The Suffolk fire Experience - Doc 383 Northfleet Firefighter
Interested in other Suffolk Firefighter tales then check out “The Suffolk Hyde Affair” athttp://thesuffolkhydeaffair.blogspot.com/
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
CASE NO:
BETWEEN
SubO X
PLAINTIFF
And
SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL
DEFENDANT
GROUNDS OF COMPLAINT
I am employed by the respondent as a Sub-Officer in the respondent’s Fire and Rescue Service, serving at Lowestoft Fire Station and, holding the post of instructor. I am a member of the Fire Brigades Union which is a Union recognised by the respondents for the purposes of the safety Representatives and safety Committees Regulations 1977. In February 1997 I was nominated for the post of safety Representative for the Lowestoft branch of the Fire Brigades Union. In response I was duly elected by a fair democratic process to the position of Safety Representative for the Lowestoft branch and, to this day still retain that position. In taking this position I fully accept the requirement to perform to the best of my abilities the functions outlined by the Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977.based at Lowestoft Fire Station.
1.
On the 3rd of August 1998 I was informed by a fellow Health and Safety representative that there was to be a Fire brigades Union Committee meeting on 5th August 1998 at Felixstowe Trade and Labour club. A normal part of the proceedings at these meetings is an update on health and safety matters that are relevant to Fire brigades union members. More specific to this meeting was the demonstration, on health and safety grounds, of new equipment to the Union committee members, to this I played a significant part in my capacity as a health and safety representative. Indeed my attendance at this meeting for the express purpose of assisting with the aforementioned demonstration was suggested by and invited by my senior manager ( ADO Paul Hayden). Having being notified of the relevant meeting and with no operational commitments I requested the necessary leave with the maximum notice available to me under the prevailing circumstances. As such I complied totally with the relevant terms in my employers document HS06, section 14. 1 which concerns the procedural arrangements for Safety representatives leave:
HS06. 14. 1.
‘The safety representatives will be required to give reasonable notice of requirements for time off where practicable, and in normal circumstances obtain the prior approval of the County Fire Officer. In granting time off for safety representatives due account will need to be taken of operational commitments.’
Having attended the meeting referred to above I returned to work on 7th August 1998. At 11:30 hours on the same day I was informed by my senior manager (ADO Paul Hayden) that he was of the opinion that I was not entitled to the health and safety leave I had taken on 5th August 1998. At the same time the respondent initiated a full scale prosecution against me under the Fire Services (Discipline) Regulations 1986, with regard to the leave I had taken and recorded as health and safety leave. The respondent charged me the offence of disobedience to orders on account of me attending to my health and safety duties on 5th August 1998 as part of my capacity as a health and safety representative.
It is submitted that I acted reasonably and as instructed by my senior manager ADO Paul Hayden in taking leave for health and safety duties. The procedure I followed to obtain health and safety leave was technically correct and in line with normal custom and practice and HS06, 14.1. I was clearly entitled to the health and safety leave taken on 5th August 1998 for which I received nil personal benefit. In contrast, I believe that the respondent has, and continues so, acted inappropriately, unreasonably and in bad faith. That is evidenced by way of the disciplinary prosecution instituted against me which has so far subjected me to action short of dismissal. For that I submit that they have acted contrary to section 44 of the employment rights act 1996.
Signed SubO X 20th December 1998
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
CASE NO:
BETWEEN
SubO X
PLAINTIFF
And
SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL
DEFENDANT
GROUNDS OF COMPLAINT
I am employed by the respondent as a Sub-Officer in the respondent’s Fire and Rescue Service, serving at Lowestoft Fire Station and, holding the post of instructor. I am a member of the Fire Brigades Union which is a Union recognised by the respondents for the purposes of the safety Representatives and safety Committees Regulations 1977. In February 1997 I was nominated for the post of safety Representative for the Lowestoft branch of the Fire Brigades Union. In response I was duly elected by a fair democratic process to the position of Safety Representative for the Lowestoft branch and, to this day still retain that position. In taking this position I fully accept the requirement to perform to the best of my abilities the functions outlined by the Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977.based at Lowestoft Fire Station.
1.
On the 3rd of August 1998 I was informed by a fellow Health and Safety representative that there was to be a Fire brigades Union Committee meeting on 5th August 1998 at Felixstowe Trade and Labour club. A normal part of the proceedings at these meetings is an update on health and safety matters that are relevant to Fire brigades union members. More specific to this meeting was the demonstration, on health and safety grounds, of new equipment to the Union committee members, to this I played a significant part in my capacity as a health and safety representative. Indeed my attendance at this meeting for the express purpose of assisting with the aforementioned demonstration was suggested by and invited by my senior manager ( ADO Paul Hayden). Having being notified of the relevant meeting and with no operational commitments I requested the necessary leave with the maximum notice available to me under the prevailing circumstances. As such I complied totally with the relevant terms in my employers document HS06, section 14. 1 which concerns the procedural arrangements for Safety representatives leave:
HS06. 14. 1.
‘The safety representatives will be required to give reasonable notice of requirements for time off where practicable, and in normal circumstances obtain the prior approval of the County Fire Officer. In granting time off for safety representatives due account will need to be taken of operational commitments.’
Having attended the meeting referred to above I returned to work on 7th August 1998. At 11:30 hours on the same day I was informed by my senior manager (ADO Paul Hayden) that he was of the opinion that I was not entitled to the health and safety leave I had taken on 5th August 1998. At the same time the respondent initiated a full scale prosecution against me under the Fire Services (Discipline) Regulations 1986, with regard to the leave I had taken and recorded as health and safety leave. The respondent charged me the offence of disobedience to orders on account of me attending to my health and safety duties on 5th August 1998 as part of my capacity as a health and safety representative.
It is submitted that I acted reasonably and as instructed by my senior manager ADO Paul Hayden in taking leave for health and safety duties. The procedure I followed to obtain health and safety leave was technically correct and in line with normal custom and practice and HS06, 14.1. I was clearly entitled to the health and safety leave taken on 5th August 1998 for which I received nil personal benefit. In contrast, I believe that the respondent has, and continues so, acted inappropriately, unreasonably and in bad faith. That is evidenced by way of the disciplinary prosecution instituted against me which has so far subjected me to action short of dismissal. For that I submit that they have acted contrary to section 44 of the employment rights act 1996.
Signed SubO X 20th December 1998
posted by Bert Blythburgh at 2:31 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home