Fire Brigade Employees' Union v Industrial Relations Secretary [2025] NSWIRComm 1063 | Case summary

Fire Brigade Employees' Union v Industrial Relations Secretary [2025] NSWIRComm 1063 | Case summary | Zoe

[191]

(1) increase wage rates and wage-related allowances by 14% in addition to a 1% increase in statutory superannuation contributions, in the form of the following increases:

(a) 4% to wages and wage-related allowances, effective 26 February 2024, or a further 1% on top of the interim 3% already granted in January of this year;[1]

(b) 4% to wages and wage-related allowances, effective 26 February 2025;

(c) 6% to wage and wage-related allowances effective 26 February 2026, 3% of which is an increase to recognise competency in road crash rescue (RCR) work;

(2) reduce the current Rescue Operator Allowance from 26 February 2026 to avoid double counting the work value of conducting RCR work;

(3) introduce additional allowances to recognise the work value of holding other rescue competencies from 26 February 2026;

(4) introduce into the Permanent Award an on call allowance and a disturbance allowance;

(5) introduce into the Permanent and Retained Award a Remote Piloted Aircraft System allowance;

(6) expand the coverage of Hazmat and Major/Minor Aerial allowances;

(7) increase the minimum payment for Retained Firefighters from 1 hour to 1.5 hours;

(8) introduce an ex gratia payment which Retained Firefighters may apply for if they have accepted a deployment offer and that deployment is cancelled, delayed, altered with less than 48 hours' notice;

(9) confirm that the consultation structure set out in Schedule 5 of the Permanent and Retained Awards will be maintained on an ongoing basis;

(10) remove the need for agreement between the parties in the event of changes to entitlements that arise where an employee is given notice of transfer to work in a new location;

(11) remove the Country Relief model subcommittee;

(12) include a clause that identifies the extent to which it is open to the parties to make further claims that would take effect during the life of the award;

(13) introduce cultural and ceremonial leave for Permanent and Retained firefighters;

(14) introduce an entitlement to overtime pay at single time for Superintendents and Chief Superintendents for hours worked outside the ordinary span of hours that they are directed or required to work as a result of an incident or emergency;

(15) permit permanent firefighters to be reimbursed at the official business rate when they travel in their private vehicle if public transport is not reasonably available or practicable;

(16) extend the accommodation allowance to employees who are on intrastate and international deployments;

(17) extend the deployment allowance to employees who are on intrastate and interstate deployment who have to stay in accommodation that is either not indoors or has no private sleeping and bathroom facilities;

(18) extend the entitlements in current clause 26 of the Permanent Award to DART members engaged in training; and

(19) make by consent a number of other variations to the Awards.

[200]

The parties have agreed on several other variations proposed by the FBEU. On 21 March 2025, the Secretary filed a document setting out the agreed text for the respective agreed clauses in the awards. Following closing submissions, the parties reached a consent position in respect of cl 63.6 of the FBEU's proposed new Permanent Award and filed a copy of the proposed clause on 30 May 2025. We are content to implement these variations, on the basis that they are by consent.
The parties filed a statement of agreed facts on 19 March 2025, which forms Annexure A to this decision.
In addition to its major claims and the agreed variations, the FBEU sought a very large number of other claims.
At the outset of the hearing, counsel for the FBEU confirmed that all claims were pressed. At a late stage of the proceedings, the FBEU proposed that a large number of those claims should not be determined, but instead be placed into one of two forms of leave reserved clauses in the award, on the basis that they would be the subject of further discussions and arbitrated only if those discussions were unsuccessful.
Specifically, the FBEU identified eight claims in the Permanent Award and five claims in the Retained Award that it submitted should be first considered by its proposed 'Remuneration Taskforce'. In addition, the FBEU specified a further 19 claims in the Permanent Award and 15 claims in the Retained Award that would be the subject of a more traditional leave reserved clause. Pertaining to both sets of claims, the FBEU sought to preserve its ability to bring them before the Commission to ultimately be determined on the evidence led before us. The FBEU contended that if the Bench was not minded to place those claims in a leave reserved clause they were nevertheless pressed and so needed to be determined.
The log of claims compiled by the FBEU which was then reflected in its application appears to have been prepared based on union member feedback and then pressed at hearing without the union having first given each claim careful consideration as to the evidence necessary to justify the claim and its prospects for success.
The same point can be made in respect of a number of textual changes sought by the Secretary about which the Secretary put no submissions, and in some cases led no evidence, but nevertheless pressed. The net result is the need to consider more than 90 separate claims made by the FBEU and about 30 claims by the Secretary.
This aspect of the parties' approach to the arbitration is to be deprecated. It would have been much better if the parties had taken a more forensic and discerning approach to their claims, reducing what needed to be determined. Had that occurred our decision would have been considerably shorter and handed down much earlier.
In order to maintain certainty during the life of the awards and bring about industrial certainty, which was one of the focal considerations of the proceedings in the 2024 State Wage Case,[3] we are not inclined to include clauses in the award that would allow for the identified matters to be the subject of arbitration during the life of this award. Instead, we will proceed to determine them.
While we reject most of the claims that the FBEU sought to be placed in a leave reserved clause, that is not to say that discussions on those matters cannot occur which, if successful, would result in consent variations to the awards during their nominal term. Alternatively, they could be the subject of an application to the Commission during the life of the awards that could be the subject of conciliation. We note for completeness that the Secretary accepted the proposition that he would be open to engage with the FBEU on claims brought during the life of the awards that could be the subject of appropriate and full conciliation prior to the expiry of the awards.

[201]

FRNSW is the NSW Government agency "responsible for the provision of fire, rescue and hazardous material services within NSW".[4]
The functions of the Commissioner derive from the Fire and Rescue NSW Act. The Commissioner has the duty to take all practicable measures to prevent and extinguish fires and protect and save life that is endangered by fire in any fire district or hazmat incidents.[5] The Commissioner is authorised to take measures anywhere in NSW to protect persons from injury or death and property from damage, regardless of whether a fire or hazmat incident is involved, and to carry out, by accredited brigades, rescue operations allocated by the State Rescue Board (SRB).[6] To exercise these functions, the Commissioner may establish permanent and retained fire brigades with the Minister's approval and provide those brigades with suitable premises and equipment.[7]
We suspect most members of the general public would think that firefighters' primary role and predominant work is the fighting of fires, and that the words "and Rescue" in the title of FRNSW is the rescue of people from a fire. In fact the majority of the work of FRNSW firefighters is rescue work not involving a fire, such as rescuing people trapped in motor vehicles, and the proportion of their overall work that is rescue work continues to increase.[8] That is driven by a number of factors, including FRNSW's increasing provision of support to other agencies, such as the NSW Rural Fire Service during bushfires, the NSW State Emergency Service during major storms and floods, and NSW Ambulance for medical assistance calls, and additional rescue responsibility that is given to FRNSW by the SRB.[9]
Notwithstanding that rescue work is not only a core function but now constitutes the most prevalent form of work, that work is currently not recognised in the base rate of pay for a firefighter, but instead as an additional allowance. For reasons that follow we determine that should change, so that the general firefighter rate of pay is increased (and a corresponding allowance removed) to recognise the fact that every firefighter is employed in a service in which rescue work is a core function. Specialist rescue skills, above a base level, ought to continue to be recognised by an allowance relevant to those that have and need to exercise that skill.
FRNSW is staffed by two types of firefighters: permanent firefighters, whose primary employment is for FRNSW, and retained (on call) firefighters. Retained firefighters are employed on a permanent basis, but their work has many of the characteristics of casual employment. Most retained firefighters will have as their primary employment a completely different job. For instance, they might be teachers, bus drivers, labourers or run their own business. Retained firefighters are not rostered to do regular shift work, but instead respond to requests to attend incidents when available. They are required to provide minimum hours of availability each week, during which they must be able to respond to an incident and be at the incident or station within 30 minutes of notification. They are additionally paid for the performance of duties (eg, attending weekend training courses, regular drills etc) and attending incidents. They are engaged in locations where FRNSW has determined there is insufficient work to justify staffing the station with permanent firefighters.
As at 30 June 2024 there were 584 vacancies for retained firefighters, equating to more than 15% of all positions. As a result of the high level of vacancies FRNSW regularly has to locate a permanent firefighter at a retained station to ensure safe minimum staffing levels exist to operate the station's appliances. The permanent firefighters who are so deployed usually do the additional work on top of their usual rostered station duties at overtime rates. This has been the major reason why FRNSW has overspent its overtime budget to a significant degree in recent years. FRNSW's overtime budget for permanent and retained firefighters in 2023-2024 was $54.5 million; actual permanent firefighter overtime in that financial year cost $82.8 million.
As of 30 June 2024, there were 3,548 permanent firefighters and 3,214 retained firefighters. There are 200 retained fire stations, 97 permanent 24-hour fire stations, and 38 mixed fire stations (fire stations which are staffed by a mix of permanent and retained firefighters) across NSW.[10]

[213]

The Secretary relied on the report prepared by Ms Livingstone, which considered the impact of the competing proposed increases in wages on the Government's fiscal position and outlook.
In short, Ms Livingstone's evidence was that the fiscal position and outlook of the NSW Government is challenging, with large budget result deficits and cash deficits contributing to increasing debt, at the same time as interest rates (or the cost of borrowing) has increased. It was her evidence that any pay increase the Commission awarded, including the increases sought by the Secretary, would have a negative effect on the Government's fiscal position and outlook.
Ms Livingstone's report recorded that the NSW general Government sector budget had been in deficit since 2019-20 and that the 2024-25 budget projected a further operating deficit of $3.6 billion, being 3.1% of the General Government revenue.
That projected deficit will add to existing debt levels and increase interest expenses. Ms Livingstone's report identified that the 2024-25 budget projects the general Government cash deficit over the four years to 2027-28 to be $51.5 billion, primarily driven by the State's infrastructure program. The report warned that in order for the government to maintain existing services, absent any substantial revenue uplift, any unbudgeted increase in expenditure including any additional wage-related expenses would require additional borrowing, which would in turn increase gross debt and interest expenses. Interest expenses are fixed costs that the Government must pay to avoid defaulting on its debt. As they increase, less money is available for public services and programs. As a result, the Government must either borrow more money (which in turn increases fiscal pressure) or raise additional revenue through measures like State taxes to maintain these services. Further, any increase in borrowings has credit rating implications for the State, and if the State's credit rating is downgraded this in turn increases the cost of borrowings. This is in circumstances where the two main credit rating agencies, Moody's and S&P Global, have recently made statements identifying the potential for increases in the State's debt burden and failures to ensure appropriate financial management as factors which are placing downward pressure on the State's credit rating.

[220]

(1) Any increase in pay for firefighters will have a negative effect on the fiscal position and outlook of the Government (including the increases proposed by the Secretary).

(2) It does not follow that there should not be pay increases. The NSW Budget assumes that there will be increases, notwithstanding that any increase in pay rates will lead to an increase in overall debt.

(3) Accordingly, our concern is to consider the extent of the impact that any particular increase will have on the fiscal position and outlook of the NSW Government including by comparison to that which was budgeted. In the current context that means having regard to the extent to which a non-budgeted increase would increase overall debt levels and the consequential effect on borrowing costs and the State's credit rating in the context of the overall NSW Budget.

(4) Increasing firefighter pay does not of itself have a significant effect on the overall NSW Government fiscal position and outlook because about 85% of any increase will in due course be funded other than by the NSW Government.

(5) If the FBEU wages claim was granted in full (before considering its superannuation and other entitlement claims) it would lead to something in the order of a $140 million increase in NSW Government debt over 4 years above that which was budgeted. While that is a significant sum, as a percentage of the overall budget that increased cost to the NSW budget is negligible.

(6) While the impact of the particular claim on the NSW Budget is not of itself particularly significant, that is to be balanced by two factors that we also take into account:

(a) any increase will in turn give rise to a likely increase in council rates and insurance premiums that will impact NSW residents, although there is no material before us to know how significant any such impact would be; and

(b) the potential for a decision to flow on to other public sector employees which, if it occurred, would have a much more significant impact. This is something we pay particular regard to, noting that a significant aspect of the claim for increased remuneration rests on past changes in the cost of living which might be said to be applicable to other groups of public sector employees.

[224]

We accept the evidence from Mr Houston that an increase to public sector wages would have a positive stimulative effect on the economy, while dampening the downwards trend in future inflation and therefore increasing the risks associated with the current above-target levels of inflation.
Ms Wilkie gave evidence that public sector wage increases not only directly impacts the NSW economy by way of giving more money to individuals to spend on goods and services but indirectly impacts the economy by putting "pressure" on public sector and private sector wages, which Ms Wilkie defined as "precedent risk". High wages growth in one sector of the economy or jurisdiction may put pressure on other employers to lift their wages to retain workers who would otherwise move to the sector or jurisdiction which has received the pay increase.
To analyse the impact of an increase in wages to NSW public sector workers on the NSW economy, Ms Wilkie used an economic model called the MARTIN model used by the RBA which produces forecasts and conducts counterfactual scenario analysis relating to how a "shock" can impact the economy. The "shock" inputted into the model was the difference between the wage increase sought by the FBEU and the baseline forecast for wages, being the forecast for wages within NSW Treasury's 2024-25 NSW Budget. For example, if it is assumed that all NSW State public sector workers eventually receive the increases in wages and superannuation sought by the FBEU, the model predicted that gross state product and consumer prices would increase by 1.48% and 1.13% respectively, above the baseline forecast.
The FBEU contended that this modelling could not be relied upon. The model's output rests on an assumption that the wages increase would pass through to currently unsettled public sector awards and, to a degree, the private sector. Specifically, it assumed that in the first year after a wage increase, a 1% increase to public sector wages would result in a 0.3% increase in private sector wages. The FBEU submitted that the selection of this figure, which was obtained from an analysis of a line on a chart in an International Monetary Fund paper, could not be reasonably justified and as such had little probative value. To the extent the model projected increases in national inflation, the model had to be manipulated to remove the steps that the RBA might be assumed to take to respond to an increase in inflation. More fundamentally, the FBEU submitted that wage increases ordered by the Commission could not be modelled as "shocks" to the economy, because the increases will be accounted for in the following year's budget.
We accept the force of the FBEU's arguments as to the usefulness of the MARTIN model and the conclusions drawn from it by Ms Wilkie's evidence as to the impact of the wage increase granted in this decision on the economy as a whole. The conclusions depend on high level assumptions which are arguably possible, but insufficiently grounded in fact to allow us to find that they are sufficiently probable to have any utility, beyond perhaps as a demonstration of the broad point (which we accept) that any increase in pay for workers will have an impact (however small) on the economy as a whole. That an increase in pay for just over 3,500 permanent public sector firefighters in NSW would cause an increase in private sector pay levels for all employees in Australia and in turn increase national inflation is, in our view, improbable.
That is not to say that we reject one assumption made by Ms Wilkie in her modelling, namely that to the extent that the Commission agrees with the FBEU's submissions that the Commission should grant a wage increase which repairs real wage diminution, other public sector unions could identify that argument as applying to them, and seek equivalent or similar increases.
The impact of this flow-on effect on the NSW economy and more specifically on the fiscal position and outlook of the NSW Government is a subject we consider further in the next section on changes in the cost of living, along with the evidence which Ms Wilkie and Mr Houston gave on firefighters' real wages since 2008 and 2011.
Finally on this subject, we have also had regard to the evidence of Mr Houston that public sector wage increases can have a positive effect on the economy of NSW. He noted that the primary consequence of an increase in public sector salaries is an increase in consumer expenditure which stimulates additional economic activity in the form of additional output and jobs, to the extent that the additional remuneration after tax is spent rather than saved. If businesses are unable to increase their capacity and hire additional staff to meet the increased demand, heightened consumer expenditure can increase inflationary pressure.

