.
320 The union argues that as FESA valued 1.1 per cent as being appropriate compensation for basic level training in CBR and USAR then the general training that has been received or will be received during the life of the proposed agreement in HR, LR, TR and CSR alone justifies an increase of 4.4 per cent and this amount does not take into account the significant increase in skills associated with specialisation in each of the areas being claimed in the ERA. Given the general increase in base level competencies of all firefighters as well as the high level of specialisation of a majority of firefighters the union argues that a strong case has been made out for a much greater amount and the union therefore argues that its claim for a 4.0 per cent across the board allowance for all firefighters is modest. The union also maintains that there is no ambit in its claim which it argues should be awarded in full.
AFAA
321 The union argues that the first aid skills of WA firefighters are comparable to the most advanced firefighters in the country and claims that WA firefighters have gone from having virtually no first aid skills in 1995 to having “occupational” first aid skills which allows for firefighters to deliver advanced medical response levels and effective service delivery. The union argues that the increased skills of firefighters now enables them to perform more productively and deliver life saving work and must be regarded as making the WA fire service significantly more effective and the union claims that currently firefighters have AFA skills and regularly apply those skills to both their peers and the public, including multiple casualties before the arrival of ambulance crews.
322 The union reiterates its position that this claim is only for payment when a firefighter is available to be rostered to perform work and is not paid during other times such as annual leave or other types of leave.
The union detailed the history of first aid training within FESA:
· Prior to the early 1990’s a course called “Senior First Aid” was provided during the recruit firefighters course, however no follow up or skills maintenance was provided and within four years of a firefighter completing the trainee course the currency of the first aid certificate expired and the first aid skills of a firefighter were reduced to little or no skills. The union also maintains that Senior First Aid is a basic first aid course suitable for providing first aid in a workplace with some limited additional first aid techniques.
· During the second half of the 1990’s Senior First Aid became a pre-requisite for entry into the Recruit School however by the time recruits graduated their certificates were due for renewal and with no skills maintenance provided the first aid skills of recruit firefighters became even lower.
· In 1996 an audit of firefighters’ first aid skills was conducted by St John’s Ambulance which found that the overwhelming majority of firefighters were not competent in Senior First Aid and as a result FESA engaged EMT and later St John’s Ambulance to provide ongoing refresher training to all firefighters and by the end of 2000 significant improvements had taken place in the first aid skills of WA firefighters. The refresher training that took place was to level 1.17A of the AFC Standard and there existed a more advanced level of training (2.05A) but this was not taught to all firefighters and Mr Hull gave evidence that no more than 50 firefighters were trained in level 2.05A and this only occurred because it was a pre-requisite for a high angle rescue course. The current position is that all firefighters are being trained at a level well in excess of Senior First Aid and that training at this enhanced level is being maintained with ongoing support.
323 The union relies on the evidence given by Mr Szczygiel who stated that the “Manage Injuries” course covers the following extensive range of skills which are exercised in an operational environment: Patient Ethical and Legal Requirements, Anatomy and Physiology, Patient Assessments, Working with Ambulance Crews, Removal and Operation of Ambulance Stretchers, Application of Extrication Collars, Suction Tubes/Yankier, Casualty Handling Devices and Automatic External Defibrillation. The union also relies on evidence given in the proceedings that it was not uncommon for fire crews to arrive at a vehicle accident before ambulance crews and administer first aid and evidence that due to the increased training firefighters have recently received the current practice is to check patients vital signs, administer oxygen as appropriate, conduct a secondary injury survey, conduct a central nervous system survey, apply cervical spine stabilisation, record patient details and conduct a summary or handover to an ambulance officer instead of just assuring patients. Injury based extrication recommendations are then made and the patient is packaged and immobilised and removed without putting the patient or emergency workers at risk, in addition to the treatment of any other injuries.
324 The union claims that the “Manage Injuries at Emergency Incidents” course deals with injured people at emergency incidents and is a completely different function to general first aid which covers treating workplace injuries and the union relies on a letter from Mr Stevens which states that FESA is contemplating that all firefighters undertake this course in the 12 months following 3 September 2006.
325 The union argues that when firefighters attend multi-casualty incidents firefighters deal with multiple casualties and at times firefighters have remained treating an injured person when the only ambulance has left the scene with a patient.
326 The union acknowledges that the first aid assistance provided by firefighters in Victoria is probably the most advanced in Australia however the union argues that the skills of firefighters in WA and Victoria are comparable and the union also argues that the evidence of Mr Morton and Mr Szczygiel in this regard should be accepted as neither witness was cross-examined about this evidence. The union maintains that when Mr Morton explained the difference in the length and structure of the training between Victoria and WA he confirmed that there was little if any difference with the skill level between WA firefighters and Victorian firefighters and the union argues that the Commission should take into account that FESA’s evidence about first aid training of firefighters in Victoria was given by witnesses with no personal knowledge of the training regime in Victoria. The union maintains that the evidence demonstrated that there are substantial similarities between the administering of first aid in Victoria and WA and even though the use of defibrillators was different in Victoria the union argues that this is inconsequential as these machines are automated instruments with voice prompts and their use requires little skill. Additionally, Mr Morton refuted the suggestion that Victorian firefighters were trained to a paramedic level and he testified that Victorian firefighters were only trained to provide assistance to a limited level until ambulance officers arrived.
327 The union claims that the AFAA should be paid to all firefighters as it is compulsory for all firefighters to obtain, retain and use AFA skills.
328 The union rejects FESA’a argument that firefighters have always provided assistance at the scene of an accident. The union claims the following:
· As at 1995 firefighters did not have the skills to perform even basic first aid as confirmed in an audit of firefighters’ skills conducted in 1995 by St John’s Ambulance (Exhibit R13). This report demonstrated that approximately three quarters of firefighters were unable to perform basic first aid skills that they had learnt during their Senior First Aid course and it was accepted by the parties that this was an accurate record of firefighters’ skills at the time.
· During the late 1990’s refresher courses were rolled out to skill firefighters up to the AFC levels for basic first aid.
· Mr Hull gave evidence that it was only around 2000/2001 that a general improvement of first aid skills amongst firefighters was noticeable.
· From the late 1990’s onwards firefighters began to exercise their newly gained first aid skills at emergencies.
329 The union argues that compensation has never been paid to firefighters for the first aid skills gained and exercised by them from the late 1990’s onwards, which have now reached an advanced level, and the union argues that there was no evidence suggesting that first aid skills have ever been taken into account in any of the negotiations that have taken place with respect to the various certified agreements negotiated between the parties since that time. The union maintains that there was no reference in the 1994 work value decision to first aid being compensated for and in any event prior to 1995 first aid skills was not really taught to or maintained by firefighters.
330 The union has costed its claim at approximately 5 per cent of a firefighter’s weekly wages or $63.63 per week based on a firefighter working an average 37.43 hours per week (see table at Exhibit R1 attachment 2). The union has based this claim on the payment made to Victorian firefighters who are paid $116.36 per week for EMR, $52.75 of this representing a payment to Victorian firefighters for acquiring first aid skills and the remainder being for the first dispatch/Priority ‘0’ function. The union argues that as WA firefighters do not perform the EMR function it is appropriate to lessen the recompense to WA firefighters from $116 to $63.63. The union argues that its claim for this allowance is not generous given the skills involved and the traumatic nature of the work completed by firefighters.
331 The union believes that it is appropriate for firefighters to be paid slightly more than Victorian firefighters to undertake advanced first aid training, an amount which arose out of an arbitrated decision, because the training scheme when introduced in Victoria in 1996 was voluntary and the training in WA is compulsory. Additionally, the amount paid to Victorian firefighters who volunteered to participate in training was paid before they had participated in the training and before they began to exercise their emergency medical response skills. In contrast many WA firefighters have already been trained in AFA and have been exercising their skills for some time without compensation.
332 The union claims that the granting of the AFAA is justified given the benefits to the community of having firefighters who often turn up first at the scene of an accident (8 to 9 times out of 10) being able to perform medical response that may result in the saving of lives and as the 5 per cent increase being sought is only slightly greater than the equivalent paid in Victoria (about 4 per cent of a senior firefighter’s total wage) this demonstrates that it is a justified payment which is well within acceptable boundaries.
Conclusion – ERA, AFAA
333 The union argues that the last time that the Commission expressly determined that firefighters in WA ought to be remunerated for increased skills and responsibilities was in the 1994 work value decision and aside from the agreement between the parties in 2004 to remunerate all firefighters for the gaining of basic level USAR and CBR skills the union claims that there has not been any payment since 1994 for the enhanced rescue and first aid skills that are the subject of this claim.
334 The union argues that since 1994 there has been a substantial increase in the skills of and work of firefighters when undertaking their rescue functions and therefore in a firefighter’s level of productivity and the union maintains that the majority of these changes have occurred since 2002. The union argues that FESA’s overhaul of its rescue capabilities after the ‘11 September 2001’ incident has resulted in a new rescue model being implemented in FESA which has delivered outstanding improvements in the services FESA provides to the WA community, which was acknowledged by all of FESA’s witnesses. The union argues that firefighters have also increased their skills in the more traditional RCR and HR functions and now extricate casualties using new skills and techniques which are designed to make rescues safer and more effective and the union claims that almost all of these new skills and techniques involve the use of new, state of the art equipment not used by firefighters ten years ago. FESA’s 2005/2006 Annual Report confirms the recent development of an enhanced specialist response capability across the Perth metropolitan region in accordance with the Perth Metropolitan Fire and Rescue Resourcing Plan 2003-2013 and Mr Jolly confirmed that the intensive increase in rescue related skills over the last two to three years in particular is greater than any change he has witnessed in his 21½ years in the service (see Exhibit A17 at page 6).
335 The union relies on all firefighters being trained to the general ‘Cat 1’ or equivalent level in all of the identified areas of enhanced rescue during the life of the proposed agreement (except RCR), the additional RCR skills gained by firefighters since 1994 and the high level of training and skills of firefighters in Cat 2 or equivalent in the specified rescue areas which it argues are of an exceptional level and in many cases the most advanced in the country.
336 The union relies on a significant increase in the first aid skills and responsibilities of firefighters since approximately 2000 and claims that the current level of first aid training of firefighters is comparable to the most advanced in the country, that of metropolitan Victorian firefighters, and that these additional competencies allow firefighters to assist casualties in a way that they could not have and did not do before particularly as fire appliances often arrive at the scene of an incident before paramedics
337 The union claims that its rationale for each of the amounts claimed is plausible and the union argues that in addition to each claim being justified the combined overall effect of the claim for firefighters remains reasonable. The union relies on the following in support of this:
· The parties’ own agreement regarding the quantum of 2.2 per cent that was determined by them as appropriate for base level CBR and USAR training.
· The quantum paid in Victoria as a result of arbitration for the achievement of first aid skills.
· The overall interstate comparisons provided by the union, which were not challenged by FESA, which demonstrates that the granting of both allowances in full would result in WA firefighters still being well within the acceptable range of payments made interstate. It would also restore WA firefighters to a situation close to where they were at in relation to other Australian fire services in 1996 a time shortly after the last work value decision.
338 The union maintains that the interstate wage comparisons provided to the Commission demonstrates that the granting of the claim in full would result in WA firefighters being paid well within the range of payments made in other states and territories and if Australian Capital Territory fire service employees (who at the time of hearing were bargaining for a new agreement) received a Consumer Price Index wage increase of 4.5 per cent and if the Victorian payment for EMR were taken into account, then it is estimated that WA’s senior firefighters and ‘trades level’ firefighters would be placed third out of the nine fire services across Australia. The union also maintains however that interstate comparisons do not provide the Commission with absolute certainty by way of comparable rates of pay but the union maintains that even if its claim is awarded in full WA firefighters would remain in the range of wage outcomes that apply to firefighters across Australia.
339 The union rejects FESA’s reliance on the quantum of allowances paid to firefighters in other states such as the first aid allowance paid to firefighters in the Northern Territory because there was no evidence about the nature, breadth and skills that are compensated for by this payment and the union maintains that there was no evidence that specialist firefighters outside of WA are paid specific allowances for rescue. Even though FESA refers in its evidence to these allowances being paid in other States there was no evidence of exactly what the allowances are paid for or the extent of the enhancement or improvement and in the absence of any evidence in this regard this is speculation on the part of FESA.
340 The union questions the quantum suggested by FESA for the General Allowance and Specialist Rescue Allowance and argues that FESA did not offer any rationale for offering these quantums. The union also argues that FESA’s counter proposal is illogical as FESA proposes compensation even though they do not believe any changes have been made in the rescue areas being claimed or AFA and FESA maintains that CBR and USAR upskilling was paid for in the 2004 Agreement yet their own proposal suggests payment for these areas. The union rejects FESA’s claim that the skills being claimed for by the union involves no new functions and therefore ought not be compensated for at all and if there are improvements they are evolutionary and therefore non compensable and the union also rejects FESA’s claim that all USAR and CBR skill improvements have been paid for by the 2.2 per cent given in 2004.
341 The union contests FESA’s claim that if any upskilling has occurred it has been paid for under previous awards and agreements from 1994 onwards with respect to both rescue and first aid and it rejects FESA’s claim that the enhanced rescue areas being claimed by it and recompense for enhanced first aid skills have already been paid for by FESA. The union maintains that a review of relevant award and certified agreement increases demonstrates that they do not expressly or impliedly include any payments covering the allowances the union is now claiming and the union disputes FESA’s argument that compensation has been given for a function unless there is some exclusion as if this was the case a work value claim would never succeed on the basis that compensation has already been paid under previous pay increases. The union argues that FESA’s submission that the 1994 work value wage increase paid to firefighters included payment for first aid skills is untenable as there was nothing in the decision or in the transcript referring to first aid and the union argues that the 1994 decision only dealt with RCR and specifically the extension of hydraulic rescue equipment to all fire stations. The union argues that from 1998 through to 2002 there was a strong focus on community safety initiatives and firefighters were remunerated for providing additional productivity in this area and the union maintains that the 1998 certified agreement refers to specific productivity initiatives which were contained under Part 4 of this agreement and claims that what was being paid for was firefighter involvement and better interaction with the community to prevent fires and address the management of fires. The 2000 certified agreement includes a second wage increase which focussed on community safety initiatives and the agreement states that the payment was given for maintaining the types of initiatives that were agreed to in 1998. The 2002 Agreement gave firefighters a 3 per cent increase from 15 January 2002, 1.5 per cent on the date of certification, an additional 3 per cent twelve months from the date of certification and an additional 1 per cent was also paid in recognition of the community safety initiative activities and the requirement to undertake new and ongoing training at the time and the union rejects FESA’s claim that the 1 per cent paid to firefighters at Clause 43 of the 2002 Agreement was for rescue skills. The 2004 Agreement contained a CBR and USAR allowance at Clause 53.1 and the parties agreed that these additional skills be paid for by way of an all purpose allowance.
342 The union concedes that in 1994 firefighters were recompensed for undertaking additional RCR duties. However, the union relies on the transcript of the 1994 decision which confirmed that prior to 1991 WA firefighters only had two emergency tenders, one being stationed at Perth fire station and the other at Fremantle fire station. From 1989 to 1991 new cutting equipment was added to tenders at 18 metropolitan stations which formed the basis of firefighters being given a wage rise in 1994 for the increased work value in rescue and the unions submits that this payment was also for the use of more sophisticated equipment, although antiquated in today’s terms, than what had been previously used.
