Report - Fire Brigades Union

SECTION G — INTERNAL ADMINISTRATION
those attending for solidarity, during periods of strike action.
LFEPA was represented by Queen’s Counsel, junior counsel
and LFEPA’s legal department.
Strike action had been called and took place on 23 October
2010 and 1 November 2010, during which two members
(including London’s executive council member) and a police
officer were injured by vehicles driven by strike breakers. The
claimant had also been notified that further strike action had
been called for 5, 6 and 7 November 2010 commencing at 10
am on 5 November.
The correspondence
The claimant faxed a letter to the general secretary on the
evening of 2 November 2010 setting out various allegations
and seeking a response by 12 noon on 3 November 2010.
They made no attempt to contact the general secretary by
mobile telephone or email to inform him about this and arrange
delivery that evening. They simply faxed the letter to head
office after the office had closed. Neither the general secretary
nor the national officer saw that letter until the morning of 3
November by which time it was too late to respond by 12 noon
that day. A letter from the general secretary, confirming that he
would look into the allegations but that it would not be possible
to respond by 12 noon on that day, was immediately sent.
Nothing further was received on 3 November from LFEPA
making any suggestion that the claimant would be applying to
the court for an interim injunction or imposing any further
deadline. Instead they again waited until after head office had
closed and then wrote at 20:07 to give notice of an intended
application on 4 November. Once again they failed to do
anything to ensure the general secretary received the letter on
the night it was sent, something they could easily have done.
So the union did not receive that notice until the morning when
the solicitors were instructed immediately.
The general secretary, having been intensively involved in
discussions with LFEPA, did not have the opportunity to go
through LFEPA’s paperwork and prepare a statement in reply,
which may have led to one or more of the days of action
planned for 5, 6 or 7 November being called off.
The union claimed it was wholly inconsistent for the claimant
to stress their concerns for public safety in London whilst
placing the general secretary in the impossible position of
having to choose between those discussions of crucial
importance for public safety and preparing evidence in
response to their allegations.
The net result of the interim injunction was that the judge
made no finding either way on the LFEPA allegations that there
had been breaches of the legislation. He accepted the union’s
proposal to give undertakings to abide by the laws governing
picketing in relation to any further industrial action during the
dispute. This was naturally proposed as the union’s position
throughout and that it had abided by those laws and that this
would continue to be the case.
In an effort to resolve the dispute, the matter was referred to
the Resolution Advisory Panel which met on 16 November
2010 to hear the dispute. The outcome is reported in Section A
of this annual report. A consultative ballot of the membership
in December 2010 agreed to accept the RAP outcome.
Essex dispute
The trade dispute registered with Essex Fire Authority on 15
June 2009 continued throughout 2010. Various types of action
short of strike commenced on 26 August 2009 and continued
into 2010.
January 2010 began with the fire authority refusing the
reasonable request – made in accordance with Grey Book
provisions and the NJC good industrial relations protocol – to
jointly seek the third party assistance of the NJC joint
secretaries. This was followed by the unilateral decision to
suspend the locally agreed consultation and negotiation
framework and a review of time off for trade union duties
including the cessation of paid trade union leave for those
undertaking regional activities. Industrial relations deteriorated
and the industrial action continued.
In March exploratory discussions began in an effort to find a
potential settlement to the trade dispute. The discussions
turned into concerted negotiations. Outline terms for a
potential settlement were developed positively, and then on 30
April the FBU announced a temporary suspension of industrial
action to assist a final round of detailed negotiations. On 25
June, the resultant proposed “full and final” terms of
settlement were sent out to the Essex FBU membership for
consultation with the recommendation from the brigade
committee to accept. On 13 July, the FBU confirmed to the
fire authority that the Essex membership had voted to accept
the terms of settlement and that once the agreement was
signed by both parties the general secretary would issue the
formal notice concluding the trade dispute. The date for signing
was set for 21 July.
At the signing, the Essex chief fire officer produced a
unilaterally amended version of the proposed terms of
settlement. No agreement was reached on the revised
wording. Subsequent attempts to find mutually acceptable
amendments were rejected by the chief fire officer. Eventually,
on 8 September, the chief fire officer confirmed the fire
authority would defer any further progress on a proposed
settlement to the trade dispute until after the Comprehensive
Spending Review.
The notice reinstating the industrial action short of strike was
issued by the general secretary on 13 September 2010. The
action included an overtime ban; an acting-up ban; a ban on
any new temporary promotions to fire station rider posts; a ban
on managers working on rota leave days; a ban on new
secondary contracts; and a ban on any new additional work
agreements.
The trade dispute remained unresolved and the industrial
action continued into 2011.
106 FBU Annual Report 2011