[229]

Ordinarily, the Commission will consider the changing value of money by only having regard to the considerations set out in Re Crown Employees (Administrative and Clerical Officers) (State) Award (No 2). In this case, that would mean that the Commission would only have regard to the changes in the value of money since the last Awards were made in 2023.
The FBEU contends, however, that in this case there is an "extraordinary intervening feature", namely, that recent past increases were based on assumptions about future inflation which, as it transpired, were significantly incorrect, such that the Commission should treat it as a special case. For the reasons following, we accept that contention.
Over time wages ought to grow in real terms, consistent with improvements in productivity.[23] There have been improvements in Australian standards of living since Federation that are explained in part by real growth in wages.[24] As Mr Houston said, growth in wages has a positive effect on the economy of NSW.
While the RBA has a mandate to use monetary policy levers to keep inflation within a range of 2-3%, there will be periods when inflation is below or above that range. Consistent modest wage increases in nominal terms will result in periods where wages grow in real terms and periods where they fall.
Our task is to set fair and reasonable conditions of employment, including fair and reasonable remuneration for the value of work. It is not a precise mathematical process. It involves a multifaceted approach that weighs up various, often competing factors. Adjusting such rates to have regard to changes in the value of money so that they remain fair and reasonable involves setting increases that are broadly capable of absorbing changes in the cost of living over time. That might in some years mean that the rates in real terms fall a little and in other years increase a little. In other words, the exercise is not one of precisely adjusting wages to reflect the extent to which the previous award in fact accurately predicted inflation along with an amount that precisely reflects the predicated rate of inflation for the balance of the term of the award.
That broad approach faces difficulties during periods in which inflation substantially outstrips wage increases, as occurred in respect of this workforce between 2020 and 2024. Professor O'Brien gave evidence which was not contested, that firefighters' real wages reduced by 7.94% between September 2020 to June 2024. After the conclusion of the hearing, the FBEU filed a spreadsheet with calculations as to the real value of firefighters' wages that took into account the interim 3% increase (effective from February 2024), which concluded that, even with that increase, firefighters' wages declined in real terms by 6.94% from 2020 to the end of 2024.
There is a danger however in placing significant weight on a calculation based on a particular snapshot in time. The extent of any gain or loss in real terms will vary significantly, depending on the time period selected. That is reflected in the findings of the economic experts. Professor O'Brien, as noted above, was instructed to analyse firefighter salaries and changes to the cost of living in NSW from 1 July 2020 to September 2024. Mr Houston's report indicated that permanent firefighters have experienced a cumulative increase of 0.5% in their real wages, or 0.03% per year, over the period 1 January 2008 to 26 February 2024. Ms Wilkie's report, which looked at the historical trends in real wages from the September quarter in 2011 to 2023, concluded that the real remuneration (including superannuation) for a permanent qualified firefighter increased by 3.2% over that period, using the NSW HFCE deflator.[25] The FBEU did not challenge this evidence from Mr Houston or Ms Wilkie.
Humans generally weigh losses above gains.[26] There are firefighters who were first employed after 2020 who have seen their wages fall considerably in real terms since they started, putting aside promotions. There are also long-serving firefighters whose remuneration grew in real terms for many years, but who would have adjusted their standard of living accordingly such that they too have been significantly affected by the recent reduction in real terms.
The following table compares firefighters' nominal wages between 2023-2026 if the Commission grants the wage increases proposed by the Secretary, with actual and projected changes in the cost of living. The table uses the actual Sydney CPI percentage change from the corresponding December quarter for past changes and the RBA trimmed mean measure of inflation for future changes.

[234]

The net difference is almost -5.7%. Hence, if we were to use that specific time period, the further increases in 2025 and 2026 would need to be in excess of 6.5% each year (or an additional 3.5% each year above the amount proposed by the Secretary) to maintain the rate in real terms.
The Secretary responded by contending that, were the Commission to go back in time to a datum point before 2023, it should go further back than 2020, and have regard to the period since 2011, when the wages cap was introduced, or indeed back to 2008, when the two awards were last reviewed on work value grounds. That is because there were sustained periods of real wage growth before 2020, which offset the fall in real wages in the period 2021-22.
It is objectively the case that for most of the period of the wages cap (2011-2023) public sector wages increased in real terms, because the standard increase of 2.5% was, in almost every year from 2011 to 2020, greater than the change in CPI. The result is that, as Mr Houston pointed out, even taking into account the significant inflation in 2021-2023, cumulatively the wages cap produced a (slightly) above inflation outcome. While there has been commentary that the wages cap reduced wages, that is true only in the sense that it generally prevented the Commission from awarding an increase greater than 2.5% to recognise matters such as changes in work value and improvements in productivity.
To the extent that there was a significant reduction in the real value of public sector wages in 2021 and 2022, that was not the result of the wages cap. In 2021, the Full Bench of the Commission awarded a 0.3% wage increase,[27] and in 2022 the parties consented to a 2.04% wage increase. The Full Bench's decision in 2021 was based on evidence of forecasts that inflation would remain low and the significant challenges that COVID-19 created for the economy of NSW and the NSW Government's budget. The Commission thus concluded that there ought to be wage restraint to assist the NSW budget.[28] As it turns out, the inflation forecasts were wrong.
The wage restraint allowed the NSW Government to accumulate significant savings that were to be placed into the "Infrastructure and Job Acceleration Fund" to assist the NSW economy as it recovered from the COVID-19 crisis. Those sacrifices from workers appear to have had the intended effect. With the benefit of hindsight however, those wage increases were wholly inadequate to maintain the real value of wages. That is not to say the decisions of the Commission to award those lower increases were wrong. They were mindful of the economic conditions of the time and reflected the evidence of expected inflation that was put before the Commission. The question however arises as to what should be done, if anything, to address the significant fall in real wages that occurred as a result.
As the table above shows, the Government agreed to a 4% increase in 2023, which resulted in a gain in real wages in that year. However, that change was not sufficient to offset the fall in real wages that occurred in 2021 and 2022.
As noted, there is a danger in converting the exercise of increasing rates based on changes in the cost of living into a purely mathematical exercise which must start with a particular rate on a particular date and assumes that that rate was the precisely correct rate as at that date and its real value must be exactly preserved. Quite apart from the distortions that can occur depending on the choice of the reference datum point, it creates the danger of inequities that will arise between different groups of public sector workers, depending on when their award was last made or the date their rates were last the subject of arbitral review.
Going forward, other than where there have been significant unexpected changes in the value of money, we expect that the Commission will consider, in addition to the mandatory considerations, what changes in the value of money have occurred since the last award was made, along with projected changes over the life of the new award, consistent with past authority, applying the broad approach described earlier.
However, given the extraordinary situation caused by the COVID-19 crisis, which led to below-trend increases combined with significantly above-trend inflation that was not anticipated when the Commission last set rates, we consider it appropriate when determining this award to include a one-off reset.
The FBEU seek to have that reset made in the first year of the award (less the 3% interim payment). Given that the reset is addressing past failure to increase rates, there is merit to that position. However, we have to be mindful of the impact that would have on the fiscal position of the Government and its outlook. A substantial change to the rates, particularly if effective from February 2024, is unbudgeted. A change will have less of an impact if it is introduced over time and affects future budget years.
The FBEU rightly point to the fact that, particularly given the way FRNSW is funded, the impact on the NSW Budget of any increase awarded will be negligible. However, we nevertheless are minded to spread the catch-up for two reasons. First, while most of the increase will ultimately be funded by industry and local councils, there will be a delay in that funding being received. Second, we accept that our decision in this respect at least has the capacity of creating a precedent effect, which in turn has the potential to magnify its impact.
Having due regard to the economic evidence, including the above inflation increases during most of the period between 2008 to 2024, we have decided that the one-off reset for these awards should be an additional 2% above the Secretary's position, which can be expected to give rise (as the table below demonstrates) to an increase of 3.2% in real terms between 2024 to 2027, to be spread over the life of the award in addition to the two 0.5% increases in superannuation (4.2% in total). That we are not increasing it by the full 5.7% difference in real terms since 2020 is because of the matters we identified earlier as to economic cycles, along with the mandatory considerations noted earlier, in particular, the impact on the fiscal position of the NSW Government including the potential for a flow on effect.
On current projections that will mean wages will increase in real terms over the life of the award as follows in the table, which excludes superannuation. The 4% annual increase in 2024 includes the 3% already awarded as an interim increase.

[237]

The FBEU seeks, in addition to increases that reflect changes in the cost of living, a 3% wage increase reflecting the work value of RCR work, which it claims has increased in prevalence and complexity.
RCR is defined in the NSW State Rescue Policy (SRP) as "capability required to gain access to and free casualty(ies) from vehicles travelling on the road such as cars, motorcycles, buses, trucks and semi-trailers while minimising the potential for further injury and preserving the integrity of evidence."[29]
The FBEU justified this component of the wage increase primarily on the basis that RCR work has increased in prevalence and complexity since the Awards were last assessed for work value in 2008. Mr Etienne during cross-examination agreed that FRNSW does more RCR work and is "better at it than it was ten years ago". All FRNSW pumper appliances are fitted out to be able to respond to incidents requiring RCR. It was submitted that the difficulty and risk of RCR has increased due to technological changes, including the danger that lithium batteries in cars can explode, which requires firefighters to undertake training for and apply specialised skills and knowledge, as well as to undergo ongoing skills maintenance.
The Secretary opposed this increase, submitting that firefighters have performed RCR prior to 2008 and undertaken training of an equivalent level since 2004. He submitted that changes to RCR work reflect technological and policy-based changes which firefighters would be expected to adapt to over time.
The Full Bench has resolved to grant the claim for a 3% wage increase for RCR work because, as we explain, we find that the work of firefighters is currently significantly undervalued, due to historic or intrinsic factors. The current composite rate of pay for firefighters is not set with regard to the fact that every firefighter needs to have the basic rescue competencies that are associated with RCR work.
The Special Case Principle in the AMPs provides:

[239]

The Principle permits the Commission to create or vary awards arising from an extraordinary case that otherwise falls outside the AMPs, to ensure that conditions of employment are fair and reasonable.[30] An applicant who seeks to make out a special case must therefore prove that the variation is necessary to establish fair and reasonable conditions of employment and that the matter has special attributes.[31] The latter element requires the applicant to establish an adequate evidentiary foundation for the factors which they rely upon as being the special attributes of the case.[32]
One way that an applicant may be able to make out a special case is to establish that the work under consideration has been significantly undervalued, due to historic or intrinsic factors, such that the current award does not set fair and reasonable conditions of employment.[33] This approach differs from that taken by parties relying upon the Work Value Principle, which requires an applicant to prove a change in work value since an identifiable datum point.[34]
For example, in Re Crown Employees (Police Officers - 2009) Award the Full Bench of the Commission was satisfied that the Police Association had made out that the work of police prosecutors and Forensic Services Group (FSG) experts, who were paid a "Special Duties Allowance" (SDA) under the Crown Employees (Police Officers - 2009) Award, was undervalued.[35] The Full Bench determined that, because the SDA regime did not adequately compensate these employees for their specialised knowledge and higher work value compared to other employees under the SDA regime, a new award should be made which fixed a new classification structure for police prosecutors and created a new higher allowance for FSG experts.[36]
New South Wales has a two-tiered system of land rescue capability, (excluding Vertical Rescue Units): General Land Rescue (GLR) Units, which are units which meet SRB accreditation standards for RCR, Industrial/Domestic Rescue, and Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) Category 1; and RCR Units, which meet SRB accreditation standards for RCR in rural, regional and remote areas of NSW. Only accredited GLR units can perform GLR. There are about 79 SRB accredited GLR units and 115 accredited RCR Units.
A firefighter can become a RCR operator if they are an operational member of an emergency services agency, hold a nationally recognised senior first aid certificate, and meet the requirements of the following five training packages as set out at Attachment I of the NSW SRP:

[241]

FRNSW maintains a register of personnel who comprise each accredited rescue unit, including each RCR unit.[37]
All permanent firefighters are trained in RCR as part of the recruit program, which the Full Bench understands requires them to complete the five competencies in the SRP, as listed above. After they have finished the recruit program, they hold the Unit of Competency (UoC) in RCR but are not accredited as a registered RCR operator. Retained firefighters are trained in RCR prior to commencing work, but do not obtain the UoC in RCR during their initial training. Firefighters are required to undertake ongoing skills maintenance related to RCR via the Station Training Program.
Recruit firefighters can be called on to do RCR from the time they start work at an accredited GLR or RCR accredited station. Further, while they will receive further training when they are stationed at an accredited GLR or RCR unit, they, like all firefighters, can be expected to do rescue work, including RCR work, even if they are stationed at a non-accredited rescue unit. FRNSW is required to respond to every motor accident to provide fire protection. If an unaccredited station is the first emergency service to arrive and rescue is required, they will perform it. In 2024, FRNSW attended 1,480 RCR incidents, of which 879 (59.1%) were first attended by a GLR unit, 204 were first attended by a RCR unit (13.8%), and 397 (26.8%) were first attended by an unaccredited unit.
That all firefighters are trained in doing rescue work and can perform RCR work from the time they start work as recruits is consistent with the nature of FRNSW, as discussed earlier, as primarily a rescue service.
Currently only firefighters who are designated to be RCR operators and are stationed at an accredited rescue station receive recognition for these skills, in the form of a Rescue Allowance paid weekly. Other firefighters not attached to an accredited rescue station receive no recognition in pay for their RCR skills, despite being trained to do the work, and from time to time being required to do RCR work.
The Secretary submitted that non-station based roles which do not involve rescue work do not need the skill, and that the rescue allowance should not be absorbed into the base rate of pay unless the skill is one that every firefighter uses. As to that, there was evidence that non-station based firefighters are at times called upon to respond to incidents. It is the case that firefighters will rotate into and out of non-station based roles. All firefighters, whether in station based roles or otherwise, can be called on in an emergency, during which they will utilise some of the competencies at Attachment I of the SRP, such as driving vehicles under operational conditions, protecting and preserving an incident scene, or maintaining safety at an incident scene. They may also be deployed as part of a strike team. We also accept the submissions of the FBEU that more senior officers similarly utilise their knowledge and skill in RCR in supervising, managing and directing firefighters who perform that work.
There are other rescue competencies that we discuss below, each of which require as their base training the skills that are taught to conduct RCR work. In that sense the RCR competencies can properly be seen to be the 'base' competencies for rescue work.
While RCR work has evolved and requires new skills to deal with such risks as lithium batteries, we agree with the Secretary that that type of work has not changed sufficiently to meet the strict requirements of the Work Value Principle. Rather, we grant the increase because we find that a special case has been made out.
The special attributes made out by the FBEU in this case are:

[243]

The current composite rate of pay for the base grade of firefighter does not reflect the fact that every firefighter needs to have the basic rescue competencies that are associated with RCR work. We consider it is no longer appropriate that such skills be recognised only by an allowance paid to those attached to particular stations. It means the base firefighter classification is undervalued. These are special circumstances that take the case out of the ordinary, and so in our view constitute a special case. We find that it is fair and reasonable that the basic rescue competencies that are associated with RCR are ones that constitute knowledge and skill that every firefighter has, such that it should be reflected in the composite rate.
The Rescue Operator Allowance was first introduced in cl 6.6.20 of the Crown Employees (NSW Fire Brigades Firefighting Staff) Award 2000 and was payable per rostered shift for firefighters who were recognised as a rescue operator by the SRB. The Rescue Allowance in its current form was inserted into Crown Employees (NSW Fire Brigades Permanent Firefighting Staff) Award 2008, and was varied to be payable weekly to firefighters and officers who are recognised as qualified rescue operators by the SRB and who are attached to a RCR or GLR station.
The current Rescue Allowance constitutes approximately 3.32% of the weekly composite rate of pay for a qualified firefighter attached to a RCR or GLR station. It is not included in the firefighter's ordinary rate of pay for the purposes of superannuation, leave, or overtime.
By increasing the base rate to recognise RCR competencies, we need to remove the allowance that is payable to RCR operators to avoid double counting.
As such, RCR operators stationed at accredited rescue units who currently receive the allowance will lose the allowance, but instead have an increase in pay. Depending on their level of pay, they will not receive an overall increase in base remuneration, but will receive higher take home pay to the extent that the increased composite rate is used to calculate superannuation, leave, and/or overtime.
Mindful of the fact that the pay increase will affect the composite rate of pay for the purposes of superannuation, leave and overtime, we consider it appropriate to increase pay by 3%, as sought by the FBEU, which is less than the 3.32% that equates to the current allowance.
To avoid any double counting, the current rescue allowance will be limited to those who are qualified GLR operators, or qualified in other types of rescue work, and who are attached to a rescue accredited station. Later in this decision we deal with this in more detail.
We have decided to make the 3% increase for RCR work effective on and from 26 February 2026. In determining when the RCR increase should take effect, we have had regard to the fact that this increase is not currently budgeted for by the NSW Government. By not backdating the increase we also avoid the double counting of the RCR work that would otherwise occur in respect of RCR operators who have received the Rescue Allowance. The delay will also give the parties time to have discussions and finalise the text for the allowances before the changes are to take effect.

