The Suffolk Fire Experience - Doc 232 Newmarket Firefighter Vacancies
Section 7 Attachment to Main Body of IT3
7.1. The Applicant is employed as a training Instructor, in the rank of Sub Officer, at the Respondent’s Training School in Lowestoft. He has been employed by this Brigade since 1993, having first joined the Fire Service in West Yorkshire in 1978. The terms and conditions of the Applicant’s employment are, for the most part, set out in the Scheme of Conditions of Service agreed by the NJC for Local Authorities’ Fire Brigades.
7.2 On 1 May 1998, the Applicant reported that he had injured his back while setting up a training exercise. In particular, he had raised two drill dummies from ground level onto the top of a Water Carrier and strained his back. Carrying out such a lift unaided is contrary to the safe systems of work established by the Suffolk Fire Service. As is usual practice, the accident was investigated. The officer investigating noted that the Applicant had not followed a safe system of work and said that he “could not be bothered” to seek or wait for assistance. As the Instructor on a Training course, the Applicant holds a position of authority over trainees and provides a role model to others. He therefore has the usual responsibility for his own health and safety and that of others, but he should also be seen to adhere to safe practices.
7.3 On Wednesday, 6 May 1998, the Applicant booked sick stating that he had a bad back due to the accident on 1 may. He was absent on and from 6 May up to and including Tuesday 12 May 1998 (seven days).
7.4 Section IV para 7 (2) of the National conditions of service for Fire Brigades (1998 edition) states that:
“if a member……………………..has, in the opinion of the fire authority acting on medical advice, caused or substantially aggravated any illness or injury by neglect or default,……..he/she shall be entitled only to such paid sick leave as the fire authority may determine”.
The applicant has made clear unequivocal statements regarding the cause of his injury on 1 May and the link between that injury and his subsequent absence. In view of this the Respondent invoked the paragraph quoted above by writing to the Applicant on 29 May 1998 to inform him that he would receive half pay, over and above SSP. This arrangement represented a loss to the Applicant of approximately £212 from his gross earnings at the end of June.
7.5 The Respondent has been advised that the requirement to obtain medical advice in the National Conditions is a condition precedent to deducting sick pay. As the Respondent has not received medical advice although it is plain that the Applicant was responsible for the injury the Respondent now accepts that it cannot deduct sick pay for this technical reason. The Respondent will, therefore, reimburse the sick pay deducted.
7.6 The Applicant was advised that he could challenge the deduction from pay by means of the Respondent’s grievance procedure. He initially chose not to do this, but rather filed a “near miss” procedure, claiming that the Deputy County Fire Officer had harassed and bullied him by sending the letter of 29 May 1998, and that this was a health and safety issue. This action by the applicant is the subject of disciplinary action under the Fire Service (Discipline) Regulations 1985 and the charge is “Insubordination”. A hearing before the County Fire Officer will take place in due course.
7.7 The Respondent will resist the Applicants contention that he has suffered detriment under Section 44 Employment Rights act 1996 on the following grounds.
None of the grounds set out in section 44 (1) (a) to (e) apply in the Applicant’s case.
He has not at present been subjected to a detriment.
The report filed under the “near miss” procedure was not in respect of health and safety.
Mw/gillespie/ind.tribs/noticeofap/wiggleswor
7.1. The Applicant is employed as a training Instructor, in the rank of Sub Officer, at the Respondent’s Training School in Lowestoft. He has been employed by this Brigade since 1993, having first joined the Fire Service in West Yorkshire in 1978. The terms and conditions of the Applicant’s employment are, for the most part, set out in the Scheme of Conditions of Service agreed by the NJC for Local Authorities’ Fire Brigades.
7.2 On 1 May 1998, the Applicant reported that he had injured his back while setting up a training exercise. In particular, he had raised two drill dummies from ground level onto the top of a Water Carrier and strained his back. Carrying out such a lift unaided is contrary to the safe systems of work established by the Suffolk Fire Service. As is usual practice, the accident was investigated. The officer investigating noted that the Applicant had not followed a safe system of work and said that he “could not be bothered” to seek or wait for assistance. As the Instructor on a Training course, the Applicant holds a position of authority over trainees and provides a role model to others. He therefore has the usual responsibility for his own health and safety and that of others, but he should also be seen to adhere to safe practices.
7.3 On Wednesday, 6 May 1998, the Applicant booked sick stating that he had a bad back due to the accident on 1 may. He was absent on and from 6 May up to and including Tuesday 12 May 1998 (seven days).
7.4 Section IV para 7 (2) of the National conditions of service for Fire Brigades (1998 edition) states that:
“if a member……………………..has, in the opinion of the fire authority acting on medical advice, caused or substantially aggravated any illness or injury by neglect or default,……..he/she shall be entitled only to such paid sick leave as the fire authority may determine”.
The applicant has made clear unequivocal statements regarding the cause of his injury on 1 May and the link between that injury and his subsequent absence. In view of this the Respondent invoked the paragraph quoted above by writing to the Applicant on 29 May 1998 to inform him that he would receive half pay, over and above SSP. This arrangement represented a loss to the Applicant of approximately £212 from his gross earnings at the end of June.
7.5 The Respondent has been advised that the requirement to obtain medical advice in the National Conditions is a condition precedent to deducting sick pay. As the Respondent has not received medical advice although it is plain that the Applicant was responsible for the injury the Respondent now accepts that it cannot deduct sick pay for this technical reason. The Respondent will, therefore, reimburse the sick pay deducted.
7.6 The Applicant was advised that he could challenge the deduction from pay by means of the Respondent’s grievance procedure. He initially chose not to do this, but rather filed a “near miss” procedure, claiming that the Deputy County Fire Officer had harassed and bullied him by sending the letter of 29 May 1998, and that this was a health and safety issue. This action by the applicant is the subject of disciplinary action under the Fire Service (Discipline) Regulations 1985 and the charge is “Insubordination”. A hearing before the County Fire Officer will take place in due course.
7.7 The Respondent will resist the Applicants contention that he has suffered detriment under Section 44 Employment Rights act 1996 on the following grounds.
None of the grounds set out in section 44 (1) (a) to (e) apply in the Applicant’s case.
He has not at present been subjected to a detriment.
The report filed under the “near miss” procedure was not in respect of health and safety.
Mw/gillespie/ind.tribs/noticeofap/wiggleswor
posted by Bert Blythburgh at 1:02 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home