343 The union maintains that between 1994 and 2004 there has been no payment for the acquisition of skills and responsibilities associated with other base level rescue areas such as LR, TR, CSR and others nor has there been any payment for the specialist rescue skills held by approximately 70 per cent of firefighters. The union also argues that there could not have been any payment prior to 2004 for the enhanced rescue areas being claimed because it was not until at least 2003 that the new rescue model that FESA now has was implemented, commencing with the areas of USAR and CBR.
CA
344 The union argues that since 1993 CSOs in the CC have taken on a range of additional tasks and have been expected to exercise a numerous range of new skills without being remunerated. The union also claims that given that the recent wage increase of 4.5 per cent granted to CSOs is in line with the Consumer Price Index it is appropriate that CSOs be paid an additional CA of 4 per cent based on the significant new tasks they have undertaken in recent years and the critical work they perform.
345 The union detailed the changed roles of CSOs since 1993:
· In 1993 CSOs were responsible for taking emergency fire calls for the metropolitan and outer metropolitan areas as well as some country towns and they were also responsible for dealing with DBAs in the metropolitan area which are alarms usually found in buildings that directly notify the fire brigade when activated. The CC monitors these alarms and dispatches fire appliances whenever an alarm is activated and is not immediately determined to be a false alarm.
· In 1996 the CC took on the significant added responsibility of taking ‘000’ fire calls statewide which involved learning new computer applications and operating new computer systems.
· In November 2000 the CC took on responsibility for monitoring the radio network 6IP set up for country WA, in 2001 the centre was also given the task of responding to SES emergency calls after hours and in 2003 this became a 24 hour, seven days a week responsibility.
· When a private firm took on some of the responsibility for dealing with DBAs in 2002/2003 one of the consequences was a reduction in the number of technicians available to deal with DBA faults which in turn meant an increase in the number of enquiries dealt with by CSOs. The CC has also recently taken on responsibility for dealing with country DBAs, an activity which according to Ms Duxbury’s evidence resulted in a 12 per cent increase (from only three of the major country stations) in the number of fault calls.
· As CC staff are now responsible for mobilising volunteer brigades throughout the state the staff have had to become familiar with what was referred to as ‘designer mobilising’ where volunteer brigades are mobilised differently, for example, one is notified by pagers and another may require a phone call. As well as being responsible for a greater geographical area CC staff have had to learn a variety of techniques of mobilising a variety of different fire services.
· Until recently CC staff were responsible for dealing with general paging requests from volunteer brigades and although Mr Pobar gave evidence that he had directed this to cease, Ms Duxbury’s evidence was that this direction had not yet been fully implemented.
· Since 1993 the only increase in staffing was to allocate additional winter time staff person on when SES calls were taken and to increase the night shift staffing from three to four during 2000. All the witnesses gave evidence that the CC was often a busy place and Mr Pobar gave evidence that although he would have liked to have kept the staffing complement at four in practice this did not occur and Mr Pobar accepted in cross-examination that three employees working on a shift would have to work harder than four employees.
Summary
346 The union submits that even if an increase in the ESL, which funds the fire service in WA, eventuated if its claims are successful, then any such increase would be justifiable and the union maintains that no evidence was led by FESA that any increase to the ESL would not be accepted by the public. The union also disputes FESA’s claim that the ESL would be required to be increased by $23 per annum if the union’s claim is accepted as it maintains that as property prices have increased in WA in recent years and given the formula for setting the ESL, FESA’s potential income from this windfall could fund part or all of the cost of any allowances granted by the Commission. The union also argues that the ESL structure gives FESA the capacity to meet the cost of any claim granted by the Commission as the ESL was designed to fund improved services and to equitably spread the cost of funding that service and the union argues that any increase would be appropriate in any event as FESA now provides an enhanced response capability in areas that directly benefits the WA community.
347 The union rejects FESA’s claim that the wage increases already agreed between the parties in the memorandum of understanding ought to be taken into account when determining its claims as the union maintains that when the parties agreed on this wage increase they did so in the knowledge that further amounts would be claimed by the union and would be the subject of arbitration by the Commission and the memorandum of agreement does not indicate that this wage rise was to be taken into account when arbitrating these allowances.
348 The union argues that when assessing any dispute in the evidence the Commission should take into account that many of the union’s witnesses are managers in their relevant field, they are not ordinary firefighters and many of the union’s witnesses were specialists in their area. For example Mr Lieftink is FESA’s Rescue Manager and he is the person that FESA has trusted with primary responsibility for rescue and the union argues that his evidence should therefore be given greater weight in preference to the evidence given by a witness who is operationally removed from day-to-day rescue activities. The union argues that Mr Jones is in the same category as Mr Lieftink as he is operationally in charge and has responsibility for CBR. Mr Fiedler acknowledged that Cat 1 training involved risk assessments, hazard assessments, assessment by the officer in charge, and practice by the specialist rescue personnel and the union claims that Mr Fiedler was glowing in his respect for the skills of firefighters and their level of competence and the union argues that the evidence Mr Fiedler gave in the witness box was similar to the nature of the evidence given by Mr Lieftink and Mr Fiedler acknowledged that Cat 1 competencies were not just awareness. Additionally Mr Fiedler did not baulk at the suggestion that the work of the specialists might be valued at three to five times that of the base-level rescue competency and he candidly gave due recognition to the high level of specialisation. Mr Szczygiel and Mr Hull both run FESA’s first aid courses and Mr Szczygiel was the person responsible in the Training Centre for providing recruits through the AFA that is currently being provided and Mr Morton has the same responsibility in Victoria. This contrasts with the indirect evidence given by FESA’s witnesses. Ms Duxbury has worked in the CC for 13 years compared to Mr Pobar who only worked there 13 months and Mr Pobar accepted that the union’s witnesses who gave evidence about the CC would have a better understanding of the recent changes which have taken place in the CC.
FESA’s Submissions
349 FESA submits that the Commission should apply the terms of s26(1) of the Act to a determination under s42G of the Act and FESA argues that as the substance of the union’s claim is a work value claim normally dealt with under Principles 5 and 6 of the 2006 State Wage Case Principles (“the Principles”), these Principles should be applied to this application.
350 FESA argues that any specialist allowance should be limited to those firefighters who are USAR and CBR specialists and claims that as the payment of any allowance to firefighters is compensation for a particular disability or aspect of work these payments should be attached to an individual’s job and not an individual employee. FESA relies on payments made to firefighters in other jurisdictions throughout Australia limiting a rescue allowance to those firefighters recognised as specialists/technicians and argues that in the majority of cases the allowance is only payable when engaged in or rostered to perform this duty.
351 FESA argues that prior to and since 1994 firefighters have carried out the same functions that they currently undertake which forms the basis of this application. In support of this proposition FESA detailed the statutory scheme under which it operates:
· The Western Australian Fire Brigade had its statutory genesis in the Fire Brigades Act 1916-1925.
· In 1942 a range of legislation relating to fire brigades was repealed and consolidated into the Fire Brigades Act 1942, which was the forerunner of the present act. It was entitled “An Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to the prevention and extinguishing of fires and the protection of life and property from fire”. Implicit in the duties of brigade officers at the time was a rescue function.
· The Fire Brigades Amendment Act 1994, which introduced significant amendments to the Fire Brigades Act 1942, was amended to read “An Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to the prevention and extinguishing of fires, the confining and ending of hazardous material incidents and the protection of life and property from fire, hazardous material incidents and accidents”. The following definitions were also introduced:
“hazardous material” - anything that, if it escapes while being produced, stored, moved or used or otherwise dealt with, may cause personal injury or death, or damage to property or the environment;
“hazardous material incident” – an actual or impending spillage or other escape of hazardous material that causes or threatens to cause injury or death, or damage to property or the environment;
“rescue operation” – the rescue and extrication of any person or property endangered as a result of an accident, explosion or other incident.
· Under the amended act the functions of the Board read as follows:
“Functions of the Board”
25 (1) Subject to this Act, the functions of the Board are –
(a) to take, superintend and enforce all necessary steps for preventing and extinguishing fires and protecting and saving life and property from fire;
(b) to take all practicable measures –
(i) for protecting and saving life and property endangered by hazardous material incidents;
(ii) for confining and ending such an incident; and
(iii) for rendering the site of such an incident safe;
(c) to take and superintend all necessary steps in rescue operations;
(d) to have the general control of all fire brigade premises and brigades; and
(e) to perform such other duties as are entrusted to it by the Minister.”
· FESA maintains that even though the 1994 amendments introduced significant “new functions” related to hazardous materials and rescue operations, these functions were not new and relies on the relevant Minister’s second reading speech of this Bill given on 11 August 1994.
· In 1998 the Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia Act vested the functions and powers of the Board in the newly created Fire and Emergency Services Authority and amended the Fire Brigades Act to reflect this. No changes of the duties of firefighters were associated with the passing of this act.
352 FESA argues that when rescue functions were added to the role of firefighters 12 years ago under the Fire Brigades Amendment Act 1994 the statutory functions of firefighters changed to acknowledge what firefighters had always been doing and a firefighter’s functions at the time were not limited to motor vehicle rescue.
353 FESA argues that award conditions are to be presumed adequate and inadequacy is not to be assumed and argues that the union has to prove that firefighters have not been adequately compensated (see Milec Electrical Services Pty Ltd and Another v Amalgamated Metal Workers and Shipwrights Union of Western Australia (1986) 67 WAIG 331). FESA maintains that not only have the functions carried out by firefighters not changed in recent times no new compensable competencies or responsibilities have been acquired and used by all firefighters that have not already been compensated. FESA argues that since 1994 firefighters have been remunerated for any additional skills gained by them and FESA argues that there should be a presumption that unless there is some exclusion from the incidents and the duties of a function undertaken by firefighters in the relevant industrial instruments then it should be assumed that firefighters have been compensated for these changes.
354 FESA maintains that when the Fire Brigade Employees’ Award, 1990 No A 28 of 1989 issued, the industry allowance which applied up to that time was incorporated into a firefighter’s remuneration and FESA claims that the 1994 work value decision took into account an increase in skills and competencies acquired by firefighters under the then modular training system and also changes in work value associated with the rescue role of firefighters at the time and firefighters’ wages were adjusted accordingly. FESA also maintains that implicit in the 1994 work value decision was the recognition of a firefighter’s first aid competence. FESA argues that the 2002 Agreement gave firefighters a 1.5 per cent increase and an additional 1 per cent payable in recognition for community safety activities and for the reimbursement of new and ongoing training and the 2004 Agreement provided for a further 2.2 per cent for USAR and CBR skills. FESA refutes the union’s claim that since 2004 there has been no or insufficient recognition of the skills, training, responsibilities and conditions associated with the USAR and CBR aspects of firefighters’ work and maintains that the value of these changes, which were agreed between the parties, was delivered by payments to firefighters in both the 2002 Agreement and the 2004 Agreement. Additionally, FESA maintains that the union cannot and has not shown that the amounts provided for in the 2002 Agreement and the 2004 Agreement did not adequately compensate firefighters for the value of the USAR and CBR aspects of firefighters’ work or that there have been changes in these areas since the 2004 Agreement was certified that require compensation.
USAR
355 FESA maintains that USAR is not a totally new function and has been an aspect of a firefighter’s rescue function since at least 1994. FESA also claims that in the period prior to 2004 if a building collapsed, firefighters were called upon to and did render assistance as part of their general rescue role.
356 FESA acknowledges that there have been changes in the specialist capabilities and competencies of some firefighters with the creation of USAR Cat 2 which corresponds to a recognised national competency and FESA maintains that non-specialist firefighters have only received basic instruction in USAR, including general awareness and undertaking a practical component and that this level of awareness does not give rise to any recognised competency.
357 FESA claims that no new competencies or responsibilities that are compensable have been acquired by all firefighters in this area that have not already been compensated for by the 2004 Agreement nor have any work changes been identified with respect to USAR which require compensation by way of an allowance to all firefighters. FESA claims that the number of Cat 2 USAR specialists/technicians has no need to and will not exceed 50 during the life of the proposed agreement and FESA argues that USAR incidents are infrequent and rare and there is no evidence that this frequency will increase.
HR, LR/VR, CSR and TR
358 FESA acknowledges that these areas have specialist firefighters and that the skills of firefighters in these areas who are generally called Cat 2 technicians or specialists have changed in recent years. FESA maintains however that these specialist functions and capabilities will remain limited to specific stations where specialised equipment required to perform these functions is located and to specific groups of firefighters and FESA claims that with respect to other firefighters no new skills or responsibilities have been acquired in these rescue areas.
359 FESA maintains that the HR capability claimed by the union is not a new skill or capability and technological developments have not appreciably altered the way in which rescues in this area are undertaken. FESA also claims that this work has been performed by firefighters for over a decade and the only change is that this capability is delivered differently today.
360 FESA argues that LR is a complex skills area, it is expensive to train firefighters in this area and FESA argues that this is a limited competency which is rarely called upon by FESA and FESA maintains that it is not a competency taught to all firefighters nor will it be during the life of the proposed agreement. FESA accepts that as with other specialist functions, firefighters receive awareness training in this area and FESA claims that only one firefighter has been trained in the relevant national competency. FESA also maintains that records held at its Training Centre show that only 35 firefighters have been trained to the relevant competency in this area which was in place prior to the adoption of the national competency.
361 FESA argues that CSR is limited to six stations where firefighters have been trained to the relevant national competency and FESA argues that basic training in this area which is given to firefighters at other stations is simply an awareness level programme. FESA maintains that currently 148 firefighters have been trained in this competency and any extension beyond this group of firefighters during the life of the proposed agreement is not anticipated. FESA also maintains that CSR is a long standing capability of firefighters and this area has always had SOPs.
362 FESA claims that only two firefighters have been trained in the national competency standard for TR and FESA maintains that it is not a new capability and is rarely called upon. FESA maintains that TR is a competency that will be limited to a specialised group and is not a competency that all firefighters will acquire or need to acquire and any training for non-specialists in this area is and will only be awareness about the specialist capability.
CBR
363 FESA maintains that CBR is an incident of the Hazmat function and is a capability which FESA has had for many years and FESA argues that CBR training and capability builds upon the knowledge and capability firefighters already possess in relation to Hazmat incidents. FESA argues that the response to a CBR incident involves essentially the same equipment, competencies and capabilities relevant to a Hazmat incident and FESA maintains that a CBR incident differs from a Hazmat incident in only one respect and that is whether the hazardous substance has been deliberately released. FESA confirmed that all firefighters receive awareness training in CBR and FESA asserts that approximately 100 firefighters at CBR designated stations have a specialist capability to deal with CBR incidents and FESA maintains that there is no intention to extend the requirement to be trained at this level beyond these stations during the life of the proposed agreement. FESA does not envisage that any further training above the awareness training, which involves an explanation of the chemical and biological warfare agents not covered by Hazmat training and awareness of the specialist capability which is provided to other firefighters, will be required to be undertaken by firefighters during the life of the proposed agreement.
RCR