[257]

The Secretary strongly opposed clause 17, which he perceived as an attempt to create a shadow arbitral process (a submission that was inadvertently given weight by the FBEU counsel referring to the proposed taskforce more than once as the "remuneration tribunal"). The Secretary submitted that it called for the creation of an administrative body with powers to circumvent the Commission, which was not a condition of employment.
The Secretary contended that how the taskforce would undertake its role was unclear and likely to be productive of disputation, querying whether "agreement" from taskforce members required the consensus of all participants.
The Secretary submitted that clause 17 is contrary to notions of industrial certainty and harmony, in that the clause, when read with the no extra claims clause, is intended to permit an increase in remuneration during the life of the current award. We agree that it is not appropriate to include any provisions that could give rise to a right to seek to arbitrate further wage claims during the life of this award. The FBEU elected not to pursue more significant work value-based remuneration claims in this case. Consistent with the remarks of the Full Bench in State Wage Case 2024 (No 3)[39] the outcome of this case ought to provide industrial certainty during the life of the new award.
There is real force in the Secretary's submission that it is in the interests of both parties to achieve industrial certainty and harmony for the remaining two-year period of the award, considering the significant period of negotiations and disputation on the FBEU's current claim to date.
The clause requires the parties to consult as to how remuneration for firefighters ought to be adjusted. However, as drafted, it does more than that. It provides that if agreement is reached by the taskforce, made up of equal numbers of union and FRNSW representatives, then that agreement "will be implemented by FRNSW".
That cannot be accepted for two reasons. First, while the Commissioner has employer responsibilities, it is the Secretary who is the employer for the purpose of award setting, and this proposal would purport to avoid the legislated role of the Secretary in respect of changes to the award.[40] Second, and more fundamentally, the Industrial Relations Act provides that it is the role of the Commission to make awards setting rates of pay. In doing so we are required to have regard to various mandatory considerations in the public interest, including the impact any award would have on the fiscal position and outlook of the NSW government. Whether or not a taskforce agrees to a change would be highly relevant but cannot be determinative of the setting of remuneration. It is arguably beyond our power to delegate the task of setting remuneration in an award of this Commission to a taskforce. Even if we had the power, as a matter of discretion we would not do so.
We accept in principle the need for the parties to review firefighters' classifications and remuneration. While the Commission cannot know precisely what the parties have considered when reaching consent positions as to past pay rises, there does not appear to have been an examination of work value of firefighters since 2013.[41] The current remuneration recognises non-station based roles by way of an additional loading, but as explained later in this decision, the rationale for that loading is not clear. That it is a flat loading regardless of the quite varied nature of the different station based roles suggests that it was not devised with a clear eye to recognising the work value of the different roles and whether, and if so how, that differs from the work value of the station based firefighter roles. Addressing such work value by the imposition of a series of standard additional flat allowances, as the FBEU has sought in this case, is unlikely to properly reflect the work value. Further there may be a proper basis to consider whether the relativities between station officers and more senior officers have been set properly.
The position of the FBEU is that the existing consultation mechanism has been working well. Indeed, in support of this provision the FBEU contended that the Secretary's position on the claim "is detached from the reality of the current relationship between the actual agency and the union and the current effectiveness of their bespoke consultation arrangements". We accept on the evidence that the current relationship is working well. It does not follow therefore that there needs to be a new consultation process established. Indeed, the existence of an existing successful mechanism would if anything suggest that we ought not alter that status quo by creating a different mechanism.
For those reasons we reject the claimed clause 17. We also reject the associated proposed amendments to clause 18 No Extra Claims.
We nevertheless make the following recommendation in light of our preliminary view that the existing relativities between station officers and non-station based officers, between different non-station based officer positions themselves, and between senior officers and firefighters appear to be no longer fit for purpose:

[260]

As noted, firefighters are trained and equipped to undertake a series of different types of rescue work requiring them to exercise skill over and above the RCR and GLR skills recognised by the current Rescue Allowance. These additional skills are not currently recognised by way of additional remuneration. While the particular types of rescue work that are now being conducted do not constitute such a significant net addition to work requirements as to warrant the creation of a new classification or upgrading to a higher classification,[42] they are in our view new or changed work that is done from time to time by some firefighters that ought to be to be compensated by way of an allowance.[43]
The Commission is mindful not to award a skill-based allowance to a firefighter who has obtained a skill, but is neither in a position to utilise it, nor is required by the Commissioner to maintain that skill. Unlike general rescue work including RCR work, which can and is expected to be done by any firefighter, these rescue skills are only expected to be utilised by firefighters who are attached to a station that has the necessary equipment to do such rescues and is accredited to perform such rescues. As a result, the new rescue allowances that we award will be limited to those firefighters who are attached to stations that are accredited to do that type of rescue work, which have the requisite appliances, and require staff who are trained in using that equipment.
As a consequence of the general recognition of RCR work in the base rate of pay, the existing Rescue Allowance at cl 15.2.8 which currently recognises RCR and GLR work will be limited to recognition of GLR work and be renamed the General Land Rescue Allowance from 26 February 2026.
The existing allowance is paid to those who are at registered stations as an RCR operator. To become a GLR operator, a firefighter must attain two competencies in 'Undertake Industrial and Domestic Rescue' and 'Urban Search and Participate in a Rescue Category 1', which are additional to the five competencies required to become a RCR operator.[44] In addition, FRNSW requires firefighters to complete internal modules, including modules in heavy vehicle, trains, lifts and escalators and confined spaces, as part of their GLR training. Upon transfer from either the Emergency Services Academy, an unaccredited station, or an RCR station to a GLR station, firefighters receive GLR training such that they can be registered as a GLR operator by the SRB.
GLR operators have a higher level of skills and knowledge than RCR operators, but there are many skills which are common to both types of rescue. Therefore, an inclusion of the current Rescue Allowance in the overall rate of pay without a reduction in the current quantum of the Rescue Allowance for those who are trained in GLR work would result in some level of double counting.
We take the view, mindful of the fact that the existing Rescue Allowance is in fact 3.32% whereas the RCR component of the wage increase is 3%, and that GLR requires a higher level of skill and knowledge than RCR, that the allowance should be maintained at half the current rate from 26 February 2026.
There are other rescue qualifications that require firefighters to have undertaken further training on top of being part of a GLR accredited rescue unit or receiving GLR training. They are:

[261]

(1) Land Based Flood Rescue. Eighty-four GLR stations received Land Based Water Rescue training following the 2022 NSW Flood Inquiry. Land Based Flood Rescue training involves a 2-hour training course in Flood Rescue Awareness Packaging and an additional training day covering three further competencies.

(2) In Water Flood Rescue. Firefighters need to be part of a GLR accredited rescue unit and be based at a water-based rescue station to undertake this training. To become an In Water Flood Rescue operator, a firefighter has to complete the training for Land Based Flood Rescue, a further 3-day in-water course, and meet annual proficiency swim requirements.

(3) Vertical Rescue. Firefighters need to be a GLR operator to receive accreditation in vertical rescue. Firefighters need to complete an additional competency in undertaking vertical rescue, a 6-day vertical rescue course, a 5-day vortex course, and a 2-day recertification course which occurs every 3 years.

(4) Urban Search and Rescue (USAR). FRNSW's USAR unit can be deployed domestically or internationally to respond to structural collapse incidents. Approximately 200 FRNSW employees can be deployed as part of FRNSW's USAR team. Before firefighters can be involved with USAR, they need to be a GLR operator or a Hazmat Technician and apply to attain a higher USAR qualification, USAR Category II. To obtain a qualification in USAR Category II, firefighters need to undertake a 4-week training program which ends in a major exercise testing agility, abseiling, meeting dexterity attributes and working in confined spaces, as well as ongoing skills maintenance.

(5) Trench Rescue. Firefighters need to be a part of a GLR accredited rescue unit and be based at a vertical rescue station to undertake this training. They have to complete a 6-day course which covers the skills and knowledge required to undertake trench rescues on their own or as part of a multi-disciplinary team.

(6) Partial Structural Collapse. This competency is additional to GLR and can be completed as standalone training or to obtain a Trench Rescue qualification. To be qualified in partial structural collapse, firefighters must complete a 4-day course.

(7) Large Animal Rescue. Large Animal Rescue is performed by stations that have a trench rescue vehicle that can accommodate the animal rescue equipment and training. To obtain a Large Animal Rescue qualification, a firefighter needs to complete a 2-day intensive program focussing on large animal rescue techniques. As the name implies, this is not the rescue of small animals, such as kittens, which is of course part and parcel of the everyday work of a firefighter.

[262]

It is appropriate that firefighters who hold additional qualifications that require significant additional training and maintain them, receive a higher rescue allowance, provided they are attached to a station that does that work. However, we do not propose that there be a series of allowances, given the overlapping nature of the competencies and the likelihood that there would be some double counting that would arise if firefighters were entitled to multiple allowances.
Instead, we propose that the base allowance for GLR could be increased to a higher rate for those who have an additional qualification in one or more of In Water Flood Rescue, Vertical Rescue, USAR, Trench Rescue, Partial Structural Collapse and Large Animal Rescue. Firefighters should be paid an additional 25% for a single additional qualification or an additional 50% if they hold two or more qualifications. A qualification in Vertical Rescue or USAR alone should attract an additional 50%, given the level of training required to obtain those qualifications. To be clear, the maximum quantum payable in respect of allowances for rescue qualifications would be 150% of the GLR allowance, payable to those trained in Vertical Rescue and/or USAR, and otherwise GLR operators who are qualified in two or more rescue qualifications. These changes depend on the GLR allowance, which will take effect from 26 February 2026, and so will take effect from 26 February 2026. This provides some time for the text of the clauses to be determined.
We have decided to not include an additional allowance for land-based flood rescue. While that rescue work is critically important, the evidence did not satisfy us that the additional training (taking just over one day in total) and skill justified a higher allowance.
We leave to the parties the task of drafting appropriate descriptors for these allowances but note that the allowance ought to be payable only to those who the Commissioner has determined should obtain and maintain the competencies and skills in the relevant type of rescue work, and only while they maintain those competencies while attached to stations that have the equipment to undertake the rescue work in question and are accredited to undertake the work. In that regard we note that the evidence as to what stations can conduct what type of rescues was not complete.
If the parties cannot reach agreement on the text of such clauses, the Commission will seek to conciliate the difference. Failing consent the Full Bench will determine the final text after the parties have provided their competing views.

[263]

Various claims were made by the FBEU for new allowances that would recognise the particular skills associated with certain non-station based roles. These are roles which are currently remunerated on the basis that they be paid the same as all other firefighters, plus a 15-20% loading. The claims would in effect be an increase in pay for all purposes for those holding one of a number of particular roles, in circumstances where those roles already attract higher remuneration than station based roles.
The 15-20% loading was introduced in 2022 by consent. The parties put conflicting submissions as to the purpose of the loading. We place no weight on the evidence put forward by the FBEU as to Mr Drury's recollection as to what he believed to be the subjective intentions of the parties arising from the negotiations. We readily infer that the agreement was reached to attract and retain firefighters in non-station based roles in circumstances where, absent such an allowance, they may prefer to stay in station based roles with their access to overtime pay. We have no confidence that the allowance was set in a manner that paid regard to the relative work value of those in non-station based roles, noting it is a flat percentage regardless of the nature of the role.
If the Commission were to consider the relative work value of classifications in the Awards, it might be that some of the non-station based roles in respect of which an allowance was sought ought to be remunerated at a different level than other non-station based roles, and perhaps at a different level to a qualified firefighter, because their work value is in fact different. The FBEU did not make that submission in these proceedings.
In the absence of such a case and in the absence of evidence to justify differential pay levels for different types of non-station based roles the FBEU has not made out a case that there has been relevant change since 2008 to justify that the work of the non-station based staff in question is in fact of a higher work value than that of qualified firefighters, so justifying higher pay in the form of a further allowance over and above the 15-20% loading that was recently introduced by consent.
On that basis we reject the claims for the:

[267]

The Hazmat, Major Aerial and Minor Aerial allowances in the current Permanent Award are only payable for firefighters who have the relevant qualification and are attached to a station with the relevant equipment. That is, the allowances recognise higher skills of firefighters who might ordinarily be expected to use those skills.
The FBEU seeks to remove the requirement that a firefighter must be attached to a station with the relevant equipment to obtain the allowances. This would convert the allowances into skill allowances which would be paid regardless of whether a firefighter might ordinarily be expected to utilise the skill.
The FBEU puts forward three reasons for this change: first, that firefighters who currently receive the allowance are disincentivised to move away from their station, which concentrates skills and qualifications in particular FRNSW stations; second, that there are additional overtime costs resulting from the limited number of firefighters who can cover shortages; and third, that the current clause does not appropriately remunerate firefighters who have taken the time to obtain the qualification and maintain their skills.
The Secretary in response submits that it is neither fair nor reasonable to pay an allowance to firefighters for duties they cannot perform because they are not attached to a station equipped to undertake those duties. In closing submissions, the Secretary contended that a firefighter who does not work at a designated Hazmat station or a station with access to a major or minor aerial appliance would not need to maintain Hazmat or aerial appliance training or be likely to have to perform that work.
In our view the allowance ought to be paid to firefighters who have the skill and are employed in positions where it is expected that they will from time to time be required to utilise that skill. A firefighter who has training sufficient to operate major aerial appliances (ie, appliances with ladders that can extend to high heights) who has moved into a position at a station which does not have such an appliance does not have an industrial basis to claim an allowance for that skill. The position is no different for those who have moved into non-station based roles.
There is nevertheless an issue of industrial fairness that arises if a firefighter, with a particular skill that would attract the allowance if they were attached to a relevant station, is asked to fill a short-term vacancy at that station and to use that skill, but does not receive the allowance. An issue of industrial fairness also arises if a firefighter is asked to attain an additional skill to provide FRNSW with a greater range of potential available resources even though they are not attached to a relevant station.
That can be addressed by way of two additional payments: a one-off payment if a firefighter who is not attached to a relevant station is requested by FRNSW to obtain that skill and does so, and an allowance payment equal to one fifth of the weekly allowance on each day they are deployed to use a relevant skill. The parties are to have discussions as to how that can be addressed by appropriate remuneration. Absent agreement, this issue will be the subject of conciliation by Commissioner McDonald.

