MICK SHAW MEMORIAL EVENT

A memorial event to celebrate the life and work of former London firefighter and FBU president Mick Shaw, who died on 1 April, has been organised by the FBU. All FBU members, serving and retired, are invited to the event. Friends and comrades of Mick from outside the FBU are also invited.

The memorial will commence at 6.30pm on Friday 18 May at the headquarters of the TUC: Congress House, Great Russell Street, London WC1B 3LS (nearest tube Tottenham Court Road).

Yours in unity

LONDON REGION FBU

The life of a firefighter is tough enough – without mixed toilets and stereotypes, say the women who make up just 4% of the fire service . . .

You may not be aware but the last night saw the Evening standard mayoral election debate take place in the centre of London which was hosted by Clive Anderson, who had earlier that day said that he would like to see a cat fight between the candidates at the event.

Whilst there was no real cat fight the FBU London Region Executive Council Member and TUSC candidate for the GLA elections Ian Leahair, was able to intervene on the question of policing where he was also able to raise the issue of priviatisation of the Fire Service, accusing the current Mayor Boris Johnson of robbing the LFEPA reserves to the tune of £50m to increase police numbers short term, he then called on all the candidates to commit to retain the Fire Service in the public sector, a commitment that has already been given by the Labour candidate Ken Livingstone, Jenny Jones from the Green part said it was madness to privatise any part of the fire service, while Brian Paddick simply commented that rather than raiding fire service finances they should remove police officers perks.

Ian was also able to interrupt the Mayor when he responded that the brigade had not suffered as a result of him robbing the reserves, however that interruption is difficult to hear on the evening standard video tape http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/mayor/video-evening-standard-mayoral-election-debate-in-full-7639326.html but you can hear and see Ian raise the issue at 1:01:59 in the above link.

Fraternally

Ian Leahair

FBU
Executive Council Member for London
And TUSC Candidate

SIGNING OLYMPICS CONTRACTS: FURTHER INFORMATION

Further to earlier messages, it would appear that FBU members are being wrongly advised by principal managers and other senior brigade managers (who are not members of the FBU) that they can sign the Olympic contracts and withdraw at any time. Members are also being told that they can participate in particular activities – such as extraction team events – without contravening the ongoing FBU industrial action currently in place.

You will be aware that the industrial action includes a ban on the signing of any secondary contract and a ban on participating in voluntary activities. This means that the advice being given by these senior managers is wrong.

We would urge all members to contact local FBU officials for the correct advice on such matters.

It would appear that the misinformation is being circulated in an attempt to undermine the FBU’s current industrial action.

The current industrial action – which is being taken in protest at attempts by the brigade to erode conditions of service in many areas – remains very much alive, and we strongly urge members through their local officials to familiarise themselves with the current industrial action before signing any secondary contract or agreeing to take part in voluntary activities.

Yours fraternally

Ian Leahair

Executive Council Member for London

Fire Brigades Union

OLYMPIC CONTRACTS UPDATE

Members may have read an email sent by the commissioner last week, declaring that the deadline for the return of secondary contracts for participation in the Olympic Park cadre has passed. In his email, the commissioner makes several criticisms of the Fire Brigades Union, which we must respond to.

The commissioner also misrepresents the situation quite seriously, and, while we know that members do not wish to witness some ‘tit-for-tat’ argument, it is important that we correct some of the inaccuracies, as things are not quite as the commissioner set out.

We therefore urge anyone with an interest in the Olympics contracts to read the information below in its entirety.

For the last five months, the union has been taking industrial action short of a strike. This action has included a ban on the signing of any secondary contracts. The action is taking place as a result of attempts by the brigade to erode conditions of service in a number of areas.

The ban on the signing of secondary contracts was introduced very specifically as a result of serious concerns we have over the way the brigade has introduced secondary contracts in recent years. Often these contracts do not meet the minimum terms set out in the Grey Book and are introduced without agreement with the union.

Despite this, we told the brigade that we would be happy to reach agreement on the Olympics contracts, but that it was important the brigade addressed all of the other issues that lay at the heart of the trade dispute as well. Matters were not helped by the brigade’s delay in opening negotiations on the contracts. Talks didn’t begin until January, in spite of the FBU requesting they commence a year ago.

Over the last 12 weeks, we have been negotiating with principal officers and heads of department over the Olympics contracts. Unfortunately, these brigade managers have been guilty of giving the most mixed messages about the deadline by which the contracts must be signed and returned. They first told the union that the deadline was 3 February. Prior to this deadline being reached, the FBU learned that this was not the deadline at all, and that the brigade had much more flexibility than it was letting on.

Nonetheless, as a gesture of goodwill, and to show that the union was serious about reaching agreement on the contracts, we agreed that our members could go through the security accreditation process, with a view to negotiating the finer points of the contracts later.

Brigade managers then gave us a ‘new’, albeit vague, final deadline some time in late February. Again, the union learned that this was not the deadline at all, and, sure enough, again the deadline passed without negotiations collapsing.

We received notice of a third deadline in March. This deadline also appeared on the contracts which had been issued to members who had volunteered to take part. Having already been given two false deadlines, we pressed brigade managers to confirm that this deadline was a genuine one. They confirmed that it was.

Again, prior to this deadline being reached, we received information to suggest that the latest deadline was also not a genuine one, and again our information proved correct, because the deadline passed without negotiations collapsing.