364 FESA argues that RCR has been a function of firefighters since the 1990’s and that very little has changed with respect to casualty extraction techniques. FESA maintains that the core skills required of firefighters in 1994 to undertake RCR have not changed significantly over time although it concedes that techniques and equipment used in this area have. FESA rejects the union’s claim that recent changes to motor vehicle safety technology have resulted in changes to the work of firefighters when they undertake RCR and maintains that changed in RCR constitute an evolutionary aspect of the work normally undertaken by firefighters. FESA claims that all firefighters are required to be trained in the national competency PUA SAR 002a - Undertake Road Crash Rescue and that training above this level is not required of firefighters. FESA argues that there has been evolutionary changes in the equipment used in RCR and claims that when the Commission undertook a work site inspection and reviewed equipment being used in RCR that the equipment was effectively updates of previous equipment, for example, larger ‘jaws of life’ than previously used.
ERA Conclusion
365 FESA maintains that what the union is seeking is compensation for the evolutionary change in the work of a firefighter which is not compensable. FESA argues that the union’s claim for an ERA covers competencies and functions that firefighters have always had and which have evolved over time and FESA maintains that the delivery of these functions has improved over time as occurs with all areas of employment. FESA claims that if the Commission finds that it is appropriate for compensation to be paid to firefighters for the enhanced skills being claimed there was no evidence that firefighters have not been adequately compensated for by payments contained in previous awards and agreements that have regulated firefighters’ employment, in particular the 2004 Agreement. FESA also maintains that the Commission should not accept that the 2004 Agreement did not cover changes to firefighters’ duties which occurred prior to this agreement being entered into or were expected to arise during the term of this agreement. FESA argues that the 1994 work value decision compensated firefighters for work value changes with respect to rescue and a firefighter’s remuneration was increased at the time to compensate for the adoption of nationally based competencies. FESA also maintains that it should not be accepted that the 2.2 per cent paid for CBR and USAR upskilling contained in the 2004 Agreement was not adequate or did not cover all matters relevant to these areas and FESA argues that the areas of CBR and USAR were treated differently in the 2004 Agreement because they were new competencies which were building on previous skills subsequent to 11 September 2001.
366 FESA argues that in setting any quantum it is appropriate for the Commission to determine what changes have occurred to the role of firefighters since the 2004 Agreement when a firefighter’s rate of pay and allowances were adjusted by the parties by consent.
367 FESA maintains that there is a clear distinction between the skill levels of Cat 1 trained firefighters and Cat 2 and 3 specialists. FESA claims that Cat 1 training equips a firefighter to recognise when technical expertise is required and there is then an expectation that a Cat 2 or 3 specialist will then perform the rescue function not a Cat 1 trained firefighter and FESA argues that under the new specialist model less is being required of Cat 1 trained firefighters. FESA maintains that it has made a conscious decision to deliver its rescue function by way of increased specialisation and those firefighters who are attached to stations designated with a specialist function are staffed by firefighters trained in that specialist role and these specialists now undertake rescues that general firefighters do not, for example, CSR. FESA argues that apart from specialist firefighters, enhanced competencies and capabilities have not been acquired by other firefighters and FESA also maintains that the union’s evidence and submissions seek to blur the distinction between the training levels of specialists and other firefighters.
368 FESA argues that the evidence given by the union’s witness as to what constitutes enhanced rescue was vague and inconsistent and argues that if the Commission finds that the provision of the allowances claimed is warranted FESA’s counter proposal is more than reasonable. FESA also maintains that interstate comparisons of wages paid to firefighters are useful when deciding on quantums and FESA argues that the 2.2 per cent that was agreed to be paid to all firefighters in the 2004 Agreement, that was paid in addition to the industry allowance which they calculate as now being $18 per week, should also be taken into account.
AFAA
369 FESA argues that the AFAA being claimed by the union is a different allowance to the first aid allowance paid to Victorian firefighters as the Victorian allowance is only paid when firefighters are first responders to an incident as they are available to respond to Priority 0 calls (EMR duties) which include cardio-pulmonary arrests. FESA argues that unlike WA firefighters the Victorian service is a recognised part of the Melbourne pre-hospital care system and is available to the public on a first call basis like an ambulance service. FESA argues that the intention of having Victorian firefighters respond to an EMR situation is that attendance may be only for the purpose of providing emergency medical care unlike in WA where firefighters provide care only as an incident of their rescue function and until such time as an ambulance or medical assistance arrives. FESA maintains that any additional remuneration for first aid training is not warranted as the addition of a first responder function to a Victorian firefighter’s duty statement involved an identifiable additional work load above that which is not traditionally associated with the rescue function of WA firefighters. FESA also maintains that firefighters in Victoria who undertake EMR duties undertake more comprehensive and rigorous first aid training and assessment than that required of WA firefighters and FESA disputes that WA firefighters have been trained to use defibrillators or that firefighters are required to be trained in their use.
370 FESA concedes that firefighters have become better qualified in first aid on an incremental basis in recent years but FESA argues that even though first aid instruction and competencies have been kept at a reasonable level since the mid 1990’s firefighters provided the same level of care then as they do now. FESA maintains that the requirement on firefighters to have a first aid certificate goes back to the 1990’s and firefighters were also expected to have a first aid qualification prior to the introduction of the PUA EME 002A - Manage Injuries at Emergency Incident competency. FESA also argues that from the early 1990’s up until the introduction of this competency the level of training and expected first aid competencies of firefighters has not materially changed even though the training may have improved on the basis that Senior First Aid is roughly equivalent to PUA EME 001A – Provide Emergency Care. FESA also argues that first aid skills held by firefighters have been compensated for in the various industrial instruments governing firefighters’ employment and that nothing in the 1994 work value case transcript indicates that this area was excluded from consideration for recompense. FESA argues that whilst the first aid training required of firefighters may have improved a firefighter should not be compensated for maintaining his or her skills in a competency which they are now required to have as a condition of their employment. Additionally, FESA argues that even thought the introduction of Manage Injuries at an Emergency Incident constitutes an increase in the competency of firefighters it maintains that it is an incremental increase in skills in an area which firefighters were previously required to have. FESA claims there is no end point for the ongoing training to update existing firefighters' first aid skills and as this could well go past the proposed agreement’s expiry date any allowance awarded should not be paid to all employees.
371 If the Commission is of the view that firefighters should be paid a first aid allowance FESA relies on the quantum of the first aid allowances paid in other states as being a useful comparison and argues that the Victorian payment is anomalous. FESA maintains that no other state in Australia provides the hourly first aid allowance being sought by the union and claims that where recompense is paid to firefighters elsewhere the quantums provided for first aid qualifications of firefighters are much less than that which is paid to Victorian firefighters.
CA
372 FESA maintains that changes in the CC have mainly been to the equipment used to assist CSOs to undertake their work and FESA argues that overall there has been little change to the work undertaken by CSOs. FESA also maintains that where increased work loads have arisen in the CC this has been addressed through increased staffing and FESA argues that even though there has been an increase to the work load of CSOs their roles have not been essentially redefined. FESA maintains that changes in the CC and the role of CSOs have been evolutionary and that CSOs have undertaken different duties from time to time and claims that there was no evidence that there had been changes to the functions of the CC. FESA maintains that even though the union is claiming that CSOs exercise greater capability, additional competencies and have undertaken additional training and have more qualifications than previously there was no evidence that CSOs have become more productive. FESA maintains that the payment of $12 per week to CSOs as proposed by FESA is reasonable in all of the circumstances.
373 At the conclusion of its submissions FESA stated that even if the Commission finds no justification for the allowances being claimed to be incorporated into the proposed agreement FESA is prepared to accept its counter proposal being implemented in any event.
Findings and Conclusions
Credibility
374 I listened carefully to the evidence given by each of the witnesses and closely observed each witness. In my view the evidence given by all of the union’s witnesses was given honestly and to the best of their recollection. I was particularly impressed with the detailed evidence given by each of the union’s witnesses about their day to day duties and with their obvious commitment to ensuring a high standard of readiness and preparedness of WA firefighters to deal with a range of fires and emergencies. I have the same confidence in the evidence given by FESA’s witnesses and I find that all of FESA’s witnesses gave their evidence honestly and to the best of their recollection. I am of the view that all FESA’s witnesses are also committed to ensuring that FESA’s employees provide an exceptional and broad range of cutting edge firefighting and emergency response skills to the WA community.
375 Notwithstanding these conclusions, however, where there is any discrepancy in the evidence given by the witnesses I am of the view that the evidence given by the union’s witnesses should be given greater weight and preferred to the evidence given by FESA’s witness. In the main the evidence given on behalf of FESA was given by persons who currently do not deal with day to day front line operational issues whereas in contrast the evidence given by the union’s witnesses with respect to the ERA and AFAA was comprehensive and reflected the experience of front line firefighters and senior managers who are specialists in their respective areas and deal with training issues on an ongoing basis. I accept that the union’s witnesses who gave evidence about the ERA and the training required of firefighters and the duties they undertake in the skill areas being claimed ensure that firefighters have the preparedness, skills, training and equipment to meet the extensive demands on WA firefighters and I also find that the evidence given by the union’s witnesses about the nature of existing and proposed training courses that firefighters have completed or will undertake and the numbers of firefighters involved in this training was not diminished by at times extensive and rigorous cross-examination. I note in particular that Mr Lieftink and Mr Jones, who are the senior operatives within FESA’s rescue areas in their respective fields, oversee the formulation of training and its delivery in the rescue areas being claimed by the union and I accept Mr Lieftink’s evidence that he undertakes his role with the endorsement of FESA’s senior management. I accept the evidence given by Mr Szczygiel about the AFAA as he is directly involved in the delivery of the AFA curriculum and the training of firefighters in this area on an ongoing basis and I have no hesitation accepting the evidence given by Mr Morton from the Victorian MFESB who is also directly involved in the training and delivery of first aid skills to Victorian firefighters. It was also the case that most of Mr Morton’s evidence about his views concerning the difference in skill levels between WA and Victorian firefighters was unchallenged. I have confidence in the evidence given by Ms Duxbury who has had 13 years of experience working in the CC and I have no hesitation accepting her evidence, which I found to be comprehensive, about the changing roles and duties of CSOs since 1996. It is also my view that her lengthy experience at the CC indicates that she is well placed to give evidence about changes to the work undertaken by CSOs and changes to the CC since 1996. In contrast the main witness for FESA about the work of CSOs and the role of the CC, Mr Pobar, was only involved with the CC for a limited time overseeing the operations of the CC in 2005 and 2006 and was therefore in my view not in the same position as Ms Duxbury to comment on the extent and range of the changes that have taken place in the CC since 1996.
376 This joint application has been lodged pursuant to section 42G of the Act which provides as follows:
“42G. Parties may agree to Commission making orders as to terms of agreement
(1) This section applies where —
(a) negotiating parties have reached agreement on some, but not all, of the provisions of a proposed agreement;
(b) an application is made to the Commission for registration of the agreement as an industrial agreement, the agreement to include any further provisions specified by an order referred to in subsection (2); and
(c) an application is made to the Commission by the negotiating parties for an order as to specified matters on which agreement has not been reached.
(2) When registering the agreement, the Commission may order that the agreement include provisions specified by the Commission.
(3) An order referred to in subsection (2) may only be made in relation to matters specified by the negotiating parties in an application referred to in subsection (1)(c).
(4) In deciding the terms of an order the Commission may have regard to any matter it considers relevant.
(5) When an order referred to in subsection (2) is made, the provisions specified by the Commission are, by force of this section, included in the agreement registered by the Commission.
(6) Despite section 49, no appeal lies from an order referred to in subsection (2).”
377 Prior to the enactment of s42G of the Act the Commission was bound to take into account the Statement of Principles when a dispute was arbitrated over conditions relevant to an enterprise agreement. In contrast when determining a dispute between parties pursuant to s42G of the Act the Commission is to determine the issues by contemplating a range of possible outcomes and I accept the union’s submissions that any arbitrated outcome pursuant to an application under s42G gives the Commission a broad discretion to settle the dispute between the parties and to reach a conclusion based on the evidence before the Commission. It is also my view that when making a decision under s42G of the Act the Commission can and should consider a range of elements including the objects of the Act as set out in s6 and the provisions of s26 and any other matter it considers relevant. Relevantly, in relation to this matter, it is my view that the Commission should take into account s26(1)(a), (c) and (d) of the Act which are as follows:
“26. Commission to act according to equity and good conscience
(1) In the exercise of its jurisdiction under this Act the Commission — 
(a) shall act according to equity, good conscience, and the substantial merits of the case without regard to technicalities or legal forms;
…
(c) shall have regard for the interests of the persons immediately concerned whether directly affected or not and, where appropriate, for the interests of the community as a whole; and
(d) shall take into consideration to the extent that it is relevant — 
(i) the state of the national economy;
(ii) the state of the economy of Western Australia;
(iii) the capacity of employers as a whole or of an individual employer to pay wages, salaries, allowances or other remuneration and to bear the cost of improved or additional conditions of employment;
(iv) the likely effects of its decision on the economies referred to in subparagraphs (i) and (ii) and, in particular, on the level of employment and on inflation;
(v) any changes in productivity that have occurred or are likely to occur;
(vi) the need to facilitate the efficient organisation and performance of work according to the needs of an industry and enterprises within it, balanced with fairness to the employees in the industry and enterprises;
(vii) the need to encourage employers, employees and organisations to reach agreements appropriate to the needs of enterprises and the employees in those enterprises.”
378 It is also my view that the Commission should specifically take into account objects (ae), (af) and (ca) contained in s6 of the Act which are as follows:
“(ae) to ensure all agreements registered under this Act provide for fair terms and conditions of employment;
(af) to facilitate the efficient organisation and performance of work according to the needs of an industry and enterprises within it, balanced with fairness to the employees in the industry and enterprises;
…
(ca) to provide a system of fair wages and conditions of employment;”
379 I note that when the parties agreed to the Commission arbitrating the outstanding issues in dispute between them both parties acknowledged that these issues would be progressed by the Commission making a determination about allowances with respect to the increased skills and workloads of firefighters and CSOs that had previously been raised as an issue in dispute between the parties as part of application C 67 of 2006.
ERA
380 The union maintains that the ERA it is claiming covering Cat 1 and Cat 2 or specialist training is not an ambit claim and the union maintains that it is seeking this allowance as firefighters have recently gained additional basic and specialist skills and therefore increased workloads in the range of rescue areas identified in its claim. The union also maintains that apart from basic USAR and CBR skills which are currently held by firefighters being compensated for in the 2004 Agreement (2.2 per cent) none of the other skills and productivity being claimed have previously been compensated for by FESA. The union also claims that the 4 per cent increase should be paid to all firefighters notwithstanding a firefighter’s level of specialisation as all firefighters have and will be required to gain and exercise some of the identified skills and be available to use these skills during the life of the proposed agreement.
381 The union is claiming all firefighters have or will gain skills enhancement at either the Cat 1 or Cat 2 or specialist levels in the following areas during the life of the proposed agreement:
· USAR training, skills maintenance and performance
· HR training, skills maintenance and performance
· LR/VR training, skills maintenance and performance
· CSR training, skills maintenance and performance
· TR training, skills maintenance and performance
· CBR training, skills maintenance and performance
· RCR training, skills maintenance and performance
· Additional work resulting from the Emergency Management Act 2005.
· Additional work resulting from the Agreement on Australia’s National Counter-Terrorism Arrangements 2002.
382 When assessing this claim I have carefully reviewed the evidence given during the hearing of this application and the substantial amount of documentation tendered during these proceedings. I have also reviewed the recruit firefighter’s training manual and a range of training CDs/DVDs and booklets and training manuals relevant to Cat 1 and Cat 2 or specialised training in the rescue areas and the AFAA being claimed, which were by consent, forwarded to the Commission after the hearing. These resources include the following:
Resources Provided and Reviewed