[269]

The FBEU seeks an allowance payable to all permanent and retained employees qualified to operate a Compressed Air Foam System (CAFS) Pumper.
A CAFS pumper is an appliance with a standard water pumping system as well as an entry point where compressed air can be added to a foam solution to generate foam. Firefighters need to complete a five-hour training program which involves both theory and practical components to be eligible to operate a CAFS pumper. To be eligible to complete this training, firefighters need to be attached to a station with a CAFS appliance and obtain approval from the Duty or Zone Commander to undertake the training.
The FBEU submitted that the CAFS appliance is a highly sophisticated piece of equipment which requires skill, knowledge and experience to operate. As firefighters who hold this qualification provide significant value to FRNSW, FBEU submit that it is fair and reasonable to pay an allowance to those firefighters.
The Secretary rejects the claim and submits that the use of CAFS marks a natural evolution of firefighting technology and techniques, and that it is in some ways easier to use than the manual system which was previously used, as it is automated.
While the Secretary contended that it was unclear which AMP the claim is based upon, it seems clear that the FBEU contends that those firefighters who are trained and qualified to operate a CAFS Pumper are able to do work that ought to be recognised as having a higher work value.
While the use of CAFS Pumpers is clearly a technological improvement, the evidence before us does not allow us to be satisfied that those who are qualified to do the work are working at a higher level. Certainly, there is an argument that could be made, based on the training required. However, the evidence before us is insufficient to allow us to determine to what extent the new method merely replaces previous methods that also required training, such that there has not been a significant change in work value. Further, we are not satisfied that this change of itself would in any event be a change of sufficient significance to justify an increase in pay, consistent with the Work Value Principle.
For those reasons we have determined to reject this claim, but do so without prejudice to the FBEU's capacity to rely on this qualification in any future proceedings as part of a case that seeks to identify that there have been various changes that justify an increase on work value grounds.

[270]

The FBEU is seeking a weekly allowance for permanent and retained firefighters who are qualified to operate a Remote Piloted Allowance System (RPAS).
RPAS are uncrewed aircraft or drones that are remotely piloted by an operator on the ground. There are five non-station based firefighters who are employed as full-time pilots, who receive the 15-20% allowance for being in a non-station based role. The remaining firefighters qualified in RPAS are called upon to perform this duty only as required. To become qualified as a pilot who can operate a RPAS, firefighters must undertake a seven-day training course about the safe operation of an aircraft, further training to obtain an Aviation Radio Operator Certificate, and additional internal training consisting of an eight-hour day of training in flight management systems and platforms and a night flying session. Pilots are required to complete an annual proficiency assessment and fly at least every 90 days to maintain their certification currency.
The FBEU contends that all firefighters who are qualified to operate RPAS (which includes the five full-time pilots and the remaining station based firefighters) should receive an allowance for holding this skill.
We are concerned that there are firefighters at stations who are qualified to operate RPAS, undertake skill maintenance, and do that work from time to time because they work at stations where drones need to be operated, but who do not get any recognition of those skills because they are not one of the five full-time pilots. We consider that this should be addressed in a similar way to the payment of the Hazmat, Major Aerial and Minor Aerial allowances, that is, there should be a one-off payment if a firefighter who is not to be a full-time pilot is requested by FRNSW to obtain the qualifications to operate RPAS, and a daily allowance on each day they are deployed to operate RPAS. The parties are to have discussions as to how that can be addressed by appropriate remuneration. Absent agreement, this issue will be the subject of conciliation by Commissioner McDonald.

[271]

The FBEU seeks a disturbance allowance payable per shift to an employee who is directed to work from either a temporary work location or whose current work location is subject to any redevelopment, refurbishment or renovation, for all the time that they are working from their temporary work location, or their current work location is being redeveloped, refurbished or renovated. They also seek a travel allowance payable to employees directed to work from a temporary location, to be calculated using the kilometre allowance for all kilometres between the previous permanent work location and the temporary work location.
Prior to closing submissions, the FBEU amended its case to seek that this claim be placed in a leave reserved clause.
In support of this claim the FBEU led evidence as to a single dispute over the relocation of firefighters from Busby fire station, which was resolved by this Commission in 2023.[45] The existence of that dispute does not provide a proper basis to create a substantial new entitlement for both a disturbance allowance (for the disability associated with the relocation) and a travel allowance (presumably to address the expenses involved).
From time to time a fire station will be relocated. In such circumstances it is not immediately apparent why there will invariably be disability and expenses that arise. The relocation might be close to the first station. It might be a move of some distance, but one that makes it more, rather than less convenient, for certain firefighters. Alternatively, it may indeed cause some level of disability and/or inconvenience, which alone may not necessarily be sufficient to justify additional payment.
The existing Standing Orders currently provide a Station Redevelopment Allowance to on duty permanent firefighters whose work location is undergoing redevelopment, in circumstances where that redevelopment results in a noticeable reduction in amenities. The payment of this allowance is authorised by the Commissioner, Director Greater Metropolitan or the Director Regional Operations. The Standing Orders thus already include a mechanism to provide compensation on a flexible basis to recognise actual disability.
Absent evidence that the existing system evinces an unfairness, we see no basis to introduce a new obligation. Further, any such obligation would need to be one, like the Standing Orders, that would not apply inflexibly to any relocation.
Consistent with the approach set out above, we reject the proposition that this claim ought to be placed into a leave reserved clause.
We reject the claim.

[272]

Clause 66 in the current Permanent Award provides that the Department will provide all employees appointed to an Instructor and/or Training Staff role, with the opportunity to obtain the Certificate IV in Training and Assessment, or equivalent qualification.
The FBEU seeks two changes: first, that instructors and training staff who hold the qualification before taking that role can have the costs of that previous training reimbursed, and second, that instructors and training staff who hold the qualification be entitled to an allowance of $17 per week.
The FBEU relies on the fact that only firefighters with this qualification can lead and deliver National Units of Competency without supervision and sign off firefighters as having met National Units of Competency. It otherwise supports the allowance on two bases. First, instructors have a higher skill level as they undertake skills maintenance and are required to be up to date with emerging technologies and industry standards to use in training sessions. Second, the allowance would support the attraction and retention of employees to the roles of instructor and/or trainer.
We reject the first change on the basis that FRNSW should not be required to reimburse employees who have chosen to undertake a Certificate IV before their appointment to an Instructor and/or Training Staff role.
As to the second claim, we agree with the Secretary that the evidentiary case presented is not sufficient to establish that the mere holding of the qualification is of itself a proper indicator that the work being done is of a higher work value.
During cross-examination, Mr Gianluca Bertoldi, Inspector at FRNSW, gave evidence to the effect that training is ordinarily conducted by more than one trainer at a time, some of whom may not hold the Certificate IV qualification. However the trainer who leads the training is required to have the qualification. While there may be a proper basis for a work value claim that recognises higher level work associated with leading training, the evidence did not provide a sufficient basis for evaluating that claim. In particular, the evidence did not go so far as to demonstrate that those who hold the qualification are only or invariably the lead trainer.
As we have identified earlier, in respect of all non-station based roles which attract an additional allowance, there is a question as to the extent to which that allowance can be said to properly recognise the specialised nature of a particular role and (if established) any higher work value over and above that of a firefighter. As we have said, this is a matter that we recommend the parties consider as part of a holistic exercise examining the proper rates of pay for firefighters, including non-station based staff. It would be to get ahead of such an analysis to award allowances of this type, particularly given the quality of the evidence.
For these reasons we reject the claim.

[273]

Permanent firefighters can be rostered to be on call, that is, to be available to be recalled to work outside of their ordinary hours, from time to time as requested by the Commissioner. Employees can receive overtime payments for attending a call, but they are not paid for holding themselves in readiness to attend.
We accept the FBEU's submission that it is appropriate to pay an allowance to employees who are rostered to be on call on the basis that they will have to return to work if they are called. Those who are so rostered are required to structure their private affairs in a manner that allows them to return to work at short notice. They must have their phones on them at all times and remain in an area with mobile coverage that is located close enough to work to return in a reasonable time. They cannot drink alcohol or take on sole caring responsibilities. Mr Bertoldi gave evidence in his statement that Appliance Training Unit inspectors who attend events with their family after work hours often drive in a separate vehicle so that they can drive directly to an incident if they receive a call.
FRNSW requires employees to work different cycles of on call rosters. In their statements, Matt Franklin gave evidence that as a Fleet Operations Officer he is on call about 48 hours out of every 8 days, during which he is expected to receive and respond to calls about motor vehicle accidents and repairs and major incidents. Craig Gordon in his role as a Canine Handler is required to be on call after hours during the week that he is rostered onto every fortnight cycle. Mr Bertoldi gave evidence that ATU instructors are required to always have their phones on them outside working hours.
The FBEU rely on the Special Case Principle. We are satisfied that there is a disability associated with being rostered on call that is not being remunerated, which provides a proper basis to find, as a special case, that the work when so rostered is currently significantly undervalued. As such the current award does not set fair and reasonable conditions of employment.
The following awards provide examples of on call allowances with the following rates:

[296]

The FBEU also seeks an After Hours Disturbance Allowance. The proposed disturbance allowance clause states that employees will generally not be contacted by their employer whilst on annual, long service, personal or consolidated leave or any other time the employee is not being paid to work or be on call. The proposed disturbance allowance is payable to an employee for every day or shift for which they agree to make themselves available for out of hours contact, where they have been requested to do so by FRNSW.
Whereas the on call allowance sought by the FBEU is payable to an employee who is expected to respond by attending a station or workplace if they are called out of hours, the disturbance allowance is payable to an employee who agrees to be contactable for all work-related matters out of hours, but is not expected to be recalled to a work location. The disturbance allowance is not intended to be payable in addition to the on call allowance, nor to all firefighters who can be recalled to duty in an emergency while they are off duty, pursuant to clause 27 of the Fire and Rescue NSW Regulation 2023.
We agree with the FBEU that there ought to be a disturbance allowance payable to those required to be available to respond to work-related queries when not at work. It should be clear, however, that it is only payable to those who are rostered to be available to be disturbed and is not payable to those who are rostered to be on call.
That will require the parties to give some greater thought than the FBEU has given to date as to how to define the disturbance allowance. In that regard we note that the FBEU's submissions say: "It is more likely to be practically relevant to senior Award-level staff, for example Regional Duty Commanders." That was consistent with the evidence of Mr Matt Franklin, to the effect that Regional Duty Commanders are non-station based positions which involve duties which require employees to respond to work communications from time to time when not at work but which do not require them to return to work. However the FBEU also led evidence that Regional Duty Commanders are required to "respond at a moment's notice which requires them to do things such as taking two cars to family events or children's sporting activities, missing family events due to their locality and the requirement that they must be in a reasonable response time within their zone and remain at a zero alcohol level". That is, they are required to be on call. As noted, the new entitlement should make clear that those rostered to respond to work communications without returning to work will receive the disturbance allowance and not in addition the new on call allowance, even if they are also expected to return to work from time to time.
The FBEU proposes that a disturbance allowance of $35 per day or shift for the period that the firefighter agrees to make themselves available for out of hours contact. That figure was taken from the Crown Employees (NSW Department of Communities and Justice - Community Services Division) After Hours Service Award, which we accept as a reasonable comparator award and we accordingly determine that the allowance should be $35 per day or shift.

[299]

The FBEU justify the extension of the accommodation allowance to employees sent on intrastate and international deployments on the basis that there is no difference between the accommodation conditions firefighters are likely to experience in interstate deployments compared to intrastate and international deployments. In his written statement, David Lewis, Assistant Commissioner of Operational Capability at FRNSW, gave evidence that FRNSW may, at its own discretion, pay firefighters an allowance if they are required to sleep in a tent or accommodation that is less than 3 stars, regardless of where they are deployed.
In circumstances where the accommodation is not only of a standard that is lower than that required in NSW, but is also not indoors and has no private sleeping and bathroom facilities, the FBEU seek that an additional amount be payable to a firefighter, on top of the accommodation allowance already paid. The claim would effectively entitle an employee, in such circumstances, to double the accommodation allowance.
There was evidence that on intrastate, interstate and international deployments, firefighters have to, from time to time, camp or sleep in makeshift accommodation, such as halls or stadiums. Michael Nairn, Retained Firefighter, gave evidence in his written statement that during his deployment to Proserpine, Queensland in 2017, he was paid an accommodation allowance for the first three nights when he slept in a basketball stadium. He was not paid the accommodation allowance for his deployment in Port Macquarie, NSW in 2021, where he also slept in a basketball stadium. Were the FBEU's claim to be granted, Mr Nairn would have been paid twice the accommodation allowance for each night he slept in the stadiums in both Proserpine and Port Macquarie. During cross-examination, Mr Lewis accepted that, as a matter of principle, there was no distinction as to why a firefighter would receive an accommodation allowance in respect of one type of deployment, as opposed to another.
An accommodation allowance, so called, is paid to an employee to reimburse them for the cost of accommodation where their employer has not provided them with accommodation. It appears that the interstate accommodation allowance in clause 26.6.1 is being wrongly treated as a disability allowance that is paid to firefighters as compensation for the inconvenience and hardship of living in uncomfortable accommodation with no private sleeping or bathroom facilities, such as in Mr Nairn's case.
The award currently contains a daily "deployment allowance" of $208.19 for international deployments. This allowance might properly be seen as an allowance which compensates firefighters for a disability, rather than an allowance which reimburses expenses, as firefighters when deployed overseas will ordinarily be sleeping in tents or substandard accommodation. This allowance recognises that the work done by firefighters on international deployments is important work performed in difficult conditions.
In our view, the current accommodation allowance should be redrafted to only be payable to an employee to reimburse them for the cost of accommodation where FRNSW has not provided them with accommodation, and to be payable to employees sent on intrastate, interstate, and international deployments. To be clear, a firefighter on deployment will not be paid the accommodation allowance if they are in fact provided with suitable accommodation, regardless of the quality of that accommodation.
The current deployment allowance, which is a disability allowance, should be redrafted so that, in addition to being payable to firefighters on international deployments, it is also paid to firefighters on intrastate and interstate deployments who have to stay in accommodation that is either not indoors or has no private sleeping and bathroom facilities, such as a tent or stadium.
This means that firefighters on intrastate or interstate deployment who are not provided with appropriate hotel or motel accommodation will receive either the accommodation allowance (to cover the cost of finding their own accommodation) or deployment allowance (where they are sleeping in accommodation that is either not indoors or has no private sleeping and bathroom facilities), but not at the same time. Firefighters on international deployment will be paid the deployment allowance daily, and the accommodation allowance on top of that if they are expected to stay in a hotel not already paid for by FRNSW.
The parties are to discuss and settle upon the text and the quanta of each allowance. Absent agreement, this issue will be the subject of conciliation by Commissioner McDonald.

