Bulletin No: 099 Volume: 22 Friday 13 May 2016
TO ALL UFU MEMBERS
ROLL OVER THE OLD EBA? NO THANKS
The Union office has recieved a number of queries following the members meeting . In particular members requested the information that was provided on the night. As such the following information has been reproduced.
As members would be aware the CFA provided the following offer for members to consider on the 24th of February:
- Maintain all current provisions in the 2010 Agreement with the following variations:
- 10% (5% already paid in November and an additional 5% increase on approval of the new agreement)
- 3% increase per annum in 2017, 2018 and 2019
- New provisions
- Nominal expiry date of 31 July 2019
- Board of Reference
- EMR rollout to integrated stations
- Code of Conduct
- Family Violence leave
Members unanimously passed a motion to categorically reject that offer on the 19th of April at members meetings.
Members are reminded of the following shortcomings of the CFA offer in comparison to the Draft Agreement based on Commissioner Roes Recommendations:
- New Provisions in the CFA’s Offer are lacking in detail and are largely compiled of pre election commitments from the Andrews Government.
- The CFA offer increases the wages provided by the draft recommendation by 2% but removes the sign on bonus of $3000
- The offer does not provide for a suitable amount for the gap in wages between August 2013 and November 2015, nor does it contain any of the other increases provided for under the draft recommendation such as increase to FSCC and leading firefighter as well as other allowance increases
New allowances provided by Commissioner roes Recommendation and not included in the old agreement rollover:
- Fitness leader
- Reliever work allowance
- Difficult to fill location allowance
- Relocation allowance for permanent moves
- Road accident rescue
- Hydrostatic testing
- High Angle Rescue Technician
- Driver Educator Allowance
- State Wide Training Allowance for Instructors
- Relieving allowance for Instructors
- Marine and UAV – no allowance yet but same as MFB if introduced
- Tollway reimbursement
- Representation reimbursement
There are significant new additions in the NEW Enterprise agreement not contained in the old agreement regarding:
- Return to work
- Water for training
- Interoperable clauses
- Road accident rescue
- Instructor position certainty and many more…
Future Legal Attacks
This ‘offer’ does not show the work that has been done to improve the conditions to stop future legal attacks. In reality, CFA’s offer to ‘roll over’ the current enterprise agreement is nothing but a lure to try to keep firefighters and the UFU in constant litigation.
Many CFA members have experienced CFA challenging the current enterprise agreement and it took the UFU many years, and significant money to protect the conditions that CFA tried to take away. The combined total of fire service levy spent by the CFA and MFB to remove conditions of employment through litigation from 2011 to 2014 was $21,000,000 ($21 Million).
Members would be aware that the Union to oppose the attack on conditions had to put in place a litigation levy. If we accept the CFA CEO’s offer we will be repeating the same template that the CFA and MFB took advantage of.
CFA’s offer to roll over the agreement means that they want to keep firefighters exposed to litigation, and to continue the ideological fight against the conditions that firefighters have fought for.
In February 2014 after the first decision in the Federal Court by Justice Murphy the CFA sent the UFU a letter shows the extent to which they were trying to take away your conditions. The states that, in addition to the maintenance of classification and contracting out clauses, the staffing clauses, and the secondment and lateral entry clauses that were held at that time to be invalid:
CFA has completed a further review of the current agreement and considers that clauses of the current Operational Staff Agreement that are identified in Attachment A to this letter are also invalid and unenforceable
These clauses included the following:
- Clause 26 Contracting Out/Maintenance of Classifications
- Clause 27 Safe Staffing Levels
- Clause 28 Secondment and Lateral Entry
- Clause 29 Rostering
- Clause 30 Carers of Children with Rights under NES
- Clause 67.2 and 67.3 Lateral entry to firefighting ranks
- Clause 70 Community Support Facilitators
- Clause 71.3 Community Education
- Clause 72 Industry Brigades
- Clause 74.1 Hours of Work
- Clause 75.1 Roster of Hours
- Clause 79.1 Employees not subject to 10/14 Roster
- Clause 95.6 and 95.7 Higher Duties
- Clause 99 Terms and Conditions for Instructors – 99.1, 99.1.2, 99.2.7, 99.2.9, 99.6.2, 99.7.7, 99.9.1, 99.16.2, 99.16.6, 99.18.1, 99.18.3, 99.18.4
- Clause 111 Order of Transfer
- Clause 118 Regional Command and Control
- Clause 120 Progression
- Clause 122 Lateral Entry
- Clause 125 CTSO Salary Structure
- Clause 128.1 Hours of Work
- Clause 136.1 Hours of Work
- Clause 148.1 Hours of Work
- Clause 154 Rostering Arrangements and Procedures
- Clause 155 Ordinary Hours of Work
- Clause 156 Roster of Hours
- Clause 159 Work Location and Duties for Fire Service Communication Controllers
- Schedule 1 Current Staffing
- Schedule 2 State Based Relievers
- Schedule 5 CFA Emergency Response Training Framework
- Schedule 6 Joint Statement on Operational Training and Assessment
- Schedule 7 Training Module Delivery by Career Instructors
- Schedule 10 Arrangements for relief of Particular
- Schedule 10 Arrangements for relief of Particular Positions outside of the fire danger period
- Schedule 11 Position Descriptions
- Schedule 12 Competency Framework
- Schedule 13 Classification and Wages
- Schedule 15 Wildfire Duties
The CFA said that the above clauses of the CURRENT AGREEMENT that CFA now wants you to roll over, were invalid and unenforceable.
The UFU do not believe that it is in our members interest to sign up for another four or five years of litigious environment and CFA stating that the agreement they signed up to was not enforceable.
The UFU have taken the agreement through legal counsel to assist the redrafting of clauses that were vulnerable to ensure the true intent of the agreement is able to be enforced as much as is possible.
This is why the UFU strongly recommends that its members should pursue the new agreement as supported by Commissioner Roe’s recommendation version 17.1 instead of rolling over an agreement that CFA itself argued was invalid and unenforceable. Version 17.1 was negotiated over a lengthy period and in accordance with Commissioner Roe’s recommendations it is clear that most, if not all, of the clauses were agreed to by the CFA and or Government.
Strength in Unity
READ OUT AT MUSTER AND PIN ON NOTICE BOARD
Authorised by Peter Marshall, Branch Secretary