Award negotiations continue, with the major (but by no means sole) point of discussion to date being the Union's proposal for a new, compressed permanent rank structure:

New ranks (Current ranks)
Recruit Firefighter (Recruits and FL1's)
Firefighter Level 1 (FL2's and FL3's)
Firefighter Level 2 (FL4'S and QF's)
Senior Firefighter (SF's)
Leading Firefighter (LF's)
Station Officer (SO1's and SO2's)
Senior Station Officer
Inspector (Insp's)
Superintendent (Supt's and ChfSupt1's)
Chief Superintendent (ChfSupt2's)

As discussions unfold, it appears that members would spend 12 months at the new Recruit rank and a minimum of 24 months at each rank thereafter. It would therefore take 5 years (not the current 6) to reach Senior Firefighter rank, 7 years to Leading Firefighter, 9 years to Station Officer, 11 years to Senior Station Officer and 13 years to Inspector. The Union has further suggested that progression to Superintendent should require a minimum of 2 years at Inspector, and 2 years at Superintendent before progressing to Chief Superintendent.

Progression to Senior Firefighter rank would become compulsory. The Department has so far rejected the Union's position that existing Qualfiied Firefighters should be automatically realigned at Senior Firefighter rank, and has instead proposed that QF's be realigned at the new FL2 rank. They (like all FL2's) would then be required to progress to Senior Firefighter within two years, although the Department now appears open to the idea of a distinction between pre-CBT QF's (ie, members who reached QF prior to 1/1/96) and more recent QF's, with the former having to complete a short (yet to be determined) "bridging course" in recognition of their extended service.

Like the new Senior Station Officer rank, Leading Firefighter would cease to be simply a transitional rank. In other words, it would be possible to progress to Leading Firefighter without having to go on to Station Officer. Similarly, it would be possible for Station Officers to gain promotion to Senior Station Officer rank without having to go on to Inspector. Further (and quite importantly), the Union has insisted that there be no cap on the total numbers in either the LF or SSO rank. The benefits from this for all members, and for those based outside of the GSA in particular, should be obvious.

In the context of the above changes, the Department is seeking agreement for Leading Firefighters to act-up to fill Station Officer vacancies, and for Senior Station Offices to act-up to Inspector rank. It's expected that there will, however, be no reduction in the current number of relieving SO's or Inspectors. The Department is further proposing that acting-up be permitted for periods of up to one month in order to remove the need for country reliefs, etc.

Unlike officer relievers, the Department has proposed to abolish the firefighters' relieving corps altogether. The upside of this is that it's also proposing to create over 100 extra firefighter positions which, when combined with the former RF's, would see every station brought up to S/O and 4 (or more, as need be, for multiple appliance stations). It's expected that the combination of this in-built relief component and (limited) out-duties would allow most vacancies, both scheduled (eg, annuals) and otherwise (eg, sick leave) to be covered.

Under this proposal, today's Senior Firefighter will effectively become tomorrow's QF - but at the higher rate of pay. Similarly, today's Leading Firefighter becomes tomorrow's SF and today's SO2 gains a further opportunity of promotion to SSO - in both cases again with considerably higher rates of pay. This offers more career opportunities and much greater earning potential for members, as well as higher levels of skills and training for the Brigades. That we also stand to secure over 100 new permanent firefighter jobs is the icing on the cake.

However - and there's no point in skirting around the point - the ability of LF's and SSO's to act-up coupled with the creation of the extra firefighter positions would mean that recalls to maintain minimum staffing would largely become a thing of the past. It's worth noting here that the State Committee does not support or encourage overtime as a way of boosting your regular pay. Our Union certainly didn't fight for years on end to get our weekly working hours down from 168 to today's 42 so that members could work more overtime on their extra days off. In our view, overtime is simply a symptom of a shortage of substantive jobs, and as such the Union welcomes the prospect of 100+ new permanent positions.

Like most things, the devil of all this (if there is one) will be found in the detail. Much of that detail is yet to be worked out - not the least being what will be required of existing SF and SO members in order to progress to the new LF and SSO ranks - but that and further details will be circulated as and when they come to hand. As always, the final say on these or any other changes will rest with you, the Union's rank and file members, at a General Meeting.

Chris Read
State Secretary
Sunday 26th October, 2003