[302]

Retained firefighters are paid a retainer in recognition of and compensation for periods of availability declared by those firefighters. The base retainer is for 24 hours of availability per week, which currently is $78.28 per fortnight for retained firefighters except for Deputy Captains and Captains. Progression to a higher retainer, requiring more hours of compulsory availability per week, is subject to vacancies and determination by merit selection. FRNSW sometimes offers to pay higher retainers at stations in areas where there is more difficulty recruiting and retaining firefighters, for example, at stations in towns where people commute to a different town during the day for their primary employment, or stations which receive fewer calls and where retained firefighters are as a result rarely paid more than the retainer.
On top of this, retained firefighters are paid in two other principal ways. First, they are paid for the performance of duties, such as the authorised duties set out in Schedule 2 of the Retained Award (eg, appliance and station maintenance, community safety activities, recruitment, and station management). Each station is allocated a minimum number of hours per week or month for the performance of authorised duties. Second, retained firefighters are paid for their attendance at incident callouts. Employees are required to attend a minimum of 33% of all calls received by the employee's brigade in any six-month period or 20% of all calls if their station receives more than 700 calls per year and a minimum of 80% of all calls during their periods of compulsory availability in any four-week period. An employee who attends the station or incident within 30 minutes of notification are entitled to a minimum payment of 1 hour for attendance at an incident (unless they were already performing duties at the time of the notification), with all subsequent time thereafter paid to the half hour.
Both FBEU and FRNSW witnesses during cross examination agreed that recruitment and retention of retained firefighters is a significant challenge for FRNSW. In closing submissions, both parties agreed that the very large and unbudgeted amounts of overtime performed by firefighters at the Station Officer and Firefighter ranks between financial years 2013/2014 to 2023/2024 was directly attributable to the need for FRNSW to fill in gaps where there are insufficient retained staff to keep certain stations open.
It is clear that there is a need to address the recruitment and retention of retained firefighters. Part of the answer may well be adjusting the way retained firefighters are remunerated. To that end the FBEU made a number of claims to increase remuneration in the proceedings. We note the written statements from the FBEU's witnesses that the low remuneration that is currently paid (less than $40 per week for retained firefighters who are paid the base retainer) is an important factor in retained firefighters leaving the FRNSW, especially because firefighters often provide availability for more hours than they are required to in order to attend the required minimum number of calls.
However, we accept the submission from the Secretary that increasing the remuneration for retained firefighters will not of itself solve this problem. Shortages in retained staff are not uniform, as might be the case if inadequate remuneration were the sole cause. Shortages arise from difficulties recruiting to stations in certain geographic areas and the fact that retained firefighters usually have primary full-time employment elsewhere.
Phillip Etienne of FRNSW agreed with the FBEU that there is a need to modernise the remuneration structure for retained firefighters. We agree that the remuneration structure should be reviewed to provide a better and fairer approach, which would hopefully also assist with attraction and retention.
We were not given sufficient material however to undertake such an exercise in these proceedings. That is perhaps because the proceedings involved so many different claims that not all could be given the attention they deserved. Remuneration for retained firefighters is complicated, and the parties did not sufficiently focus and provide evidence to enable us to draw clear conclusions beyond those set out above. While we see a need to update the approach to remuneration to improve attraction and retention, that ought to be done in a case that examines the issue properly and which includes an assessment as to whether the balance between the amount paid in the retainer and the amount paid for attending work is right. As a result, we reject most of the claims, for the reasons set out below, while upholding two of the claims.
We do not consider retained firefighter remuneration should be a leave reserved matter, because of the importance of ensuring industrial certainty during the life of the Award. However, it is a matter on which we would expect the parties to focus during the rest of the nominal term of the Award, such that any changes could be made to take effect at the start of the next Award, or alternatively could be the subject of proceedings before the Commission on the basis that they be concluded prior to the start of the next Award.

[321]

There are two potential justifications for the claim. The first is to compensate for the disability of arranging personal and work affairs around a substantial deployment that is cancelled. The second is to encourage retained firefighters to accept such deployments. The FBEU led evidence from Rodney Binding, a Retained Captain based at Kariong Station, that he had been requested to assist in a 5-day deployment, but that the strike team was informed on the intended day of departure that they would be leaving the next day instead. He received 1 hour of pay (the current minimum payment for incidents) and the kilometre rate to travel home, instead of the 8 hours' pay for the travel time from Kariong to Lismore he would otherwise have been paid.
The Secretary said in response to the claim that cancellations of or alterations to deployments were often outside of FRNSW's control, and that deployments exceeding 48 hours for retained firefighters were themselves rare. However, the fact that the cancellation is often outside the control of the Commissioner is not to the point. The issue is whether there nevertheless ought to be a payment to compensate for the loss of amenity arising from a late cancellation, delay, or alteration to a substantial deployment.
The claimed allowance is to be paid, in effect, for work that is not done. It can only be justified if it is a payment that compensates a retained firefighter for the loss of income that the firefighter cannot mitigate (eg, if the firefighter has refused other paid work and because of the late notice is unable to replace the lost income, as Mr Binding said had occurred in the circumstance he identified) and/or any expenses that cannot be avoided (eg, arranging childcare or pet care that cannot be cancelled). There will be retained firefighters in respect of whom no income would be lost nor expenses incurred, such that a blanket obligation to pay a full day when the work is cancelled cannot be justified.
We also note the proposed clause, as drafted, continues to present some ambiguity as to whether and when an employee is entitled to a cancellation allowance if the departure date of the deployment is delayed or the deployment is altered to be less than 48 hours in length, even assuming that the notification of the delay or alteration is provided with less than 48 hours' notice. For example, it is unclear whether the clause intends to make the allowance payable to an employee whose departure date is delayed less than 48 hours before the scheduled departure time, but where that deployment is still the same length as was originally scheduled. Nor is it clear whether an employee would be entitled to the allowance where the deployment is shortened, but still commences on the originally scheduled departure time, such that they would receive the amount of the allowance (ie, the amount they would have earned for the first day of the deployment) and the amount they did in fact earn for the first day of the deployment.
There is no evidence the Commissioner does not give as much notice as possible of any cancellation. Had there been evidence of dilatory steps, that might have led to us requiring a payment to be made if less than 48 hours' notice is given in order to prompt the Commissioner to give at least that much notice where possible.
On balance, while we acknowledge the potential disability that might arise from a substantial deployment being cancelled at short notice, we are not satisfied that the solution of requiring a full day's pay to be paid is the right one. While up to a full day's pay may be justifiable for some retained firefighters in some circumstances to replace foregone income from accepting the deployment, for many it might properly be seen as a windfall payment.
We consider that the appropriate outcome ought to be that in addition to the minimum payment (which as a result of our decision above will increase to 1.5 hours) firefighters can apply for an additional ex gratia payment of up to 6 hours pay in total, if they can demonstrate that due to the cancellation of a deployment that was to be 48 hours or more in length with less than 48 hours' notice, they lost income or incurred expenses over and above the 1.5 hour payment.

[323]

The FBEU seeks to include clauses which would change the calculation for the rate of pay for leave and the accrual and deduction of leave. Their proposed clauses would have the effect of setting a retained firefighter's ordinary single time hourly pay rate as their pay rate for leave and make leave accrued and deducted (when taken) at the rate of 7 hours per day.
Payment for annual leave, long service leave, and sick leave for retained firefighters is currently calculated on the weekly average of the total amount paid by FRNSW to the employee for the twelve months immediately prior to the date on which leave is commenced, excluding any periods of Special Leave Without Pay, unpaid leave and/or suspension. Such a system gives rise to the potential for inequity, as leave payments currently fluctuate with the amount of work that a firefighter has been called on to do in the previous 12 months. Retained firefighters thus get different leave payments when taking the same amount of leave. For example, Retained Deputy Captain and Industrial Officer Giacomo Arnott in his written statement explained that his leave pay rate from 6 September 2024 to 14 September 2024 was $11.87 per hour, but was $19.46 per hour from 17 August to 23 August 2020, due to him having worked increased hours during the 2019/2020 bushfire season. He also gave evidence that firefighters at quieter stations which attend fewer callouts have very low leave pay rates, whereas firefighters who do a lot of overtime can have leave pay rates which exceed their normal hourly pay rate.
There is no easy solution for these issues. The FBEU submits that "the perceived inequity identified in Mr Baldi's evidence is likely to be amenable to further discussion". We agree that it is a subject about which there needs to be discussion and further work. We do not agree with the FBEU's proposed simplistic solution that would see all leave (including sick leave) paid out at full hourly rates.
We have noted above that the issue of retained firefighter remuneration demands a holistic review, although the material placed before us does not allow us to conduct that review in this decision. The question of how leave payments are to be calculated ought to be properly and carefully considered in a standalone proceeding. As such we do not grant the claim, but accept it is an issue that should be progressed by discussions during the life of the new Award and can be reagitated with any change to take effect after the nominal term of the Award.

[326]

The FBEU proposed a new clause for the Retained Award which would allow retained firefighters who are stationed at a RCR or GLR accredited station to be offered the opportunity to receive the training to be accredited as a rescue operator with the SRB. The FBEU also seeks allowances for employees who have become accredited SRB rescue operators and are based at GLR stations, employees who have FRNSW In-Water Flood Rescue qualifications, and employees who have FRNSW Land Based Flood Rescue qualifications. The proposed clause is in similar terms in respect of retained firefighters at Hazmat appliance stations.
The FBEU justifies these claims on the basis that retained firefighters attached to these stations, who hold the relevant competencies, and who respond to rescue incidents, should be remunerated in the same manner as their permanent counterparts.
The proposed clause can be seen to create a mandatory obligation to train any willing retained firefighter to the relevant standard to become a rescue operator.
The evidence was that retained firefighters do undertake training and complete qualifications in RCR, GLR, In-Water Flood Rescue, Land Based Flood Rescue and Hazmat. While there is obvious sense in FRNSW offering such training, it is a matter for FRNSW as to what training it offers and when. It is not a matter that ought to be regulated by the Award.
The clauses otherwise seek allowances to be paid on the basis of training. We accept that, like permanent firefighters, there ought to be recognition in the form of an allowance paid to retained firefighters who hold additional competencies in respect of GLR, In Water Flood Rescue, Vertical Rescue, USAR, Trench Rescue, Partial Structural Collapse and Large Animal Rescue, provided they are payable only to those who the Commissioner has determined should obtain and maintain the competencies and skills in the relevant type of rescue work, and only while they maintain those competencies while attached to stations that have the equipment to undertake the rescue work in question and are accredited to undertake the work.
The question of the quantum of the allowances that ought to be paid to retained firefighters in respect of the holding of such rescue competencies is not a matter to which the parties directed much attention in their submissions. The FBEU sought exactly the same weekly allowances as sought for permanent firefighters even though retained firefighters do not work full-time and their actual hours can vary considerably, while the Secretary simply opposed the claim outright.
The parties are to have discussions as to the terms of the award clauses necessary to reflect our conclusion that such allowances ought to be introduced along with the quantum of new allowances. Absent agreement this is a further matter that will be added to the list of matters to be conciliated by Commissioner McDonald and which may ultimately need to be arbitrated.
To provide the parties with some assistance, our starting point would be to ask why allowances should not apply in the same circumstances and manner as for permanent firefighters but set at a reduced percentage reflecting their retainer level percentage. That would mean that a retained firefighter on the base retainer would receive a weekly allowance amounting to 25% of the weekly allowance paid to a permanent firefighter holding the same rescue competencies, while a retained firefighter at the 50% retainer level would get an allowance set at 50% of the weekly allowance paid to a permanent firefighter.

[343]

We agree with Mr Baldi's summary of the principles that underpin successful consultation.
In particular, we reinforce three points which we do not think need to be expressly set out in the award, but ought to inform the way it applies in practice.
First, consultation done effectively involves a process where the union and FRNSW genuinely work together to determine the optimal outcome. This involves FRNSW approaching the union in advance of a change to provide relevant information that explains the nature and need for the change, followed by a reasonable opportunity to respond and a commitment to not finalise and implement the change without having taken that response into account, provided the response is provided as promptly as the exigencies of the issue demand.
Second, the extent of consultation and information provided will vary based on the significance of the change and its urgency. There is no need for consultation if a change has no significance to employees. A small change that has a minor impact on one or two firefighters will require a lower level of consultation than a change that will have a significant impact on a small group or a moderate impact on a large group, each of which would necessitate full consultation.
Third, consultation does not mean agreement. Provided there has been consultation and the response of the union has been genuinely considered, the Commissioner can proceed to implement a change, including to introduce a new policy. If the union does not agree and it has a proper basis to do so it can escalate a dispute to the Commission, but other than to the extent expressly provided by the Award the union does not have a right of veto over workplace change.
Evidence given by witnesses from FRNSW was to the effect that the motivation for many of the changes to remove express reference to consultation before making a particular change is because the union behaves as if its agreement is necessary before the Commissioner can implement such a new policy or other reform. Given the union's capacity to put a new policy or change into dispute and insist on the status quo being maintained for a period, it might appear, even to the union itself, that it has an effective right of veto. That is not the case. First, the union ought not to put a matter into dispute unless it genuinely considers that the Commissioner has failed to consult or have adequate regard to legitimate concerns about the proposed reform or policy. Placing matters into dispute reflexively will reduce trust and make it less likely that genuine concerns, when raised, will be given credence by the Commissioner or for that matter this Commission. Second, this Commission will be watchful for inappropriate use of the power to place a matter into dispute and will quickly move to "lift" the status quo by making a direction or order where it is satisfied that the consultation process was conducted properly pursuant to current clause 9.8. To be clear, the Commission may do so quickly and without needing to conduct a full traditional arbitration hearing, upon being satisfied that there was adequate consultation and proper consideration of the FBEU's position.
Notwithstanding those comments, given the generally uncontested evidence as to how successful the current consultation processes have been, we are reluctant to change them, particularly without the enthusiastic support of FRNSW itself.
Further, in the absence of evidence demonstrating that the existing system is not working, we are loath to remove clauses that were inserted due to past agreement between the parties. Against that background, we turn to the particular changes sought.
The Secretary's primary case was to make changes to cl 9, including deleting the whole of Schedule 5 which sets out the existing consultative mechanism. Witnesses called by FRNSW gave evidence going to specific consultation obligations, but none gave evidence to support the changes sought to cl 9 and the removal of Schedule 5. Rather, as noted, Mr Baldi's evidence supported the retention of the existing approach. We reject the Secretary's claim in that regard.
Further to that finding, we wish to deal with one aspect of the Secretary's proposed change - namely, to amend an existing obligation that states that "no change pertaining to the employment relationship ... will be implemented prior to full consultation" to one that would provide that "any significant change affecting employees covered by this award" would require consultation. While we do not accept the need for the proposed change, we want to make clear that the existing clause ought not to be read literally in a manner that means that no change, however minor, can be introduced without "full consultation". Consistent with the principles set out above, the extent of consultation needs to vary with the nature of the change. A change to alter the rostered start time for a group of workers going forward would require full consultation with the provision of reasons and one or more meetings. However, a one-off change to the start time for a small work group for a single day to accommodate a need for a briefing would require much less by way of consultation - probably no more than a notification of the event and its purpose and the opportunity to seek more information if required. There was no evidence led by the Secretary to the effect that the existing obligation to consult was being applied in a manner different to that which we have identified as the practical approach. If in fact the FBEU was insisting on slowing or preventing straightforward changes of minor or no significance by requiring the Commissioner to engage in full consultation first, we may reconsider our view as to the need for a change of the sort sought.
We turn next to the large number of changes to specific clauses that contain existing consultation obligations.
In closing submissions, the Secretary did not seek to address any of these changes specifically and merely put a general submission that the consultation provisions in the current awards are unnecessarily prescriptive and complex and should be replaced with an overarching consultation obligation.
A large number of the proposed changes can be dealt with together. They are changes that seek to remove a reference to a particular obligation to consult on the basis that it is unnecessary in light of the overarching obligation to consult, namely:

[344]

(1) amending clauses 7 and 43.1 of the Permanent Award concerning the training competencies developed by FRNSW in relation to the skills required to undertake the work for each classification, by removing an obligation to consult about such changes;

(2) removing cl 10 "Climate" of the Permanent Award and cl 9 of the Retained Award, which contains an obligation to consult regarding research, planning and preparing for changes in respect of changes to climate, that was introduced into the award by consent;

(3) removing from cl 38.15 "Lactation Policy" of the Permanent Award the requirement that the parties' negotiation and agreement to a Lactation and Work Policy will be conducted via the consultation process in cl 9;

(4) removing from clauses 44.6, 44.7, 44.8, 44.9. 44.10 and 44.11 of the Permanent Award the words "following consultation between the Department and the Union" in respect of the determination of the merit selection process to be specified by the Commissioner to gain promotion;

(5) deletion of clauses 44.14.3, 44.14.5 and 44.14.6 of the Permanent Award, which provide that the development and implementation of the new promotional pathways will only occur according to the Award's consultative arrangements, that those pathways would be recommended to the JCC by no later than three months of the making of the Award, and be included by consent in the 2024 Award in the event that they are endorsed by the JCC.