Cat 1
Cat 2
USAR
Cat 1 CD and Training Resource Kit
Bomb Incident Response DVD

CBR
CBR equipment DVD
CBR threats DVD

VR/LR

Training Resource Kit
CSR
Cat 1 DVD / CD
Training Resource Kit
RCR
Cat 1 DVD/CD
Alternate fuel vehicles Workshop DVD

HR
Cat 1 DVD
Cat 2 DVD – Technical Information
Training Resource Kit – Undertake Technical Rescue
TR


First Aid
Senior First Aid DVD and Learner Guide

383 The Commission attended two site visits. At the first site visit on Thursday 14 December 2006 at FESA’s Training Centre in Forrestfield the Commission reviewed a HR involving the extraction of a person from a vehicle involved in an accident and a CSR was also observed. The role of the Training Centre was discussed and the Commission reviewed FESA’s extensive training facilities. On Friday 15 December 2006 the Commission undertook a lengthy review at the Perth fire station of a range of equipment, appliances and capabilities. Appliances reviewed included the following: a standard fire engine, an MPHR vehicle, USAR, CSR, CBR and LR equipment, a SET, a MD unit, PODs and a range of the latest heavy duty equipment and tools used by firefighters. A lengthy review was also undertaken of the activities of the CC and discussions were held with the CC’s supervisor and Ms Duxbury. Areas covered included: the geographical range of the centre, the telephone system, computer systems, communication and coordination between various emergency authorities including SES, FRS, Department of Conservation and Land Management, police, ambulance, power providers, hospitals, fixed wing aircraft and helicopters, and the inadequacies of the current telephone and computer systems.
384 After the hearing the Commission convened conferences between the parties to construct a matrix identifying the level of training currently delivered and/or contemplated by FESA in the seven rescue areas and in AFA during the life of the proposed agreement, resources available and proposed in each of the skill areas, the number of firefighters trained in each skill area and the length of training required in the various skill areas. The final matrix is at Appendix A and includes the respective positions of the parties where no agreement was reached.
385 It is necessary to outline FESA’s current training model in order to assess the union’s ERA claim. The Commission understands that after the events of 11 September 2001, FESA adopted a training model which contemplates all firefighters being trained at an introductory level in the rescue areas being claimed by the union and a smaller number of firefighters being trained at a specialist or Cat 2 level in the enhanced rescue areas identified in the union’s claim and USAR and CBR training was particularly focussed on in the initial stages of implementing this model. Under this model specialist firefighters are located at designated stations and they attend incidents as and when required (see designated specialist stations at paragraph 7). It is generally accepted by both parties that three levels of training currently or will exist under this model – Cat 1 (awareness and/or basic), Cat 2 (specialised/technician) and Cat 3 (highly specialised/managerial) and that the extent and complexity of the training required of firefighters at each of these levels varies between rescue areas. The Commission understands that this model has been adopted by FESA so that WA firefighters can respond to the increasing and extensive range of demands on FESA and its employees and meet the high level responses to fires and emergencies expected by the WA public taking into account FESA’s current level of resourcing (see FESA Annual Report 2005-2006 – Exhibit A17). What is in dispute between the parties is whether the nature and level of training required of firefighters who are trained to a Cat 1 and Cat 2 level or its equivalent constitutes new skills or forms part of the evolutionary skills normally required of firefighters, what if any value should be placed on the training undertaken by Cat 1 and Cat 2 trained firefighters who have or will obtain these skills throughout the life of the proposed agreement which has not already been compensated for and the number of firefighters who have been trained in Cat 1 and Cat 2 in the rescue areas being claimed or will be trained during the life of the proposed agreement.
386 I accept that the model adopted by FESA has been structured to ensure that FESA has sufficient specialist firefighters and relievers at any one time at a range of metropolitan and country stations to provide a high level range of specialised skill sets to the WA community in the areas of USAR, HR, LR/VR, CSR, TR, CBR (including MD), RCR and POD delivery and I accept that due to resourcing, geographic and financial constraints this model operates on the basis of a pre-determined number of firefighters being trained to a specialist level in the rescue areas being claimed (except RCR) and allocated to designated country and metropolitan stations . It is also not in dispute that under this model some firefighters may be trained in more than one speciality and that some firefighters will have no specialised training. The model also contemplates that firefighters who have specialist Cat 2 training are required to regularly refresh their skills, usually every six months and validate and enhance these skills each 12 months. Additionally, Cat 1 trained firefighters have their skills refreshed and/or validated every 12 months (see Appendix A).
Enhanced Rescue Areas
USAR AND CBR
387 It was not in dispute and I find that since 2004 all WA firefighters have gained a basic awareness and familiarisation in these areas and approximately 50 firefighters have or will undertake higher level training in USAR Cat 2 during the term of the proposed agreement and approximately 100 firefighters have been or will be trained at Cat 2 CBR level during the life of the proposed agreement. I find that the training required of specialist firefighters in these two rescue areas is extensive and complex and involves a significant amount of hours and a firefighter’s USAR and CBR skills are required to be regularly updated and assessed annually. Additionally, a number of firefighters have completed training in MD systems and POD delivery relevant to USAR and CBR activities and it is also the case that both Cat 1 and Cat 2 trained firefighters participate in multi-agency drills in these areas (see Appendix A).
388 After reviewing relevant training resources and taking into account the evidence given in these proceedings about the nature of the initial and ongoing training required of firefighters and information gleaned at the site visits I undertook it is my view that the level of training required of Cat 2 firefighters in USAR and CBR is significantly more complex than Cat 1 training in these skill areas.
389 I accept the union’s claim that Cat 1 and Cat 2 CBR training in place for WA firefighters is a stand alone rescue area as it involves a response to an incident which, in the main, is more hazardous and complex than a normal Hazmat incident and I accept that CBR incidents are different to a Hazmat incident as CBR incidents have different operating procedures, incidents usually involve interactions with other agencies, CBR specific PPE is used by WA firefighters and a CBR incident involves a considerable risk to firefighters as they involve deliberate criminal or terrorist act designed to take life.
390 Even though FESA argued that USAR and CBR incidents are rare I accept that a firefighter’s preparedness to attend a USAR or CBR incident is paramount and therefore firefighters must keep their skills updated in these areas on an ongoing basis.
HR
391 I accept that HR is regularly performed by firefighters and that the number of HR crews in WA has expanded significantly since 2003. There was no dispute that FESA has eight designated specialist HR stations and that approximately 350 firefighters are trained to Cat 2 level in HR and I accept the union’s evidence that all firefighters have been or will undertake Cat 1 training in this area during the life of the proposed agreement. As I accept the union’s evidence I find that all firefighters at an incident, not just specialist firefighters, assist during a HR incident and I also accept the union’s evidence that a HR incident now requires firefighters to deal with more complex procedures than was the case in previous years, for example when removing a casualty from a vehicle, to meet the demands of new technology and it is also the case that firefighters will be trained to deal with civil and military aircraft incidents in the future. I find that more complex and high level equipment is now being used on FESA’s HR vehicles than previously, including high pressure lifting bags, stabilisation equipment and power tools to meet the changing requirements at a HR incident and that because of these changes a range of HR training resources have been developed and introduced to firefighters since 2004. After reviewing the HR Cat 2 DVD and Cat 2 Training Manual I am also of the view that Cat 2 training in this rescue area requires a firefighter to have significantly higher and more complex skill levels than a HR Cat 1 trained firefighter.
LR/VR
392 As I accept Mr Lieftink’s evidence and taking into account the tiered training model that FESA has adopted I find that LR training will in all probability be introduced at both a Cat 1 and Cat 2 level during the life of the proposed agreement and there was no dispute that the training to be required of firefighters in this area is currently being reviewed and that once this review is complete further training in this area will progress (see also FESA Annual Report 2005-2006 - Exhibit A17 page 70). It was also not in dispute that many of the complex and demanding VR Cat 2 competencies which requires approximately 130 hours of training is required to be held by all CSR specialist firefighters who are stationed at CSR stations, which is a significant number, as well as firefighters working at Perth station. On this basis I accept that there are approximately 350 firefighters who currently have specialist training in this area (see Appendix A).
CSR
393 It is not in dispute that firefighters who work at the nine CSR designated stations throughout WA hold CSR Cat 2 specialist skills, which according to the union’s estimate equates to approximately 450 firefighters during the term of the proposed agreement and I accept the union’s claim that there has been a significant increase in the level of competencies required of firefighters in this area since 2004. It is also the case that in 2005/2006 all firefighters completed CSR Cat 1 training. I am of the view that given the extensive hours of training required of firefighters to reach this level that the training required of firefighters to attain the Cat 2 competency in this area is complex and again, I accept the union’s evidence that non-specialist firefighters will continue to receive Cat 1 training in this area during the life of the proposed agreement.
TR
394 I accept the evidence given by Mr Lieftink that it is expected that Cat 1 training in this area will be delivered to all firefighters during the life of the proposed agreement and that Cat 2 TR training requirements are currently being finalised and that it is likely that up to 50 firefighters will be trained at the TR Cat 2 level during the life of the proposed agreement or soon after.
RCR
395 The parties agree that RCR duties forms part of the normal duties of a firefighter and that this skill is covered in recruit training. The union argues however, that due to recent technological changes to vehicles, such as the introduction of air bags and different fuels now being used by vehicles compared to previously, including buses, this has resulted in significant changes to the way in which firefighters now undertake RCR duties and that ongoing additional training is required of firefighters to meet these new challenges as and when they arise. I accept the union’s evidence that firefighters are expected to continue to develop new RCR skills and update existing RCR skills on an ongoing basis to keep up with additional demands on firefighters undertaking RCR and I accept that the skills required of firefighters to effect a RCR have been significantly upgraded in the last two and a half years and will continue to be upgraded during the life of the proposed agreement as and when appropriate. It is also the case that this skills upgrade has been complemented by a range of new training resources (see paragraph 93) and I find on the evidence that the additional skills and the range of new technology that firefighters are expected to deal with when effecting a RCR has impacted on how extractions are to be undertaken. In my view recent changes which have impacted on the way in which firefighters undertake RCR constitute more than evolutionary changes to the nature of work normally undertaken by firefighters and I find that the new RCR requirements expected of firefighters have not previously formed part of a firefighter’s normal duties.
396 The union claims that all firefighters will gain additional duties resulting from the Emergency Management Act 2005 and from the Agreement on Australia’s National Counter-Terrorism Arrangements 2002 however no evidence was adduced by the union to expand this claim and I am therefore unable to make findings with respect to these areas.
397 Taking into account the above conclusions with respect to the enhanced rescue areas I make the following findings:
1. A significant number of firefighters have recently been trained or will be trained during the life of the proposed agreement as Cat 2 specialists in the enhanced rescue areas (except RCR) and Cat 2 trained firefighters hold and exercise skills which are considerably more complex and extensive than Cat 1 trained firefighters. Additionally, the equipment used by Cat 2 firefighters is more complex and more sophisticated than the equipment previously used by firefighters.
2. All non Cat 2 firefighters have been trained or will in all probability be trained during the life of the proposed agreement in Cat 1 skills in the enhanced rescue areas being claimed by the union (except RCR) and the skills used by firefighters when exercising these skills constitute more than just an evolutionary update of the skills that firefighters normally exercise.
3. RCR skills expected of firefighters have increased significantly in the last two to three years and are additional to the basic RCR skills of recruit firefighters and the RCR skills currently used by firefighters are significantly different to the RCR skills which were compensated for in the 1994 work value case.
4. The additional complex and enhanced skills that firefighters have recently or will gain in the ERA rescue areas which are over and above the skills normally exercised by firefighters contribute to WA firefighters being more productive thereby delivering a significantly more efficient and effective emergency service to the WA community.
398 I reject FESA’s claim that Cat 1 training in the enhanced rescue areas being claimed only familiarises a firefighter with specialist areas and only requires a firefighter to be aware of and familiar with the general nature of the Cat 2 specialist skills and equipment so that a firefighter can determine whether a Cat 2 specialist firefighter should be called in to deal with a specific rescue situation. Whilst I accept that the complexity of Cat 1 training varies between the rescue areas being claimed by the union after reviewing the training materials given to the Commission after the hearing and when taking into account evidence given by the union’s witnesses I conclude that Cat 1 or basic training in all of the rescue areas identified in the union’s ERA claim, excluding RCR which forms part of a firefighters standard training, involves more than a firefighter being just aware of the nature of a specialist area. Specifically I find that Cat 1 training has been designed so that firefighters can assist specialist firefighters at a rescue if necessary including an assessment of what is required to be done at an incident and I also find that Cat 1 trained firefighters are expected to demonstrate practical understandings in a range of areas relevant to each of the enhanced rescue areas. Cat 1 training also requires a firefighter to have a basic knowledge of each of the rescue areas which includes knowledge of potential hazards and the ability to conduct risk assessments using checklists to determine correct procedures. I also conclude on the evidence that the skills gained and exercised by a Cat 1 firefighter in the enhanced rescue areas are over and above the normal duties expected of a firefighter.