It was clear to us by this time that the brigade was simply setting deadlines at random in an attempt to ‘bounce’ the union into signing up to the Olympics contracts before other issues connected to the trade dispute had been properly addressed, thereby trying to create divisions among FBU members. It seemed that brigade managers wanted only to deal with the issues that were a priority for them, rather than trying to also address the issues which affected the broad majority of our members across London.

Eventually, in mid-March, the brigade agreed to joint conciliation with the FBU, using the NJC joint secretaries. The negotiations would endeavour to resolve all the issues connected to the trade dispute, including the Olympics contracts.

At the outset of the talks, the brigade insisted that ‘Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed’ and that no issue could be resolved separately from a general agreement covering all the issues. In a report to LFEPA politicians, which was considered at a meeting on 12 March, brigade managers reinforced their approach by stating that no side could ‘cherry-pick’ which issues could be dealt with inside the talks. In other words, the Olympics contracts could not be agreed in isolation to everything else.

To this end, every version of a proposed general agreement passed across the table by the brigade during the joint secretaries’ talks included the stipulation that the FBU ‘Accepts new contracts introduced by the brigade…in particular the Olympics contracts.’

It is, therefore, perfectly clear that negotiations on the Olympics contracts remained alive during the recent talks.

The talks lasted around a fortnight. On the 29 March, the talks adjourned for a three-week break, with an agreement that the two sides would reconvene on 18 April. This adjournment was specifically requested by the brigade, on account of leave commitments relating to two members of their negotiating team.

On the evening before the adjournment, the brigade asked the FBU whether we were minded to reach agreement on the Olympics contracts yet. Though we were close to agreement on the terms of the contracts, we had not received sufficient guarantees over the general issue of secondary contracts, and not enough progress had been made on our other demands.

We therefore told brigade managers that we were not yet minded to reach agreement on the contracts for these reasons. It also remained the case that the terms of the talks, as demanded by brigade managers at the outset, prevented us from agreeing any aspect of the discussions in isolation. After all, it was they who insisted that ‘Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed,’ and that no side was allowed to cherry-pick the issues.

When the brigade requested the three-week adjournment, the FBU stated that such a long break might not be helpful, and that we were willing to negotiate through the night and into the next week – indeed, as long as it took to get an agreement on all the issues, including the Olympics contracts.

The brigade rejected this request, insisting that the adjournment must go ahead because of their leave commitments. One member of the FBU’s negotiating team also had a leave commitment, but the union made clear that we were happy to continue in his absence.

Given that brigade managers had insisted that all the issues must be agreed as part of a total package and not separately, given also that every proposed agreement they had drafted during the talks had referred specifically to the need to reach agreement on the Olympics contracts, and given that they had raised the issue as late as the penultimate evening before the talks broke up at their request, it was perfectly reasonable for FBU officials to assume when the talks adjourned on 29 March that the Olympics contracts remained a live issue.

Indeed, on Wednesday of last week – the day before the commissioner sent his message – Assistant Commissioner Gary Reason, who is responsible for the brigade’s operations inside the Olympics Park, was telling FBU officials that the deadline for return of the contracts was 21 April – at the time two and a half weeks away.

We were, therefore, stunned when learning of the commissioner’s email last week. It contradicted everything that had been told to the FBU previously.

The commissioner suggests in his email that the FBU knew all along that the deadline was 5 April. This is not correct. We challenge the commissioner to produce one item of correspondence where this deadline was mentioned, or to provide the name of one FBU official who was told this.

We also challenge the commissioner to refute, by documentary evidence or otherwise, any of the facts that we have set out above.

To further cast doubt on the commissioner’s claims about the passing of the so-called deadline, the FBU yesterday learned that the brigade is still telling staff that it is not too late for them to return contracts (though it is obviously important that this is only done when the FBU ban on signing secondary contracts is lifted). To this day, then, the brigade continues to give mixed messages.

Some people may conclude that the commissioner’s email was a deliberate attempt to create concern and confusion among FBU members who had not yet returned their contracts, and to coerce them into returning them as soon as possible and before agreement had been reached with the FBU on the wider trade dispute issues.

The FBU’s position on the matter remains the same: we wish to see a successful brigade operation inside the Olympic Park and are still willing to reach agreement on the contracts. Indeed, we demand that, in the event agreement on the contracts is reached, those members who previously expressed an interest but had not yet signed their contracts out of respect for the union’s industrial action, be given the chance to sign their contracts and participate in the Olympic cadre.

The brigade’s reduced plans for operations in the Olympics Park, as released to the media last week, are patently inadequate and raise real safety and security issues, which makes it all the more important that our members are permitted to work inside the park.

We are seeking an urgent meeting with the brigade to discuss all these issues, and we urge members not to return their contracts until this meeting takes place.

All things considered, the approach of brigade managers to this issue has unprofessional and duplicitous in the extreme. It simply isn’t acceptable for brigade managers to keep chopping and changing their position on the ‘final deadline’ and then to claim that the FBU knew what the deadline was all along.

It is also unacceptable, in an attempt to pressure FBU members into signing their contracts, to persistently make up deadlines on-the-hoof and to regularly claim that the final deadline ‘has passed’ or ‘is about to pass’ when evidently it still has not. This is not a grown-up way to conduct industrial relations.

We pay tribute to all those members who have not yet signed their Olympic contracts, and we aim even at this late stage to secure a satisfactory resolution to this issue on their behalf.

Yours in unity

LONDON REGION FBU