(6) removing from cl 46.4.4 of the Permanent Award an obligation to consult on the position descriptions for non-station based roles;

(7) removing from cl 46.5 of the Permanent Award an obligation to consult on the viability of establishing a team of certain non-station based positions;

(8) removing from cl 47.1 of the Permanent Award and cl 42.1 of the Retained Award the obligation to consult as to the content of appropriate training specified by the Commissioner;

(9) removing from clauses 59.3 and 59.4 of the Permanent Award and clauses 53.3 and 53.4 of the Retained Award an obligation to consult regarding changes to PPE/PPC and consultation about consequential changes to training;

(10) removing from cl 65 of the Permanent Award and cl 59 of the Retained Award obligations to consult regarding changes to station/work location and/or renovation, including the deletion of a specific clause detailing how such consultation is to occur;

(11) removing from clauses 68, 71, 75 and 80 of the Permanent Award an obligation to consult about safe staffing numbers in respect of particular units; and

(12) removing from cl 71 of the Permanent Award an obligation to consult regarding safe staffing numbers in the Fire Investigation and Research Unit.

[345]

If the introduction of the above identified clauses was in issue in an arbitral proceeding we may not have introduced some or all of the above specific consultation requirements into the award in those terms, noting the existence of the current overall consultation requirement, and a statutory obligation to consult pursuant to s 47 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW) as referenced in clauses 59.3 and 59.4 of the Permanent Award and clauses 53.3 and 53.4 of the Retained Award. However, given that the clauses are currently in the awards, we turn to consider if they ought to be removed.
The Secretary did not lead evidence as to the genesis of those provisions. The FBEU led evidence that a number that were included by consent. While we have no evidence as to the genesis of the others, it is likely they too came into the Awards by consent. Where parties have consented to a clause the Commission will be slow to remove that clause by arbitration, absent consent and evidence that is appropriate to do so, lest it undoes in a one-sided manner a compromise deal made at an earlier time.
Had there been evidence that one or more of the specific clauses were causing a major impediment to the Commissioner's capacity to manage FRNSW, we might have been minded to accede to the application. However, no such evidence was led. The evidence as to those clauses in large part went no higher than an assertion that the existing obligations are "duplicative, unnecessary and onerous". That the obligation could be both duplicative (because the same consultation is required in any event under clause 9) and onerous is an oxymoron and unpersuasive.
It follows that we are unable to identify a reason, and certainly no special case, why we should accede to the amendments sought in respect of those clauses. If the Commissioner indeed agrees with the Secretary that one or more of the specific obligations do impede productivity or unnecessarily add to the length of the award without altering its effect, that is something FRNSW can take up in bargaining with the FBEU in respect of a future award.
We next turn to the balance of the changes sought by the Secretary that deal with changes to consultation obligations resting on evidence that went beyond merely establishing that they were unnecessary due to duplication. While in many cases these changes were the subject of evidence that was more extensive than the clauses noted above, the Secretary in closing submissions did not seek to address them specifically and relied on the same broad submissions that there ought not to be "disparate consultation obligations" in addition to the overarching obligation. Nor were the Secretary's primary submissions more illuminating. They noted only that FRNSW had filed evidence going to the need to amend the existing "skewed consultation clauses" and then said:

[353]

The Secretary seeks three changes to clause 11 of the Permanent Award and clause 10 of the Retained Award, which are in identical terms.
The first change is to delete the current status quo clause during the period of the dispute procedure and replace it with a different clause. This entails the removal of the current requirement to maintain the "status quo ... in accordance with the existing situation or practice that existed immediately prior to the subject matter of the dispute occurring or arising" and insertion of a clause providing that "normal work and the conditions under which work is performed, prior to the notification of the dispute, will continue unless otherwise agreed between the parties".
The second change is to remove an obligation at the end of every step to provide a "progress report before the close of ordinary business on the next working day".
The third change is to add to clause 9 of the Permanent Award (and clause 8 of the Retained Award), allowing the FBEU to use the dispute resolution clause, commencing at step 4 if, following consultation, the parties remain in dispute.
The Secretary put no submissions in support of the proposed changes to this clause.
The evidence in support of the first and last of these changes was limited to a single paragraph from a statement of Mr Baldi that simply described the nature of the changes. Mr Drury in response raised a concern that the change would not only prejudice the FBEU's capacity to prevent unilateral change but lead to some uncertainty as to what is "normal work".
The evidence in support of the second change was limited to a further paragraph providing Mr Baldi's opinion that the requirement to provide a progress report is "inconsistent with the approach taken across the public sector", "inefficient, adds additional administrative requirements and may unnecessarily prolong FRNSW's ability to promptly resolve matters in dispute". Mr Baldi provided no evidence to support his statement of opinion.
We noted that a number of the FBEU claims ought not to have been progressed to final hearing, given the absence of apparent industrial merit. In respect of a number of claims of the Secretary, including this one, the claim ought not to have been pressed once the Secretary assessed that he would not put submissions in support of the claim nor lead any evidence beyond a short statement describing the nature of the change. We reject this claim.

[363]

The Secretary seeks to make changes to clause 32 to reduce the need for consultation and agreement concerning the advertisement for recruitment or promotion of permanent firefighters; the total minimum established numbers of Permanent Firefighters, Permanent Station Officers and Permanent Inspectors for Station Based positions; and the deployment of any additional employees and/or positions. Further, the Secretary seeks to remove the need to obtain the agreement of the FBEU before changing the existing response protocols.
The evidence led was limited to a description of the changes sought by Mr Etienne and a statement of his opinion that "the Commissioner should not be required to consult with the FBEU on how it allocates its resources and workload", as well as broad assertions by Mr Baldi that the obligations are "not necessary or reasonable", are in respect of "managerial decisions" and "may result in ... delays".
Mr Drury's evidence was that these clauses were introduced into the current Awards following "significant consultation and concession by the FBEU in relation to other matters", such as an increase to the time period that firefighters could perform higher duties and changes to the transfer procedures to allow roster changes for training purposes.
The existing clauses were the subject of a consent agreement. The obligation to consult over changes to safe staffing are not, in our view, onerous or inappropriate. Clause 32.5.1 currently mandates that the "response protocols currently in place at the time of making of this Award" cannot be changed "unless specifically provided for in this Award or following consultation between the parties in accordance with clause 9 and agreement". Properly understood, those words are not a barrier to change but are facilitative of change. Absent those words, the Commissioner could not alter the response protocols without amending the award. Mindful of Mr Drury's evidence, which was to the effect that this clause was one inserted by consent in respect of a highly contentious subject matter, we are not inclined on the basis of the statements of opinion of Mr Baldi to alter it.
If in the future the Commissioner's attempts to alter response protocols in a sensible manner are unreasonably rebuffed by the FBEU, the Commissioner can come to the Commission and seek to amend this clause. Such an amendment could be sought and if a substantial case were made out take effect during the life of the new Award, consistent with principle 9.4 of the AMPs.

[365]

Clause 33 of the Award addresses the steps to be taken before firefighters can be given the task of medical response work. It sets out a series of steps that need to be taken, including the creation of a working group and the engagement of relevant subject matter experts. Clause 33.8 provides that the implementation of a Medical First Response (MFR) program "will be by agreement only" following consideration of the recommendations of the working party.
The Secretary seeks to retain clause 33 but remove clause 33.8. The evidence in support was limited to a statement of opinion by Mr Baldi that whether a MFR program ought to be implemented "should be a decision for FRNSW only. The decision to implement or not implement a program is a management decision and FRNSW has the right to manage its business."
Mr Drury explained the genesis of the clause. The clause was inserted into the current award following a significant dispute in previous years including arbitration before the Commission. The clause was introduced by consent, involving a compromise position. That position would be undone if clause 33.8 were removed. Removing it would not resolve any dispute. The current clause provides the FBEU with some assurance that a MFR program will only be introduced after the working party has made recommendations either on agreed terms, or as a result of a successful application to the Commission.
To undo this clause, agreed only recently to resolve a serious dispute, at the initiative of one party is something that the Commission would only do based on evidence that a MFR program could be safely introduced in a manner that ensured fair terms and conditions of employment and that the need to obtain the FBEU's agreement was preventing the introduction of such a program. On the basis of the material filed we are not persuaded to alter the current clause in the manner sought and reject the claim. However such an amendment could be sought and if a substantial case were made out take effect during the life of the new Award, consistent with principle 9.4 of the AMPs.

[369]

In his evidence, Mr Baldi stated that the amendment to cl 44.12.1 would not interfere with FRNSW's obligation to consult with the FBEU in relation to minimum periods of service for each rank, but that FRNSW ought to have decision-making power on this topic. He stated that clauses 44.12.2 and 44.12.3 were "duplicative, unnecessary and onerous" as they currently referred to a number of specific consultation requirements under the Award. The amendment to those clauses would "streamline the operation of recommendations" by having the Training Subcommittee make recommendations directly to FRNSW.
Mr Drury gave evidence that changes to cl 44.12 were agreed in the last round of award negotiations and that the requirement to consult and agree on minimum periods of service was particularly significant to the FBEU. That is because minimum periods required to be spent at each rank impact firefighters' career progression and promotion and accordingly their wages, skills and qualifications, and ensure that firefighters spend enough time at each rank prior to progression.
Mr Baldi's evidence concluded: "FRNSW is open and willing to provide a commitment to FBEU outside of the award in respect of these general provisions."
There is force in the position advanced by Mr Baldi, which is that while the FBEU has a great interest in such matters, such matters ought to be set by the employer unless otherwise determined by the Commission. However, in the absence of more detailed submissions and given the limited evidence we are not persuaded that we ought to amend clauses that were inserted by agreement.
We do think that these clauses ought to be the subject of careful review in the context of negotiations over the next award. Absent sensible changes, the Commission may be minded on the next occasion to remove the effective right of veto over such changes that the Award currently provides. Further, if there was a sufficient case that the existing clause was creating a real impediment to necessary change, it would be open to the Secretary to seek to vary this clause during the life of the new Award. Such an amendment could be sought and if a substantial case were made out take effect during the life of the new Award, consistent with principle 9.4 of the AMPs.

[383]

The FBEU seeks to increase compassionate leave in the Permanent and Retained Awards from 2 days to 4 days.
It is put on the basis that the existing entitlement is inadequate and is less than the leave that is granted to administrative staff employed by FRNSW, who are covered by the Crown Employees (Public Service Conditions of Employment) Reviewed Award 2009 (Conditions Award). The claim relied upon the evidence of firefighter Mr Tim Anderson, who was given two shifts off work when his father died.
Those covered by the Conditions Award are entitled to family and community service (FACS) leave, which differs in nature to compassionate leave in the Permanent and Retained Awards. FACS leave is granted to employees for unplanned and emergency family situations or other emergencies that may include, but are not limited to, a family member's death or illness, emergency or weather conditions, attending to unplanned or unforeseen family responsibilities etc. It accrues such that employees are entitled to two and a half days in the employee's first year, two and a half more days in their second year, and one day per year thereafter.
The FBEU does not make a claim to reflect the approach of the Conditions Award and so recast access to leave generally. It seeks only to increase the entitlement to leave on compassionate grounds, which is one situation which would entitle somebody to FACS leave.
We reject the claim. The current entitlement is in accordance with the federal standard set by the National Employment Standards in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).[47] The FBEU have not made out an evidentiary case that firefighters ought to receive a higher entitlement.
We also note that there is no evidence that the Commissioner has unreasonably refused requests for unpaid or annual leave following the death of a close relative. We would expect the Commissioner to not unreasonably refuse such requests, and to refuse only where for operational reasons a request cannot be accommodated.

[386]

The FBEU seeks to have inserted in the Permanent and Retained Awards an entitlement to paid leave for employees to donate blood and bone marrow.
The claim for leave to donate bone marrow is derived from FRNSW's current Standing Orders, which permit a grant of up to five days' special leave at full pay to administrative and trades staff and firefighters ranked superintendent and above, and a grant of up to 48 hours' special leave at full pay for firefighters. Grant of leave is subject to the employee being listed on the Australian Bone Marrow Donor Registry (ABMDR) register, providing prompt notice of any proposed absence following the AMBDR's advising to the employee the date of a proposed donation, and providing a medical certificate from a registered medical practitioner covering the period of absence. Firefighters who donate blood do so on their own time.
Blood donation and bone marrow donation are to be encouraged, and we commend those firefighters who give up their time to provide such an important community service. However, their obvious worth to society do not of themselves justify the creation of new award entitlements to paid leave.
The claimed justification for the new entitlement is limited to two grounds: first, that the existing policy would be better converted into an enforceable entitlement, and second, that the standing orders "are less well known".
As to the first reason, there was no evidence that the absence of an enforceable entitlement has in fact led to any industrial unfairness or prevented donations. As to the second reason, there was no evidence to suggest that firefighters are unaware of standing orders, or that award conditions are "better known".
We accept the Secretary's submissions that the claim as drafted would oblige FRNSW to grant leave regardless of operational needs, which we do not accept to be appropriate. We also accept that the FBEU did not explain how these clauses would operate in respect of retained firefighters, who are ordinarily only paid for the performance of work that they are required to do.
We are not aware of an entitlement to paid leave for blood and blood marrow donation in any existing public sector award in NSW. The evidentiary case as presented does not establish a proper basis to create a new paid leave entitlement. If a fresh category of paid leave is to be created, in addition to existing personal leave entitlements, it ought to be done by way of an application for a test case that applies generally, given that there is no reason to limit its application to any particular group of workers.

[395]

Clause 48 provides several training course attendance entitlements, including accommodation, meals, incidentals, and compensation for travel costs.
We accept that if FRNSW requires a firefighter to undertake a course of study, then appropriate paid time ought to be granted to complete that course, and there ought to be reimbursement of expenses including travelling expenses, to undertake that course. We do not accept, however, that there ought to be an award entitlement to paid leave to study for a course that the firefighter decides to undertake themselves, even if that course is of potential relevance to their work.
As drafted the clause would appear to create an obligation on FRNSW to determine courses that are "approved" for firefighters to undertake, and having done so to provide paid leave and reimbursement of expenses to firefighters who decide for themselves to undertake such a course. We can see no basis to create such an entitlement. To the extent the proposed clause permits FRNSW at its discretion to grant paid (or unpaid) leave to undertake an approved course, it is unnecessary, as FRNSW can do that in any event. To the extent the clause seeks to do more than that and requires FRNSW to provide paid leave to a firefighter who chooses to undertake a course that the firefighter is not obliged to undertake, it is inappropriate, as it is a matter for firefighters themselves to decide to undertake further study to advance their career.
There is no evidence to suggest that FRNSW does not grant paid leave or reimburse expenses when it requires firefighters to complete a particular training course. If there had been such evidence, then we might have been minded to include an obligation to make clear that a firefighter who is required to undertake a particular course ought to be granted paid leave to do so and have their study expenses reimbursed. In the absence of that evidence, we do not see a need to include such an obligation.
We accept that a forward-thinking employer might want to encourage employees to undertake certain additional training in their own time. To that end, such an employer might develop policies reimbursing employees' training costs, or, as a matter of policy, approve leave for employees to attend lectures or complete exams. We are not satisfied, however, that a case was presented to us to justify creating an award obligation on FRNSW to take such steps. In that regard we note the evidence led was limited to two firefighters whose study was self-selected and which included units which were not directly relevant to or necessary for the performance of their firefighting work.