399 The parties disagreed about the numbers of firefighters who are or will be trained to Cat 2 level in the specialist areas being claimed throughout the life of the proposed agreement. In my view this density of specialisation (approximately 70 per cent), which I accept has been gained in recent years since FESA adopted its tiered model of training after 2001, has resulted in a significant increase to the skill levels of WA firefighters in recent years. Given my views on witness credit I accept the union’s estimate that approximately 1190 plus firefighters are currently trained to the Cat 2 level in the enhanced rescue areas or will be trained during the life of the proposed agreement (see paragraph 152). I also accept Mr Lieftink’s evidence that due to resourcing issues FESA’s Training Centre records do not accurately reflect the current extent of the specialised training skills held by WA firefighters and these records were relied upon by FESA when determining how many firefighters had been trained in the specialist areas. I therefore accept the evidence given by the union’s witnesses that each firefighter has on average at least the equivalent of 1.4 units of specialisation in an enhanced rescue area. It is also the case that as FESA requires a substantial number of relief firefighters be trained on an ongoing basis in the designated specialist areas if they are relieving at stations with specialist capabilities I find that during the life of the proposed agreement additional firefighters will also be trained in the Cat 2 level of the enhanced rescue areas thus increasing the density of this specialisation. The parties also disagreed about the density of specialisation. FESA claimed that 60 per cent of firefighters will have specialist training during the life of the proposed agreement compared to the union’s figure of 70 per cent. Given my views on witness credit I accept the union’s figure of 70 per cent and in my view this level of specialisation is significant.
400 I reject FESA’s claim that not all non Cat 2 trained firefighters will be expected to undergo Cat 1 training in the enhanced rescue areas (excluding RCR) during the life of the proposed agreement. As the model adopted by FESA contemplates that not all firefighters be trained to a Cat 2 level in my view it is logical to expect that all firefighters have or will undertake in the future, basic or Cat 1 training in all of the areas specified in the union’s ERA claim (except RCR) so that they are able to assist Cat 2 trained firefighters at an incident as and when necessary or determine when a Cat 2 trained firefighter is to be called to an incident.
401 FESA complained that most of the Cat 1 and Cat 2 training in the enhanced rescue areas did not correspond to recognised competencies and this in some way diminished the value of the training undertaken by firefighters in the rescue areas. It is my view that even though not all of the training currently undertaken in the Cat 1 and Cat 2 rescue areas by WA firefighters equates to recognised national competencies I find that the training currently undertaken by WA firefighters is rigorous and aligned to relevant competencies where possible. Furthermore, as a firefighter’s training is recorded and validated on a regular basis and the skills gained are accepted and recognised by FESA this adds weight to the value of the training undertaken by WA firefighters. I also accept the union’s evidence that a number of Cat 1 and Cat 2 courses are based on competencies which have not been mapped over to the national accreditation structure but that this will occur at some point in the future.
402 Having concluded that WA firefighters have in recent years gained a substantial and extensive range of additional skills and competencies in the rescue areas being claimed at both Cat 1 and Cat 2 level and the extent of this specialisation and breadth of additional upskilling is significant and that this upskilling has contributed to a significantly more productive workforce and a more efficient and effective organisation the question for the Commission to determine is the value to be given to these additional skills, the skills to be gained by firefighters during the life of the proposed agreement taking into account any skills that have already been compensated for.
403 The union is claiming an ERA of 4 per cent to be phased in over the life of the agreement and FESA maintains that if any amount is to be awarded to firefighters it should be in the form of a General Allowance of $12 per week to cover all rescue and first aid duties undertaken by firefighters and an additional Specialist Rescue Allowance of $10 per week to be paid to Cat 2 or 3 USAR trained firefighters and for firefighters rostered at a designated CBR station.
404 Having carefully considered the arguments of both parties and when taking into account s26 and the objects of the Act and the need to facilitate the efficient organisation and performance of work within an industry balanced with fairness to employees within that industry it is my view that the union has made out its case that the extent and complexity of the enhanced rescue skills recently gained by WA firefighters has resulted in a significant and additional productivity gain for FESA and therefore the WA community. I also conclude that an increase of 4 per cent on the total rate of a firefighter’s pay in return for firefighters gaining Cat 1 and Cat 2 skills plus RCR specialist skills would be a reasonable recompense to be paid to firefighters.
405 There is no exact science when determining a quantum to be paid to an employee in a claim of this nature, however I have taken a range of factors into account in determining that 4 per cent is an appropriate quantum to be awarded to WA firefighters. There was no dispute that in the 2004 Agreement the parties agreed that 1.1 per cent for basic USAR training be paid to firefighters and 1.1 per cent to firefighters for basic training for CBR and that this quantum was to be paid as an all purpose allowance. I have already found that the skill level and complexity of a Cat 2 trained firefighter in the enhanced rescue areas being claimed is significantly higher than the skills of a firefighter who has undertaken Cat 1 training and it is clear that firefighters undertake a substantial number of hours of training (both initial and ongoing) to be trained to a Cat 2 level training, for example 160 hours of training is required for Cat 2 USAR and 130 hours for Cat 2 VR and the necessity to undertake ongoing assessment and validation is additional to these hours of training. It is also the case that over and above Cat 1 and Cat 2 training firefighters undertake additional training in areas such as MD units and POD delivery. It is my view that Cat 2 training can be regarded on average as being at least three times more complex than Cat 1 training and by using the 1.1 per cent paid for basic CBR and USAR training in 2004 as a benchmark this alone equates to a quantum of 3.3 per cent for each Cat 2 speciality held by firefighters. As I accept the unions figure that the density of specialist skills held by firefighters is 1.4 units this equates to 4.62 per cent. When additional compensation is given to firefighters holding Cat 1 level training or its equivalent in the rescue areas being claimed, except RCR, using 1.1 per cent as a benchmark this equates to 6.6 per cent which when added to 4.62 per cent equates to a quantum of 11.22 per cent which is well in excess of the quantum being claimed by the union. Additionally, payment for enhanced RCR skills is to be added in on top of this quantum. It is also the case that this quantum contemplates the upskilling of Station Officers in the enhanced rescue areas to assist in Cat 1 and Cat 2 training of firefighters for whom they have responsibility which in my view encompasses skills greater than those skills contained in Cat 1 and Cat 2 training.
406 It is my view that it is appropriate in all of the circumstances that this quantum be paid over and above the 4.5 per cent and 4 per cent wage increases agreed to be paid to firefighters under the proposed agreement given that the 4 per cent ERA payment is in return for firefighters holding and exercising skills which until recent times have not formed part of a firefighter’s normal duties and the skills encompassed in the ERA were not contemplated for re-imbursement when the parties agreed on the 8.5 per cent being paid to firefighters. I am also of the view that the 4 per cent should be paid over and above the industry allowance already rolled into a firefighter’s base rate of pay as the 4 per cent covers new skills which in my view were not contemplated by this payment and I have reviewed the rates of pay paid to firefighters in other states and I note that a 4 per cent increase ensures that the rates of pay for firefighters in WA are broadly comparable with the rates of pay paid to firefighters in other states.
407 I reject FESA’s claim that the Commission should accept that firefighters have already been compensated for any additional ERA skills they hold or exercise even though these increases may not have been specifically identified in previous agreements. Having reviewed the 1994 work value decision and subsequent agreements reached between the parties I can find no evidence either express or implied that the skills relevant to the ERA being claimed by the union have previously been compensated and it is also the case that the model, which is predicated on having a significant number of specialist firefighters trained in the enhanced rescue areas being claimed by the union has only been in place since 2003 and is still evolving. I also accept the union’s evidence that the 2.2 per cent all purpose allowance provided for in the 2004 Agreement to every firefighter was given to firefighters to undertake basic training in USAR and CBR training and was not given in recognition of all future more specialised and ongoing training undertaken by firefighters in these areas after 2004. I note that there is a reference in some of the recent industrial agreements to recompense for undertaking ongoing training however it is my view this recompense is limited to the standard training undertaken by firefighters at the time and not the new skill areas contemplated by the ERA.
408 Even though the State Wage Principles do not apply to an arbitration pursuant to s42G of the Act it is my view that the complexity of the additional skills gained by firefighters in recent years in the areas being claimed and the resultant increase in productivity delivered by firefighters to the WA community justifies a pay increase based on the Work Value Changes principle in any event.
409 The union maintains that the 4 per cent allowance should be paid to all firefighters notwithstanding their level of training and the union detailed a range of reasons as to why this course of action was appropriate (see paragraph 315). In the alternative FESA argued that if a payment was to be made to firefighters for holding enhanced rescue skills it should only be given to those firefighters holding USAR and CBR specialist skills. After considering the submissions of both parties I accept the reasons put forward by the union for paying the 4 per cent ERA to all firefighters and I also take into account that this course of action has been endorsed by the union’s members and when taking into account equity and fairness as firefighters will be trained in specialist areas by virtue of the station to which they are attached and not by choice. It is also the case that when a specialist rescue is being undertaken non-specialist firefighters have and will continue to assist with these rescues as and when appropriate.
410 I accept the union’s claim that the 4 per cent increase should be added to a firefighter’s total rate of pay and be regarded as an all purpose allowance. This method of recompensing firefighters was used by the parties for firefighters to gain additional basic training and skill preparedness in CBR and USAR in the 2004 Agreement and I am satisfied that the skills covered by the ERA now form part of a firefighter’s regular duties given the model adopted by FESA and I am aware that allowances have been included in a firefighter’s base rate of pay in other states, for example in 1996 the first aid allowance was included in a firefighter’s base rate of pay in Victoria and has formed part of a Victorian firefighter’s all-in rate since that time.
411 I have had regard to FESA’s claim that not all of the Cat 1 and Cat 2 training in the enhanced rescue areas will take place during the life of the proposed agreement. It is my view however that even if the Cat 1 and Cat 2 training of firefighters which is contemplated under the ERA does not take place during the life of the proposed agreement once firefighters have been paid the ERA for gaining skills in all of the enhanced rescue areas the union is claiming, including RCR, the union is barred from seeking any further payments for the Cat 1 and Cat 2 skills relevant these areas unless changes not contemplated by this application occur.
AFAA
412 I find that in recent years FESA has actively sought to and has ensured that the first aid skills of its firefighters have been upgraded and it was not in dispute that all WA firefighters including recruits and existing firefighters now have or will in all probability during the life of the proposed agreement, advanced first aid skills which were previously not required of firefighters. What is in dispute is the extent to which the upgrading of a firefighter’s first aid skills which have been recently acquired has increased the capacity of WA firefighters to deal with first aid situations and if the Commission finds that the first aid skills of firefighters have been significantly upgraded in recent years whether or not firefighters should be recompensed for holding and using these additional skills when undertaking their normal duties.
413 I accept the union’s evidence, which was not in dispute, that in the early 1990s WA firefighters were required to be trained to undertake some limited basic first aid training and that a 1996 audit of firefighters’ first aid skills found that first aid training of WA firefighters was deficient and after the first aid skills of WA firefighters were reviewed and a report completed in 2000 into this issue, firefighters undertook more extensive first aid training.
414 I accept that by the first half of 2000 WA firefighters had received training in the following first aid competencies:
AFC 1.17A (Basic First Aid);
AFC 1.17B (Basic Medical Oxygen Resuscitation);
AFC 1.17C (Spinal immobilisation, splints and patient handling).
I find that as at 2006/2007 FESA has determined that all firefighters, including recruits and existing firefighters must complete the following first aid courses (also known as AFA) and undertake skills maintenance courses in these areas:
PUA EME 001A - Provide Emergency Care (for which it appears on the evidence a Senior First Aid certificate is pre requisite);
PUA EME 002B – Manage Injuries at Emergency Incident.
Firefighters are also required to undertake PUA EME 003B – Administer Oxygen in an Emergency Situation (“AOES”) (see letter dated 4 August 2006 from Mr Stevens, Director Fire Services Metropolitan, to Mr Dave Bowers, Secretary of the union - Exhibit A11 attachment 1). There was also no dispute between the parties that holding AFA skills as well as completing AOES are prerequisites for being able to undertake a range of rescue competencies.
