Bulletin No: 141 | 23 August 2018
To: ALL UFU MEMBERS
DRAFT RESPONSE TEMPLATE FOR MFB MEMBERS’ USE IN REPLY TO BOARD PRESIDENT JASMINE DOAK
- Further to Bulletin #134, MFB members have indicated that they have received replies from Board President Jasmine Doak in relation to the MFB and CFA reneging on the “no jurisdiction” argument.
- The UFU includes below a draft template for members’ use in response to Jasmine Doak’s reply.
- UFU members are also respectfully advised that the UFU on Saturday 18 August wrote to both MFB and CFA requesting they hold an open forum meeting with their organisations’ respective ELTs/Board members and their Officer ranks. The UFU has not yet received a reply.
- Members please note that Bulletin #134 included a submission extract from MFB and CFA joint submissions and not just MFB submissions.
CFA CEO Dan Stephens: firstname.lastname@example.org
MFB President Jasmine Doak: email@example.com
CFA CEO Paul Smith: Paul.Smith@cfa.vic.gov.au
CFA Chair Greg Smith: firstname.lastname@example.org
DRAFT TEMPLATE FOR MFB MEMBERS’ USE IN REPLY TO MFB BOARD PRESIDENT JASMINE DOAK
Dear Ms Doak,
Thank you for your reply to my letter outlining my concerns and disappointment regarding the MFB and CFA preventing the Fair Work Commission from resolving/arbitrating the important issues of relativities for Officers and senior rank alignment.
In your reply to me, you state:
“We have proposed a way forward to your representatives that does not require litigation and we have undertaken quite a lot of the background work required to progress this issue to resolution.”
I ask you to please confirm that the “way forward” that you say was proposed to my representative, the United Firefighters Union, was in fact proposed by your lawyers in the conciliation process before the Fair Work Commission?
I have made inquiries with my Union and have been informed that the “way forward” proposed by the MFB and CFA included a caveat that the MFB and CFA would not be bound by any outcome before the Commission during the conciliation process.
If this is the case, it is extremely disingenuous to suggest that the MFB and CFA proposed a “way forward”, when in fact the way forward did not require the employers to be bound by any discussions or outcomes as a result of the conciliation process.
Further, the UFU has informed me that the parties in conciliation are not supposed to detail the discussions that occur under the umbrella of conciliation. If this is correct, there is no way for me to verify what you have asserted.
In your reply, you also state:
“I expect to be judged on my actions and I do not shy away from this.”
To date, the actions of the MFB and CFA Boards and Leadership Teams have been extremely disappointing and do not convey any value for your Officer classifications.
I am most interested in the matter being resolved expeditiously. In the context of resolving this matter, could you please provide written correspondence to my Union outlining how you intend to resolve this matter, or alternatively publish an open reply to all Officer personnel so that there is transparency and accountability in what you assert.
Finally, my Union has advised me that neither the MFB nor the CFA have responded to the UFU’s request for an open forum meeting between the MFB/CFA Leadership and the Officer ranks. I note that the UFU awaits your reply to that request.
I look forward to your reply.
Strength in Unity
READ OUT AT MUSTER AND PIN ON NOTICE BOARD
Authorised by Peter Marshall, Branch Secretary