[401]

Clause 83 of the current Permanent Award provides that Superintendents and Chief Superintendents, being "Executive Officers" under the Award, are to work an average of forty ordinary hours per week "on a flexible basis according to the needs of the organisation on any day of the week or at any time of the day on a self-directed rostering basis". They are excluded under cl 3.5, from overtime pay payable under cl 24. Instead, they are entitled under cl 83.2 to record and accrue additional hours worked as time off in lieu (TOIL), which is granted at the Commissioner's discretion.
The FBEU seeks to delete clause 3.5, so entitling Executive Officers to a range of monetary entitlements, including overtime. The FBEU justifies this claim on the basis that wage rates do not currently adequately compensate executive officers for their level of skill and responsibility and demands on their time outside of ordinary hours. It was also submitted that TOIL is an impractical panacea for these employees since, without backfill, they have to attend to a backlog of work once they return to work.
The FBEU relied on the evidence of Zone Commander Rod Chetwynd and Chief Superintendent Stephen Hirst.
Mr Chetwynd gave evidence that as Zone Commander, he was responsible for the overall strategic command of the 19 fire stations in his Zone, including the supervision and mentoring of deputy commanders and station commanders. Executive Officers can work additional hours during major emergencies, when they are deployed into specific roles (eg, Deputy Incident Controllers, Liaison Officers) and then transition back into their substantive role, which are often not backfilled in their absence. Mr Chetwynd gave evidence that it can be difficult for Executive Officers both to find time to take TOIL and to find somebody to fill their position so that work does not accumulate while they are away. For example, Mr Chetwynd gave evidence that he worked over 200 additional hours over two to three weeks during the 2021 North Coast Floods, and that he was not able to access his TOIL until a few months after the incident.
Stephen Hirst, as a Chief Superintendent, is responsible for the coordination of FRNSW's operations in the Regional South Area. He gave evidence that he frequently works additional hours outside of his regular work hours from 7.30am to 3.30pm, as he is contacted by staff who finish work after 3.30pm, participates in afternoon meetings, and attends to critical incidents. He is not paid for working those additional hours. Similarly to Mr Chetwynd, he said that it was not practicable to take TOIL because he eventually has to work additional hours to attend to the work that has accumulated during TOIL. He also gave evidence that he was often contacted while on leave including when taking TOIL.
Both Mr Chetwynd and Mr Hirst noted that the Commissioner can allow discretionary overtime payments for Executive Officers where they cannot allow an employee to take TOIL, but that this only tended to happen during major emergency events.
Executive Officers are paid at higher levels by salaries which are "all incidence rates of pay" and include compensation for the non-payment of an annual leave loading. The nature of the work of Executive Officers commonly requires them to work beyond the hours of a standard day to get the work done. While that work has to be done, as that additional time is largely self-directed they retain some level of control over when they work those additional hours. They account for the additional hours and seek and obtain approval to take TOIL to compensate them for those hours.
If Executive Officers were able instead to claim overtime pay for that additional self-directed time, then inevitably pressure would be brought to bear to reduce or justify such overtime, reducing the control those officers have over how they self-manage their work.
Any change to introduce overtime pay at these senior levels for such additional hours would create a significant precedent that may flow on to other like positions. We accept that overtime is generally not granted to executive employees in awards made by the Commission or in federal awards or agreements.
For those reasons we are not inclined to grant the claim as drafted. Nor are we minded to remove the exclusion to the application of other clauses under clause 3.5, namely, clause 18 Meal and Refreshments, clause 25 Relieving Provisions, clause 48 Training Course Attendance Entitlements, clause 36 Examination and Assessment Leave, clause 50 Court Attendance Entitlements, clause 27 Notice of Transfer and clause 28 Transfers Outside of the GSA.
However, while we are not minded to grant a claim that would see Executive Officers entitled to be paid for additional hours worked, we take a different view in respect of hours worked outside the ordinary span of hours that Executive Officers are directed or required to work as a result of a particular incident. In that regard we have in mind the emergency situations like those identified in the evidence of Mr Chetwynd.
To be clear, we do not have in mind situations where an Executive Officer works additional hours to complete their usual work duties (which ought to continue to be addressed by the current entitlement to TOIL), nor a situation where an Executive Officer is contacted out of hours and as a result does some work from home. Rather, we have in mind the limited circumstance where an Executive Officer attends work (including an incident location) on a weekend or public holiday, or attends or remains at work after 6pm on an ordinary work day, in circumstances where he or she is directed (as in Mr Chetwynd's second example) or required (as in his first example) to do so. While there is evidence that in such cases the Commissioner from time to time exercises a discretion to pay overtime for such hours and does so at the employee's usual hourly rate of pay, in our view there ought to be an entitlement for Executive Officers to be paid for such work, not at overtime rates, but at their ordinary rate of pay with a minimum payment of 2 hours. Ordinarily an Executive Officer would need to seek and obtain verbal or written approval from their manager in advance of attending work to qualify for payment rather than pay in lieu. In an emergency situation an Executive Officer may not be able to get approval in advance. In such a case they would be entitled to be paid rather than take TOIL if FRNSW determines after the event that in the circumstances their presence was required.
We leave to the parties the exercise of drafting an appropriate amendment to the current clause 83 that reflects our decision. The parties should also address clause 3.5, as it commences with the words "The only exceptions to subclause 3.4", despite there being no subclause 3.4.

[403]

The FBEU claims a new entitlement for all firefighters "to be provided with" a Heavy Rigid Licence to be used in the course of their work or reimbursement for the costs of obtaining such licence. The claim extends to the provision or reimbursement of any other type of licence required to be held by the employee for the purpose of carrying out their roles and responsibilities.
Under the current award, firefighters are not entitled to any reimbursements for obtaining any such licences.
FBEU notes that at some point, most firefighters will need to go to a station which has a heavy rigid appliance and therefore require the Heavy Rigid Licence. It provided evidence that in light of new machinery upgrades to several stations, about 50 to 60 staff would need to obtain this licence in the next two years in order to perform their duties and operate these appliances.
FRNSW submitted that this entitlement, if granted, would require them to reimburse firefighters for all licences held that are required during the course work which would also include their ordinary driver's licence and regardless of when they obtained such licences.
FRNSW accepts that if a firefighter is required to obtain a Heavy Rigid Licence to perform their role, they would be given the opportunity to obtain that licence at FRNSW's expense. FRNSW noted that the current clause goes well beyond such an entitlement and is not fair or reasonable.
Following submissions the FBEU accepted that in light of the drafting issues identified, it would be better for the claim not to be determined by these proceedings and rather should be the subject of further consideration by the proposed 'Remuneration Taskforce'. We agree that more thought needs to be given to these matters.
There is no evidence that firefighters who are required to obtain a Heavy Vehicle Licence or a Heavy Rigid Licence are not reimbursed for any relevant expenses associated with obtaining that licence. If that were disputed, there may be a need to consider a clause to address such a situation. Such an amendment could be sought and, if a case were made out, take effect during the life of the new Award, consistent with principle 9.4 of the AMPs.

[404]

The FBEU proposed a new clause in the Permanent Award directed at reimbursing firefighters who, as a result of being recalled to work overtime or otherwise being required to work outside of their normal hours, would incur childcare costs. There is currently no such entitlement available to firefighters.
The FBEU contended that this was a fair and reasonable claim that was directed at encouraging the maintenance of appropriate staffing levels and removing barriers to entry and retention of female firefighters, noting also that the claim would not extend to circumstances where an employee elected to work overtime.
FRNSW submitted that if a firefighter who was asked to work outside their normal hours could not do so due to childcare commitments, they were entitled to resist such work so that no additional childcare costs would be incurred. It also relied on the fact that childcare expenses were not categorised as work expenses such that the allowance could attract fringe benefits tax.
Following the filing of submissions, the FBEU accepted that in light of the issues identified, it was a matter best left to be dealt with by the proposed 'Remuneration Taskforce' in line with its amended claim.
Access to appropriate childcare and the funding of such childcare is a significant policy issue that is addressed by federal legislation and federally funded subsidies. Any introduction of an entitlement to payment of childcare allowances, even in the limited circumstances identified, would entail major changes that would not only have obvious flow-on risks, but would need to be carefully considered in light of the way it would affect access to childcare for employees generally.
The evidence relied upon by FBEU did not extend beyond the opinion of the Secretary, Mr Drury, that it would provide cost of living relief to working parents.
The evidence did not seek to come to terms with the complexity of the subject matter. Like other claims, it had the hallmarks of something that was added to a 'wish list' rather than being given the full and proper consideration that it should have received.
While we accept the importance of steps directed at removing barriers to entry and retention of female firefighters, on the material presented we are not satisfied that this major change is one that has been sufficiently thought through and justified with cogent evidence to be granted. We reject this claim.

[405]

The FBEU seeks to change the method by which permanent firefighters are reimbursed for their travel costs.
Clause 20.7 of the current Permanent Award sets out how an employee is reimbursed for their travel cost. An employee is entitled to the option of using public transport or reimbursement for use of the employee's private vehicle, except where an official vehicle is provided. Where an official motor vehicle is unavailable and public transport is "reasonably available" for the journey, an employee who elects to use a private vehicle is reimbursed at the "specific journey rate" or the cost of the journey by public transport, whichever is the lesser amount. Where an official motor vehicle is unavailable and public transport is not reasonably available for the journey, an employee who agrees to use their private vehicle is reimbursed at the "official business rate".
The FBEU contend that this method of reimbursing travel costs should be entirely revised as follows. The FBEU's proposed new clause sets out a presumption that an employee will be provided with an official motor vehicle to travel to and from a temporary work location or to attend a training course or conference. If an official vehicle is unavailable, and the employee agrees to use their private vehicle, they will be reimbursed at the official business rate, whereas if an official vehicle is available but the employee elects to use their private vehicle, they will be reimbursed at the lower specified journey rate. In other situations, an employer and employee may agree for the employee to undertake alternative private and/or public means of transport, for which the employer will reimburse and ordinarily organise the travel arrangements. The proposed clause does not use public transport costs as the standard by which a person who uses their private vehicle is to be reimbursed.
The FBEU's redraft of the claim is said to be justified on the basis that there is ongoing disputation as to whether public transport is "reasonably available", particularly when firefighters are required to undertake regional travel. Mr Anderson gave evidence that firefighters from the GSA come to Dubbo each year to provide Country Relief. He was not aware of a circumstance where a firefighter has taken public transport for Country Relief, as it takes about 5 hours to drive from the GSA to Dubbo, compared to about 8 hours on public transport. He also said that firefighters prefer to use their own vehicle so that they can use it when they are off duty as well as to transport their PPE, uniform and clothing. He gave evidence that disputes often arose when firefighters claimed for travel reimbursement after the travel has occurred as to whether they should be reimbursed at the higher official business rate or lower specified journey rate, an issue which turns on whether public transport is "reasonably available". The FBEU submits that its proposed clause would avoid disputation arising from differing views as to whether public transport is "reasonably available".
The Secretary contended that, as FRNSW does not have enough official motor vehicles to provide to employees traveling to a temporary work location, training or conference, the effect of the FBEU's proposed claim is to allow nearly all employees to access the higher official business rate for using their personal vehicle.
We agree with the Secretary that the existence of occasional disputes about whether public transport is "reasonably available" does not form a proper basis to abandon the existing clause entirely, in favour of an entitlement in every case to reimbursement for all travel at the full official business rate.
In light of the evidence, however, we accept that the current clause is giving rise to situations where firefighters are required to use their private car in practice because public transport is impractical, but only being reimbursed at the cost of public transport because, while impractical, it is available.
This proposition seems to be accepted by the parties. They have been consulting on guidelines as to when public transport will be reasonable for this kind of travel, and when it will not. This is encouraging, which we think ought to be reflected in an amendment to the award clause.
To that end we have determined to make a more modest amendment to the clause which adds to the existing words "reasonably available" the additional words "and practicable". The intention is to ensure that situations like those described by Mr Anderson are addressed.
The parties are to consider whether anything beyond the proposed change is required to ensure that firefighters are reimbursed whenever they need to use their private vehicle because public transport, while technically available, is impracticable and if there is any other textual amendment to assist to reduce disputation as to the circumstances in which the entitlement arises. Absent agreement, this issue will be the subject of conciliation by Commissioner McDonald.

[406]

The FBEU seeks an entitlement permitting employees who are on duty between 10.00pm and 6.00am to recline and sleep where there is no emergency response work to be done and to not be unnecessarily disturbed during those hours. The drafted clauses in the Permanent and Retained Awards require the employer to provide a bed and mattress for each firefighter on duty to allow them to rest and recline or otherwise to pay an accommodation allowance to each firefighter to whom those items are not provided. They also require employees to provide their own bedding items.
The Commissioner's Standing Orders currently permit, "at the discretion of the Commissioner", all permanent officers and firefighters to recline and sleep between 10.00pm and 6.00am, unless they are on rostered on "watchroom 'N' duty".
The FBEU submits that this entitlement should be included in the award to provide certainty as to its existence, since the Standing Orders currently stipulate that "sleeping must be regarded as a concession which may be revoked by the Commissioner at any time".
The Secretary contended that firefighters' entitlements to sleep while on shift should be a matter that is left to policy, since the Commissioner is required to have regard to work health and safety (WHS) considerations, operational requirements and FRNSW's obligations. The Commissioner's operational context and circumstances may differ between fire stations and even within one fire station depending on the day and the matters to which FRNSW need to respond.
Following the filing of submissions the FBEU sought that this claim should be contained in a leave reserved clause, on the basis that the Secretary misunderstood the proposed claim, which specified that the entitlement only applied "when there is no emergency response work to be done".
We agree with the Secretary that the clause, insofar as it applies to retained officers, seems misconceived, given that they do not sleep at the station.
We accept, as contended by the FBEU and recognised by the Commissioner, that it is not only appropriate but important that firefighters rostered on 24-hour shifts should be given the capacity to sleep, provided they remain ready to respond as and when required instantly to address calls. That requires beds to be provided to firefighters.
However, we agree with the Secretary that the clause as drafted is inappropriate. Setting designated rest hours and introducing the notion of "unnecessary" disturbance are both restrictions that may not be appropriate in every circumstance. The evidence in favour of the need for such a clause was limited to the opinion evidence of the FBEU's Secretary. Had the FBEU led any evidence that firefighters are in fact unable to sleep when they are not required for work, we might have taken a different view. However, for the reasons expressed by the Secretary, we are of the view that rest and recline should at this time remain a matter governed by policy.