415 I accept the union’s evidence that it is compulsory that all recruit firefighters and all currently employed firefighters are or will be trained in AFA as well as AOES during the life of the proposed agreement and I also accept that firefighters are required to undertake ongoing skills maintenance in these areas.
416 After reviewing the evidence about the complexity of the AFA courses and AOES and the resultant skill levels that firefighters in WA exercise compared to the skills firefighters held and utilised prior to undertaking AFA training I find that the first aid skills of WA firefighters have increased significantly in recent years and that WA firefighters now hold advanced level first aid skills which enables them to offer comprehensive and effective medical response at incidents which is at times life saving.
417 Paragraph 34 of this decision, which I accept is an accurate summary except for the use of defibrillators, sets out the specific skills which firefighters are expected to use after receiving AFA and AOES training.
418 Given the advanced level of first aid skills held by firefighters now or during the life of the proposed agreement with respect to AFA and AOES training I find that all firefighters now or will in the near future be able to perform advanced first aid on individuals involved in incidents that firefighters attend and I accept that the level of first aid assistance that firefighters are able to give to the WA community has resulted in a substantial increase to a firefighter’s productivity in this area and a more efficient and effective fire and emergency service. I accept the evidence given by the union’s witnesses that the excellent response times of appliances sent to incidents has meant that in recent years firefighters are often first at an accident and therefore provide medical assistance to casualties which can at times be life saving. In the circumstances I find that the necessity for firefighters to exercise advanced and at times life saving first aid skills is increasingly becoming a normal part of a firefighter’s duties given these excellent response times. These response times have also been confirmed by FESA (see Exhibit A17 - FESA Annual Report 2005-2006 page 163, Table 1: Timeliness of Response Time to Incidents).
419 I accept that as part of the enhancement of a firefighter’s first aid skills that firefighters are increasingly being provided with updated and more sophisticated equipment such as casualty boards used to move injured people which allows firefighters to deliver a better service to accident victims and that as a result of these increased skills firefighters are able to give greater assistance to ambulance officers when attending an incident.
420 As a result of the significant increase in first aid skills held and exercised by WA firefighters at incidents for both accident victims and colleagues since 2000/2001 and the increasing paramedic function being exercised by WA firefighters at incidents I find that WA firefighters should be compensated for their increased skills and productivity by way of a first aid allowance. In reaching the view that WA firefighters should be paid a first aid allowance I take into account that after reviewing the 1994 work value decision and subsequent industrial agreements I find no evidence that WA firefighters have previously been compensated for having and exercising their AFA and AOES skills and in any event the first aid skills of firefighters have only been upgraded in recent years.
421 It is my view that it is appropriate that the first aid allowance be paid to firefighters for actual hours worked as opposed to incorporating this payment into their base rate of pay as this is the way in which payment for the use of first aid skills of this nature is generally paid to employees.
422 The union is seeking an allowance of $1.70 per hour worked based on the quantum of the first aid allowances paid to Victorian firefighters and the union stated that it is not claiming the full first aid allowance paid to Victorian firefighters because Victorian firefighters can be required to be first responders (EMR) to an incident to undertake first aid duties and this is not a requirement on WA firefighters.
423 After reviewing the first aid training of Victorian and WA firefighters it is my view and I find that firefighters in WA and Victoria hold roughly equivalent first aid skills. I acknowledge that defibrillation techniques are covered in a Victorian firefighter’s training and I accept that this skill is not covered in any detail in the WA first aid courses, however as automated machines are now available for the treatment of patients who are suffering heart problems I do not see this as a significant difference. Additionally, I accept that the main reason that FESA appliances do not carry these machines is due to financial considerations (see evidence of Mr Szczygiel, transcript page 228). I acknowledge that unlike WA firefighters, Victorian firefighters have a significant period of on the job training before undertaking EMR duties, which forms a core part of a Victorian firefighter’s duties however I am of the view that this does not impact on my finding that the skill levels of WA and Victorian firefighters with respect to the range of first aid skills WA and Victorian firefighters are able to exercise at the scene of an incident are roughly equivalent. As I am of the view that firefighters in Victoria and WA have similar if not equivalent levels of advanced first aid training and skills I find that it is appropriate to use the first aid payments made to Victorian firefighters as a benchmark to determine the quantum of the first aid allowance to be paid to WA firefighters.
424 The union maintains that its claim of a first aid allowance of $1.70 per hour for each hour worked by WA firefighters is reasonable as Attachment 2 to the union’s submissions confirms that in 1996 $1.00 per hour was paid to Victorian firefighters for holding and using their first aid skills and based on a Victorian firefighter working 37.43 hours per week on average, a figure not disputed by FESA, this equated, on average, to a weekly amount of $37.43 being paid to Victorian firefighters on their base rate of pay (Exhibit R1). As a result of ongoing increases that Victorian firefighters have received to their base rates of pay since 1996 this allowance now equates to an amount of $52.75 per week which is slightly less than the amount he union is claiming ($63.63). The union is not claiming an additional $1.50 per hour for all hours that Victorian firefighters were paid in March 2002 when they were available to be rostered and available to undertake EMR duties and as at 1 September 2005 this amount was increased to $1.70 per hour.
425 As the AFA and AOES skills currently held and used by WA firefighters have only recently been or will be gained and consolidated by all WA firefighters during the life of the proposed agreement, it is my view that firefighters should be paid a first aid allowance for each hour that they are rostered on for duty but not the full amount being claimed by the union. After carefully considering an appropriate quantum to be paid to WA firefighters and when taking into account s26 considerations and the relevant objects of the Act I have decided to discount the quantum that is being sought by the union given the relatively short timeframe since WA firefighters have or will have attained and exercised advanced first aid skills. When taking into account productivity, efficiency and the high standard of service that firefighters deliver to the WA community with respect to their advanced first aid skills I find that an allowance of $1.35 per hour (which equates to a weekly amount of $50.53 based on the average hours firefighters are available each week to work) is an appropriate allowance to be paid to WA firefighters in this instance in return for holding, exercising and maintaining advanced first aid skills. In concluding that this is an appropriate amount to be paid to WA firefighters I note that the allowance that I have determined should be paid is roughly equivalent to the non EMR first aid payment currently paid to Victorian firefighters, which arose out of an arbitrated decision. In reaching the view that an allowance of $1.35 for each hour worked is appropriate I have had regard to FESA’s counter proposal that if any payment is to be made to WA firefighters that it should be incorporated as part of a $12 per week General Allowance. In my view this payment is an inadequate amount to compensate WA firefighters for holding and exercising AFA skills given the complexity of these skills and the trauma involved in this work and the enhanced service that this delivers to the WA community as well as compensating non-specialist firefighters for basic awareness with respect to the seven enhanced rescue areas.
426 Even though the State Wage Principles do not apply to an arbitration pursuant to s42G of the Act it is my view that the complexity of the additional skills gained by firefighters in recent years with respect to AFA and the resultant increase in productivity delivered by firefighters to the WA community justifies a pay increase based on the Work Value Changes principle in any event.
CA
427 The union argues that the substantial additional tasks and range of new skills undertaken by CSOs since 1996 which has made CSOs more productive and warrants the payment of a 4 per cent wage increase to be paid as an all purpose allowance on top of a CSO’s total rate of pay. In contrast, FESA argues that if the Commission determines that there have been significant increases to a CSO’s duties and workloads then a $12 per week allowance is appropriate to be paid to CSOs.
428 As I accept the evidence given by the union’s witnesses with respect to this claim and given my extensive review of the CC on 15 December 2006 I find that there have been numerous changes to the key responsibilities expected of CSOs since 1996 which has significantly increased the range of duties and the nature and complexity of the work undertaken by CSOs between 1996 and 2007. I find that from 1996 onwards there have been considerable changes to the scope of activities and problems dealt with by CSOs and that due to changes to FESA’s emergency response capacity and a number of major changes to the systems used by CSOs in the CC and in the geographic area FESA now services this has also resulted in a significant net increase in the work undertaken by CSOs.
429 Specifically, I accept that the duties undertaken by CSOs have expanded considerably since 1996 when FESA became a statewide CC and that as a result CSOs have been undertaking a more complex range of duties. I find that the additional duties required of CSOs has been as a result of the introduction of taking 000 calls statewide and the introduction of BOMS, changes to DBAs, the introduction of 6IP (Channel 25) to the CC radio communications and SES call taking being introduced into the CC after hours and then 24 hours a day, seven days a week. I also accept that the new task of using the paging facility and the mobilisation of a range of units throughout the State since 1996 requires CSOs to make judgements about the nature of the correct mobilisation to occur and that as a result this has contributed to the increased workload and responsibilities of CSOs and has also resulted in greater complexity in the work undertaken by CSOs.
430 Even though FESA committed to increasing the number of CSOs in the CC in 2005 to reduce the work pressures on CSOs it is clear from the table prepared by Ms Duxbury that for some years, and notwithstanding FESA endeavouring to have four CSOs rostered on in the CC to undertake duties during the peak periods, this has not eventuated and the work undertaken by individual CSOs has therefore continued to escalate (see Exhibit A14).
431 I find that the numerous and significant changes to the roles, duties and responsibilities and therefore productivity of CSOs as well as changes to the systems used by CSOs since 1996, which in my view has resulted in a substantially increased workload of CSOs and an increase in the value of work undertaken by CSOs, constitutes more than just evolutionary changes at the work place as suggested by FESA. After having personally reviewed the operations of the CC and having had the benefit of being able to review the critical and high level nature of the work required of CSOs and having observed CSOs undertaking their work it is my view this reinforces the union’s argument that CSOs exercise high levels of judgement, particularly given the nature of the systems with which CSOs are required to work and the responsibilities they undertake and I find that this increased productivity has ensured the ongoing efficiency of the CC. I am cognisant of the fact that CSOs have already been granted wage increases in the proposed agreement and that since 1996 other wage increases have been paid to them, however, given the extensive increase in the breadth and complexity of the work undertaken by CSOs since 1996 and given the extensive changes to the way in which the CC has operated since that time it is my view that the allowance of 4 per cent claimed by the union on behalf of CSOs represents an appropriate quantum to be paid to CSOs in addition to the wage increases already provided for in the proposed agreement. Additionally, I have reviewed the relevant industrial instruments and I have also found no indication that these additional duties have been paid for, either express or implied.
432 I note FESA’s argument that future changes to the CC’s computer system should alleviate the workload and pressure on CSOs however I am not in a position to judge the impact that these proposed changes may or may not have on a CSO’s current workload.
433 It is my view that when taking into account equity and fairness and the relevant objects of the Act that it is appropriate in the circumstances that an allowance of 4 per cent be paid to a CSO, to be added to a CSO’s total rate of pay, as recompense to CSOs for the substantial additional and more complex work that CSOs have undertaken since 1996. As with the ERA and AFA claims, even though the State Wage Principles do not apply to an arbitration pursuant to s42G of the Act it is my view that the complexity of the additional skills gained by CSOs in recent years and the resultant increase in productivity delivered by CSOs to FESA and the WA community justifies a pay increase based on the Work Value Changes principle in any event. I will therefore order that the 4 per cent increase which compensates CSOs for the additional duties, responsibilities and workloads that CSOs have been and are required to undertake since 1996 shall be added to a CSO’s total rate of pay in the form of an all purpose allowance.
434 FESA claims that if the union was successful in all of its claims then this would possibly lead to an unacceptable increase to the ESL and/or put a strain on the Government’s Consolidated Revenue fund. FESA did not argue however, that the WA Government lacked the capacity to pay the allowances being sought by the union nor was evidence lead about any possible negative impact on the WA community if the union’s claims were granted or if the ESL was increased. I have considered the overall economic impact on FESA, the WA Government and the WA community of granting the union’s claims and I have no reason to conclude that the cost of the increases is not manageable and I have no evidence before me that nor will these increases will adversely impact on the State’s finances or on the WA community if the ESL is increased. I also note that the increase to the rate of pay of a CSO will be delivered to a small number of employees and therefore will have a minimal impact on FESA’s financial resources.
435 The parties are required to prepare a schedule for the registration of the 2006 Agreement incorporating the quantums specified in these reasons with respect to the allowances being sought by the union, taking into account the agreed operative date and the phasing in of the ERA.

