NSWNSWIRComm
Fire Brigade Employees' Union of NSW v Fire And Rescue NSW
[2020] NSWIRComm 1022
Industrial Relations Commission (NSW)|2018-11-20
View original sourceAt a glance
Source factsCourt
Industrial Relations Commission (NSW)
Decision date
2018-11-20
Source
Original judgment source is linked above.
Judgment (14 paragraphs)
[1]
Judgment
- In June 2018 the Fire Brigade Employees' Union of NSW ("the notifier") notified, pursuant to section 130 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW), ("the Act") a dispute with Fire and Rescue NSW ("the respondent"). The subject matter of the dispute was the respondent's intention to use retained firefighters to deliver, across multiple areas within the State, training in a new administrative system. The notifier nominated the affected award as the Crown Employees (Fire and Rescue NSW Permanent Firefighting Staff) Award 2017 ("the Permanent award"). As the proceedings developed it became clear that the award in question was in fact the Crown Employees (Fire and Rescue NSW Retained Firefighting Staff) Award 2017 ("the Retained award").
- Despite several conciliation conferences conducted before the Commission and between the parties privately, the fundamental issue which gave rise to the dispute could not be resolved by agreement. A without prejudice arrangement, which had been applied in the past, was again applied on the recommendation of the Commission. Ultimately the matter proceeded to arbitration on 20 November 2018. The respondent made a submission that, as the particular factual dispute had been resolved by the without prejudice arrangement, there was no requirement for an arbitration of the underlying issues. I will deal with the point after reviewing the evidence.
- Consistent with the directions of the Commission, the notifier filed, on 24 October 2018, a document which listed the questions which needed to be addressed for the purposes of an interpretation of the Retained award. The document also proposed an award variation following the making of that interpretation. On the same date the respondent also filed a document listing the questions for consideration in such an interpretation. There was a high degree of commonality in the questions identified by the parties. The questions proposed by the notifier were: "1. What is a "unit" for the purpose of the terms "Unit Trainer", "Unit Trainers" and "unit training" at subclauses 6.2.3, 6.4 and 6.5.2.1 respectively? 2. What is the meaning of the term "regular station drills" at subclause 6.4? 3. Does a Unit Trainer deliver "regular station drill" training only? 4. If the answer to 3 is no, then what is a Unit Trainer's rate of payment when delivering training otherwise? 5. Does a Unit Trainer deliver training only to their own "unit"? 6. If the answer to 5 is no, then what are a Unit Trainer's entitlements (including rate of payment) when delivering training to a different "unit"?" The respondent's version was in the following terms: "FRNSW believes a resolution of the FBEU's new claim would involve consideration of: 1. the definition of 'Unit Trainers' in Clause 6.4; and 2. the definition of 'regular station drills' in Clause 6.4; and 3. whether or not the application of Clause 6.4 is restricted solely to the 'Unit Trainer's' base station; or 4. if in the opinion of the Commission Clause 6.4 is sufficiently broad as to allow the 'Unit Trainer' to deliver training at regular station drills at a location other than their base station and still receive payment prescribed at Items W and X; and 5. the definition of the term 'maintain minimum staffing due to ... non-availability' in Clause 6.7."