[412]

The FBEU seeks to insert a clause in both Awards which would require the Department and FBEU to establish a Merits Selection Process Disputes Panel to review and assess all disputes from unsuccessful candidates for any merit selection process.
The FBEU submitted that internal promotions are subject to a high level of internal disputation in respect of the merit selection process and that the Disputes Panel would be a mechanism to deal with these disputes before they escalate to litigation.
The only evidence which the FBEU provided in support of this submission was in Mr Chetwynd's witness statement, in which he stated that, following the abolition of the Government Related Employees Appeals Tribunal (GREAT), the only avenue currently available to employees to resolve this matter is the Disputes Procedure at clause 11 of the Award. Mr Chetwynd gave opinion evidence that this process "is rarely the most effective" and "can create confusion and delays in appointments to positions".
The Secretary submitted that the legislature, in abolishing the right to promotional appeals to the GREAT or the Commission, plainly intended to abolish promotional appeals, and that the establishment of the proposed Disputes Panel would create a quasi-tribunal.
Prior to making closing submissions, the FBEU proposed that this claim be placed in a leave reserved clause.
From time to time, unsuccessful applicants for merit selection may wish to raise a grievance. Currently one way for that to be done is for the union to raise the issue as a dispute under the dispute resolution procedure. We can readily accept that there would be a benefit in a bespoke procedure being created by agreement to deal with such disputes. That might include the capacity to seek a review of a decision by a more senior officer. However, we do not agree that the solution ought to be the creation of a de facto arbitral tribunal, or any mechanism that would see a person other than the Commissioner or his or her delegate determine the final outcome of merit selection matters.
The Commission is happy to assist the parties to reach an agreement as to a bespoke process to deal with such disputes which if agreed could be implemented as a matter of policy, or, if agreed, included in the award. We are not minded however to identify it as a claim that can be implemented by arbitration during the life of the Award under principle 9.4 of the AMPs.
We note that one aspect of the proposed clause that is meritorious is the ability of employees who are not selected to be able to obtain feedback as to the reasons they were not selected, so that they can identify how they might improve. We are not minded to create an award obligation to that effect, but we make a recommendation to the following effect:

[418]

The FBEU proposed a new clause in both Awards that seeks to require FRNSW to maintain a register of all WHS issues reported and a separate register containing individual employee records relating to any injuries, illness, near miss or exposure to hazards reported to FRNSW.
The FBEU submitted that the Notification of Injury, Illness, Exposure or Near Miss (NIIENM) system, the current system for reporting injuries and near misses, was poorly understood and irregularly used by firefighters. The NIIENM system also does not record other WHS issues, like equipment or truck failure. Mr Russel's evidence on this point was to the effect that he is regularly notified about truck faults which are currently not recorded on a register, and that he believed that the implementation of a register would allow for such issues to be identified, communicated and rectified earlier.
The Secretary submitted that while it could be accepted that information sharing was valuable, that could be addressed by educating firefighters on the use of the existing NIIENM system. Moreover, the Secretary submitted that this was not a matter which related to terms and conditions of employment, and that the Awards should not regulate the operational sharing of information between employees and between employees and employers.
FRNSW has WHS obligations. Ordinarily it is not the role of the Commission to determine, by an award clause, how they are to be met. The Commission will not interfere with the rights of management unless those rights are exercised unjustly or unreasonably, or impose harsh, oppressive or unsafe demands on employees.[48]
The evidence to suggest the existing systems are inadequate and to support the creation of an award obligation to create a new register was limited and insufficient.
We have no doubt that Mr Russel takes his role as an HSR seriously and, in his evidence, he has provided examples where FRNSW's systems have failed. However, that evidence is not sufficient to satisfy us that it is necessary that we impose an award obligation on FRNSW to create new reporting systems, in circumstances where there is an existing system.

[420]

The FBEU proposed a new clause in the Permanent Award which would require FRNSW to implement rehabilitation and hygiene units, staffed by a minimum of two station based firefighters, which would include equipment such as an agreed appliance (ie, vehicle), a tent, cooling chairs, misting fans, drinks, hygiene items, portable toilet and shower facilities, spare clothing and portable heaters. These units would be set up on nearby fire grounds and incident sites, with the intention that firefighters could use these facilities to decontaminate before returning to the station.
The FBEU identified this claim as one that could be placed in a leave reserved clause, on the basis that Mr Lewis, during cross-examination, said that FRNSW is currently "taking steps" to improve decontamination procedures, which could include the provision of shower pods.
The evidence established that onsite decontamination, immediately after firefighting, is of real importance in addressing health and safety risks associated with exposure to toxic chemicals and materials, as it prevents the contamination of fire trucks, fire stations and firefighters' homes. The evidence shows that FRNSW's standard practices for incident ground rehabilitation involve extensive steps to address such risks, including by providing washing facilities, bottled water, refreshments, meals, means of providing cooling or heating, and shelter at the incident site, as well as bagging and tagging contaminated PPE before returning to the truck or hosing down their PPE if they are being re-deployed.
During a site visit to the FRNSW Emergency Services Academy on 14 April 2025, we were shown a unit of the sort that this clause would require, which provides high level decontamination at an incident site, including showering facilities. There is no doubt that if cost were no consideration, it would be ideal to have multiple units of that type throughout the State. That the ACT fire service routinely uses units of that type when attending incidents does not provide a useful precedent to address the needs of a service spread across the length and breadth of NSW.
We agree with the Secretary that the FBEU made no endeavour to lead evidence as to the cost of providing these units, especially as Senior Firefighter Nathan Napper, during cross-examination, accepted that the clause as drafted would require a considerable number of these units to be deployed across NSW. Nor was there any evidence which established that such units were a necessity, however desirable they might be.
This claim is rejected.

[426]

FRNSW currently has in place two systems which record incidents that might have health consequences for firefighters.
These are the Solv system, which hosts the NIIENM form, and the Electronic Australasian Incident Reporting System (eAirs) which maintains details of every incident attended by FRNSW.
An employee completes a NIIENM form when they experience an "exposure", which is an event where a worker encounters a substance or situation that has a reasonable potential to cause harm or adverse health effect. They can access records that they have made about their exposure to hazards on the NIIENM Safety Portal.
An eAirs record is made by a Station Officer for every incident that FRNSW attends and includes information about the attending personnel, station and zone. It does not necessarily refer to the chemicals, hazardous materials or other agents that were on site at an incident.
The FBEU contends for a new obligation in both Awards that would oblige FRNSW to create a new register of employees' exposure to any hazardous material, chemical or other hazards, along with a right of an employee to obtain a document listing every call they have attended, and any available record of any hazardous material, chemical or other hazard that they may have been exposed to.
The Secretary contended that the existing registers, in particular the eAirs and NIIENM forms, already store the relevant information and there was no need to create a new register. The Secretary further submitted that the recording of incidents was not a matter that needed to be regulated by the Awards, contending it was an operational matter and not a term or condition of employment.
The Secretary also identified privacy concerns, to the extent that the clause sought to create a register of incidents affecting firefighters that might be accessible by other firefighters. It noted that section 14 of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW) and clause 7 of Schedule 1 of the Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002 (NSW) already require a public sector agency like FRNSW which holds personal health information about an individual to provide that information to that individual upon request.
The FBEU in closing submissions identified this clause as one that could be placed into a leave reserved clause, noting that the "primary objection is to do with minor matters of practicability which may be able to be resolved by discussions". The FBEU contended that the issue was nevertheless "critical" and should return to the Commission if discussions did not quickly reach agreement.
The FBEU further contended that FRNSW ought to adopt best practices for information recording. It submitted that the current method of information collection and storage was inadequate, as information was currently stored across two systems, wherein the NIIENM's data collection relied on voluntary self-reporting, and eAirs did not mandate that data about hazardous materials or chemicals be collected. Overall, currently data is not collected for the number of times firefighters or appliances attend an incident or what sort of incident it is. The FBEU submitted that the current legislative and health investigative mechanisms set out in Schedule 4 of the Workers Compensation Act adopt "years of service" as a measure for an employee's exposure to hazardous materials and chemicals and assumes that a firefighter will have greater exposure to toxic chemicals over time, when that is not necessarily the case. The exposure levels will also be affected by the number and nature of incidents, such that firefighters in some areas will have much greater exposure than others.
As already noted, we are not inclined to place matters in a leave reserved clause.
The Secretary contended that this matter did not need to be addressed in the Award and could be resolved outside of it.
It would be a matter of real concern if FRNSW was not maintaining an adequate record of every incident where a firefighter was exposed to a hazard, for its own operational and planning purposes and to meet its WHS obligations.
We accept that while this is an operational matter for FRNSW, it is a matter that goes to ensuring health and safety and is therefore something which this Commission would address if it were satisfied that FRNSW was not adequately addressing it.
The material before us does not allow us to conclude that we need to take that step at this time.
The parties ought to have discussions about this, including whether changes to the existing systems ought to be made to ensure that incidents are routinely recorded in a way that allows FRNSW and individual firefighters to know how often each firefighter has attended an incident which may have exposed them to a risk to their long-term health and safety.
FRNSW says that this occurs now. That may well be the case.
In short, the FBEU have not established a case for a new award obligation. However, there is no reason why the parties should not continue to discuss this subject, including through the JCC, to identify how existing systems can be improved. If those discussions are not fruitful this is a claim that can be reagitated, with any change to take effect after the end of the Award's nominal term.

[427]

The FBEU proposed a new clause for both Awards which would oblige FRNSW to either provide gym facilities at all work locations and premises with a list of mandated equipment, or, at premises which do not have those facilities, to reimburse employees based at those premises for the cost of a gym membership, on top of a sports voucher valued at $250 yearly to purchase sports equipment and clothing. The clauses would further entitle permanent employees with a minimum of an hour whilst on duty during each shift in which they may use the gym or exercise and retained employees with two hours of authorised duties per week for that purpose. The FBEU sought for this claim to be placed in a leave reserved clause.
It is no coincidence that firefighters feature in the public imagination as strong and fit - indeed notoriously as calendar models. They need to be strong and fit to do their job, which requires them to be able to don heavy equipment, including air tanks and fireproof PPE; work inside buildings where there is extreme heat to locate and carry unconscious persons; lift and use heavy handheld battery operated hydraulic equipment to effect RCR work; climb and abseil; crawl into spaces in collapsed buildings; or carry people in floodwaters. In those circumstances it is unsurprising that firefighters need to maintain a level of personal fitness.
Nonetheless, it does not follow that the Awards ought to contain a provision of the type sought.
We note that the evidence was that most permanent firefighter stations have some level of gym equipment and retained firefighters will commonly be members of gyms at their own cost.
As the Secretary rightly points out, no award for similar vocations which require employees to maintain their physical fitness has an equivalent entitlement. Although FRNSW does provide resources to firefighters to keep fit, it will not be possible for it to provide the mandatory equipment currently set out in the proposed new clauses, due to insufficient physical space, nor is the provision of that gym equipment the only way for firefighters to exercise. Finally, operational requirements may mean that it is not practicable for firefighters to be able to exercise during their shift.
While no doubt firefighters would appreciate the level of equipment that the clause would require, it is doubtful that they would want to give up an increase in pay to fund it. The clause does not have appropriate regard for the cost, quite apart from the fact that at many stations it would not be practicable to install such equipment.
We reject the claim.

[433]

The FBEU proposed new clauses pursuant to which FRNSW would reimburse employees appointed to an Instructor and/or Training Staff role, a role in Fire Investigation, or a role in Fire Safety, for tolls during all work-related travel. FRNSW would also be obliged to reimburse employees in an Instructor and/or Training Staff role for tolls during all travel to and from the Emergency Services Academy at Orchard Hills in Sydney.
The FBEU submitted that employees were broadly unable to avoid tolls during their work-related travel, and that it was accordingly fair and reasonable for employees to be reimbursed for the toll costs they incur to perform their role.
In closing the FBEU sought to place each of these claims in a leave reserved clause.
We accept the evidence that those firefighters who are required to work at the training facility at Orchard Hills will almost inevitably have to drive there and pay tolls to do so.
Toll roads are part of the nature of our transport system. While they come with a cost, they also enable those who use them to get to the destination more quickly than before they were built, and there are associated cost savings. Indeed, Station Officer Lucas Garden gave evidence under cross-examination that it was not only impractical but in fact sometimes more expensive to use public transport to travel to the Emergency Services Academy than to pay tolls.
We can accept in principle that firefighters who work at the Emergency Services Academy are aggrieved that they have to bear a cost to do so, since firefighters who work at other locations do not.
That is not a justification, however, to impose on the employer an obligation to reimburse the travel costs to get to work. Were we to accept that proposition, there would be no reason to stop at tolls - all costs associated with travel to one's usual place of work would have to be compensated.
As the Secretary notes, those who decide to take a role at Orchard Hills know when they do so that it comes with travel costs, as is the case with any role. We reject the proposition that there ought to be an award obligation to reimburse those costs, or any part of them, to travel to the usual place of work.
It is noted that in respect of Fire Investigation this proposal was put forward as part of a "suite of changes to better recognise these specialist groups of employees within FRNSW and address current staff shortages". There was no evidence before us of staff shortages, nor evidence that would satisfy us that the introduction of a significant new right to reimbursement of tolls would affect recruitment and retention. If there was in fact a case to improve conditions for certain specialist groups, there would be better ways to address such an issue.
We reject these claims.

[469]

(1) The parties are to have discussions with a view to providing us with draft Awards that reflect our decision by 4pm on 4 September 2025.

(2) To the extent that any revised clauses are not agreed upon, the parties are to file a document by 4pm on 4 September 2025 setting out their competing draft clauses that: (a) reflect our decision; and (b) address the issues listed in Order 3.

(3) These proceedings will be listed before Commissioner McDonald on 11 September 2025 at 10:00am for further directions and conciliation, including as to the following matters to the extent they have not by that time been resolved by agreement:

(a) the text and quanta of the accommodation and deployment allowances for firefighters who are sent on intrastate, interstate and international deployments;

(b) how firefighters who have Hazmat and Major/Minor Aerial skills and are employed in positions where it is expected that they will from time to time be required to utilise that skill are to be appropriately remunerated;

(c) how firefighters who are not full-time pilots are to be appropriately remunerated if they are requested to obtain skills to operate RPAS and on each occasion they are required to operate RPAS;

(d) as to the terms of the award clauses necessary to reflect our conclusion that allowances ought to be introduced for retained firefighters who hold additional rescue competencies, along with the quantum of new allowances; and

(e) whether anything beyond the insertion of the words "and practicable" after "reasonably available" in clause 20.7 of the Permanent Award is required to ensure that firefighters are reimbursed whenever they need to use their private vehicle because public transport, while technically available, is impracticable and if there is any other textual amendment to assist to reduce disputation as to the circumstances in which the entitlement arises.

(4) Commissioner McDonald will provide a report to the Full Bench following conciliation, identifying what has been agreed and what remains to be determined by the Full Bench.

(5) The hearing of the applications for the Crown Employees (Fire and Rescue NSW Firefighting Death and Disability Award) 2024 is adjourned to allow further conciliation before Commissioner McDonald on 11 September 2025 at 10:00am.

[525]

FRNSW is the designated combat agency for major structural collapse or similar emergencies where a Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) activity or response is required.
There are two categories of USAR technicians: USAR Category 1 and USAR Category 2.
USAR Category 1 as defined in the State Rescue Policy refers to the capability required to provide safe and effective rescue support to a USAR incident as a member of a first responder rescue team. It involves assisting with the rescue and removing surface (lightly trapped) casualties or deceased victims, applying basic search techniques such as carrying out limited debris removal and following safe work practices.
The types of incidents that may require the skills and knowledge of a USAR Category 2 technician working as a member of a USAR task force include earthquake, terrorist incident, aircraft crash, disaster or major structural collapse.
The USAR Rescue Technician (Category 2) training program is conducted over four weeks and culminates in a major exercise during the final week which includes a skills test which tests agility, abseiling, meeting dexterity attributes and working in confined spaces. The program focuses on the disciplines and skills necessary for USAR work such as preparing and planning to respond to USAR incidents, mobilising as part of a task force, assessing and work within USAR incidents, determining location and condition of casualties, gaining access to casualties, removing casualties, and demobilising as part of a USAR team. To be eligible to complete this training, firefighters must hold a GLR qualification or be Hazardous Materials technicians.
In addition to the initial training, USAR Operators are required to maintain their competence through ongoing skills maintenance as required.
USAR technicians are expected to make themselves available to deploy anywhere in the world to assist in a disaster if called upon.
USAR incidents are registered by FRNSW against the criteria of a rescue that are performed, and FRNSW does not record individual USAR incidents.

Fire Brigade Employees' Union v Industrial Relations Secretary

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (603 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (12)

Cases Cited (6)

Cited By (3)