APPENDIX A - ENHANCED SKILL AREA MATRIX – ERA, AFAA

NB: The reference to Cat 1, 2 and 3 in this document does not necessarily mean that the complexity and nature of the training is consistent in each level. The parties have agreed that for the purposes of this matrix the following levels exist:
Cat 1 – Awareness / Introductory / Basic Level
Cat 2 – Technical specialist level
Cat 3 – Command level

COMPETENCY
RECOGNISED COMPETENCIES
RESOURCES (CURRENT)
RESOURCES (ADDITIONAL AND PROPOSED)
TRAINING AND ASSESSMENT
NUMBER OF FIREFIGHTERS TRAINED
Urban Search & Rescue (USAR)





Cat 1
Pre-requisites:

FESA - Nil
Union - PUAEME001A

Competency achieved:

PUA SAR 001A - Participate in Rescue Operations
Training Resource Kit Parts 1, 2 and 3
CD - 4 hours of self paced study and assessment and practical component up to ½ day
CD - Bomb response Self paced, internal reinforcement of key points, training co-ordinated by Station Officer or other key personnel

USAR SOP and Operational Checklist

FESA - This CD is part of HAZMAT and complements USAR as part of the reference library and is not assessed.

Union - Bomb response is a critical aspect of USAR response. It requires approximately 2-3 hours of instruction and discussion. Is tested practically as part of USAR response.
Union – 6 month refresher training and 12 month validation and enhancement.

FESA – Refresher / Validation every 12 months.
All firefighters
Cat 2
Pre-requisites:

PUA SAR 001A
(4+4+8 hours)
PUA SAR 002A
(16+8hours)

Union - the following are pre-requisites:
PUA SAR 003
(16+16 hours)
PUA SAR 004A
(140 hours)
PUA SAR 005A
(40 hours)
PUA SAR 006A
(16 hours)
PUA SAR 007A
(160 + hours)
FESA – the above are not pre-requisites.

TEA 002 - Work Autonomously

Competency achieved:

PUA FIR 207A - Breathing apparatus
(64 + hours)

PUA FIR 307A - Atmospheric monitoring (Part of CSR Cat 2)

PUA SAR 007A - Structural Collapse
(160+ hours)
These courses are conducted by external providers located interstate or overseas. Training resource kits from these courses are used as general reference material
Union -Training Resource Kit Parts 1, 2 and 3 has been produced by FESA but is not currently used to train firefighters in USAR Cat 2.

A range of follow up DVDs and training tools developed by FESA in this area as new equipment is introduced.
FESA is currently building a USAR Cat 2 training facility

Continuous familiarisation and training on new equipment.

Cultural awareness courses have been developed and training has commenced.

Cat 2 USAR operational summary DVD - 2007

Major incident medical management systems (MIMMS) 12 hours of training.
Continuous training occurs for Cat 2 USAR. Maintenance training has been occurring for approximately two years.

Refresher courses at least every 3 months and validation every 12 months.

National and state exercises and drills -minimum 2 per year.

FESA – not all USAR Cat 2 firefighters will attend national and state exercise and drills on each occasion.
50 during life of the agreement
Cat 3
Appropriate Cat 3 competencies have been and are still being discussed at the national level and Cat 3 training will be finalised soon.

Union – the proposed package was planned to be delivered to the NAFAC USAR C in Dec 06 but should now be delivered in mid 07.

FESA – this package will be delivered towards the end of 2007.
NZ pilot course
National Cat 3 course in the future
Major exercises and drills
3 WA firefighters have completed NZ training pilot course out of 5 firefighters trained to Cat 3 in Australia

FESA - approximately 5 in the future

Union - currently 5 identified USAR task force leaders are in place. 3 have qualified in the initial pilot course. All are CAT 2 trained and as the USAR capability has developed it is now accepted that CAT 2 will be a pre-requisite.
Chemical, Biological Radiological (CBR)





Cat 1

Union = Basic
FESA = Awareness
PUA FIR 306A - Render Hazardous Materials Safe.

FESA - None. The recognised competency is HAZMAT of which a section is CBR.



Union - No PUA. CBR branch competencies delivered as a package to all firefighters. These are aligned to national competencies consistent throughout the country. These competencies are recognised FESA competencies but there is no national competency at this time.
CD (drawn from CBR Learning Kit), power point training package where instructor reinforces and confirms key points and ½ day practical component involving CBR incident (mass casualty drill).

FESA – a HAZMAT Training Resource Kit has a small component relating specifically to CBR. HAZMAT training is 4 days duration including a ½ day CBR.
FESA - CD for familiarisation kept on stations.

Union - Every stand alone training package is compulsory and is delivered by trained officers and refreshed by station officers trained and endorsed in CBR.
Maintenance and refresher training every 12 months. Firefighters also undertake regular CBR exercises

Union - 1 day of training

FESA - Maintenance training in HAZMAT includes a CBR component.
Firefighters now undertake CBR training as part of recruit school.

Union - all firefighters.
Cat 2
CBR competencies are delivered as a package to SET crews. These are informally aligned to national competencies consistent throughout the country
CBR Learning Kit - Parts 1, 2 and 3
6 days of training. Additional training by experts and ongoing training in supplementary information.
Cat 1 CD plus additional CDs are circulated to stations on an as needs basis

Union – Cat 1 CD has been issued to all metro and most country regional centres.
FESA – Training Resource Kit is being written. National competency in CBR is still to be determined.
6 month refresher training and 12 month validation and enhancement.

National and State exercises and drills used to validate and assess.
Required competency for SET crews and Field Liaison Officers plus mass decontamination training.
FESA - approximately 112 firefighters are trained in this level.

Union – in addition some advisory coordinators are trained and perform the role periodically - approximately 20+.
Road Crash Rescue (RCR)





One level

All recruit firefighters are trained in RCR
Pre-requisites:

PUA EME 002A - Manage Injuries in an Emergency Incident

PUA SAR 001A - Provide Emergency Care

Competencies achieved:

PUA SAR 002A - Road Crash Rescue

PUA EME 001A (similar to Senior First Aid plus a little more specific)

PUA EME 003A - Provide Oxygen
Training Resource Kit Parts 1, 2 and 3

2 to 3 days of training
The following CDs are at stations:
- CD new techniques, safety procedures
- CD new technologies
- CD alternative fuels
- CD Holmatro RCR

Additional training DVDs as new vehicles / equipment introduced eg Lexus 400H.

FESA - CDs are produced directly by Rescue or private industry and do not form part of the competency requirements.

Union – Every package is approved for production and is accompanied by a direction for its delivery. When FESA operational services produces a training resource due to an identified safety or operational requirement it becomes a competency requirement for firefighters.
6 month refresher training and 12 month validation and enhancement
All firefighters
Heavy Rescue (HR)





Cat 1

FESA = Awareness
Union = Basic

CD/DVD

Workshop 2 to 3 hours

Union - All DVDs are produced for delivery with a whole of state approach as directed by Executive Leadership team and FESA Policy
FESA - a CD is at some stations for familiarisation purposes.
Union –DVDs produced will include assessments in future.
All firefighters
Cat 2
Pre-requisites:

PUA SAR 001A - Provide Emergency Care

PUA SAR 002A - Road Crash Rescue

Competency achieved:

PUA SAR 003 - Undertake Technical Rescue.

FESA - one competency with 4 phases

Phase 1 familiarisation with equipment and usage standards

Phase 2 context of scenarios (eg Lifting trains)

Phase 3 manage injuries (actually a prerequisite which is now provided in new recruit training as the Manage Injuries competency)

Phase 4 assessment
Training Resource Kit
Heavy rescue equipment schedule.

Heavy rescue on-site training package (lists relevant equipment).

Additional training in HR eg Passenger aircraft 2007, Military aircraft 2008
(some of these packages are still to be developed).

Union – CAT 3 to be developed. Tunnel incident is an example and is now being developed for Vector Command nationally.
Phase 1 – 16 hours

Phase 2 – 16 hours

Phase 3 – 16 hours

Phase 4 – 8 hours

6 month refresher training and 12 month validation and enhancement and ongoing rescue scenarios.

Multi station drills as per training calendar and assisting major USAR drills.
FESA - 321 firefighters have this competency at 4 metro and 4 country stations.

Union - All USAR 50+ Cat 2 firefighters have this competency and all MPHR stations in metro and country which includes Perth (180). Total is in excess of 450.
Line Rescue/Vertical Rescue





Cat 1

Union – during the life of the proposed agreement.
None.

Proposed CD/DVD
2 to 3 hours of training.

Union - All DVDs are produced for delivery with a whole of state approach as directed by Executive Leadership team and FESA Policy
Every 12 months validation and enhancement

FESA – as this is an awareness level only, there is no need for validation.

Union –DVDs produced will include assessments in future.
All firefighters
Cat 2
Competency achieved:

PUA SAR 004A - Undertake Vertical Rescue

Firefighters who are CSR trained hold the basic skills required of this competency but not all of the requirements of this competency.
Union – the present competency is AFAC 217D and the present course package is far above that required for PUASAR 004A. FESA continues to train under that competency (as do other jurisdictions) until the new TRK is produced.
Training Resource Kit Parts 1, 2 and 3 – is currently in development and in place in draft form.

Approximately 130 hours of training.
Union – Rescue branch will produce in concert with and additional to the CAT information a specialist CAT 2 technical DVD demonstrating the correct techniques for VR operations. Rescue will also produce other DVD components to cover Lift rescue and other specific VR related competencies. All DVDs are produced with a whole of state approach as directed by Executive Leadership team and FESA Policy.
6 month refresher training and 12 month validation and enhancement.

Union – ongoing rescue scenarios and multi station drills.
FESA - approximately 50 (currently under review). CSR trained firefighters hold the basic skills of this competency but not all of the requirements for this competency.

Union - over 300 CSR specialists have LR skills. 75 firefighters are qualified to AFAC 2 17D. Perth station is the designated VR station and has a staff of over 180. All substantive staff will be offered training in VR. All USAR 50 will be trained in VR and many already are.
SUB-TOTAL= 130+

All CSR trained firefighters (450+) have an extensive and advanced VR capability. Many USAR are positioned at Perth and Perth staff are part of the 450 CSR qualified and identified staff. Therefore approximate numbers trained to conduct VR operations will be for the term of the proposed agreement:
All firefighters CAT 1 and >450 CAT2.
Confined Space Rescue (CSR)






Cat 1

FESA – awareness
Union – basic
None.
CD/DVD workshop taken from Cat 2

Union – this underpins Cat 2.
FESA - CD for familiarisation.
Union - All DVDs are produced for delivery with a whole of state approach as directed by Executive Leadership team and FESA Policy.
Union –DVDs produced will include assessments in future.
All firefighters.
Cat 2

FESA - two phases and no Cat 1:

Phase 1 theoretical aspects of CSR

Phase 2 practical aspects of CSR
Competencies achieved:

PUA FIR 307A - Atmospheric Monitoring

PUA SAR 005A - Undertake CSR

PUA SAR 007A - Structural Collapse

Some parts of PUA SAR 004A - Vertical Rescue
Training Resource Kit Parts 1, 2 and 3 - the same TRK is used for both phases.

- CD 2 to 3 hours
CSR equipment schedule – list of equipment.
40 hours of training

6 month refresher training and 12 month validation and enhancement

Maintenance training 1 day every 3 months
FESA - 148 firefighters

Union – 450 during term of the proposed agreement and all VR and USAR trained firefighters. Total >450.
Trench Rescue





Cat 1

FESA - none
Union – during life of proposed agreement.

Proposed CD/DVD
2 to 3 hours of training
Union - All DVDs are produced for delivery with a whole of state approach as directed by Executive Leadership team and FESA Policy
Union - Every 12 months validation and awareness.

FESA – As this is an awareness level only, there is no need for validation.
All firefighters.
Cat 2
Relevant competency:

PUA SAR 006A - Undertake Trench Rescue

FESA - this competency is currently under development and will be completed after May 2008.
Union – Rescue Branch and USAR are supplied with TRKs from other agencies.
Training Resource Kit Parts 1, 2 and 3 to be produced in 2007.

Union – A technical DVD in CAT 2 techniques will be produced in 2007/2008. Approximately 2to 3 days or up to 24 hours training with refresher courses and validation annually will be required. CAT 3 USAR task force Leaders will be trained and experienced in commanding these incidents.
6 month refresher training and 12 month validation and enhancement
FESA - two trench rescue instructors who came from the ACT Emergency Services Authority. The number of employees to be trained in this specialty has not yet been determined. However, the maximum number is likely to be 50 (in line with USAR Cat 2).

Union – FESA sent 2 Rescue Branch and USAR technicians to the ACT as future staff. This skills area will be complimentary to USAR and therefore over 50 technicians will be trained.
Platforms on Demand (PODs)
FESA – None.

Union – there is an endorsed and recognised FESA specific competency for PODs.
Training Resource Kit or similar in draft form.

Union – over 40 firefighters have qualified in this competency and are performing this role.
Union – the CAT 2 USAR summary will include information about this capability.
6 month refresher training and 12 month validation and enhancement.

Union – This is a 2 day package or 16 hours of instruction, practice and assessment.
FESA - 45 to 50 firefighters in total. Canning Vale is unlikely to be completed in lifetime of the proposed agreement, but this will add approximately 20 staff to this number.

Union - during the term of the proposed agreement an additional 50 + USAR technicians will be trained and the staff of Canning Vale station will also be trained (30+) giving a total of over 120 firefighters.
Mass Decontamination
No national competency
FESA recognised competency
CD/DVD

Training manual

Maximum two days training, no assessment


Union - Assessments and confirmation of competency capability is conducted by initial trainers and maintained by Station officers.
Validation is conducted at training days and at major drills and exercises.
Approximately 45 firefighters currently at Malaga and Bassendean.
Advanced/Senior First Aid
Senior First Aid is pre-requisite for recruits.
In order to attain PUA EME 001A - Provide Emergency Care, additional training is required to reach this competency.
Recruits also complete PUA EME 002B - Manage Injuries at Emergency
Incidents and PUA EME 003B - Administer Oxygen in Emergency Situations in full
Training course

Training Resource Kits for PUA EME 002B
PUA EME 003B
CD and booklet
Refresher courses are done by an external provider and are ongoing.

Union – These competencies are continually confirmed and assessed at incidents, drills and exercises.
All recruits since September 2006. All other firefighters are in the process of being upskilled to this level – expected to be completed by the end of 2007.