Pay, terms and conditions workstreams

_______________________________________________________________

To:      Chief Fire Officers

            Chief Executives/Clerks to Fire Authorities

            Chairs of Fire Authorities

            Directors of HR (Fire Authorities)

            Members of the National Joint Council

_______________________________________________________________

20 February 2015

CIRCULAR NJC/04/15

Dear Sir/Madam,

Pay, terms and conditions workstreams

1. Authorities will already be aware of the existing joint commitment within the NJC:

“Both Sides commit to work jointly on changes identified by each Side to ensure that there is a pay framework alongside terms and conditions in the fire and rescue service which reflect the responsibilities of, and current and future demands on, the service and the profession.”

2. Both sides of the NJC also recognise this would include:

•        “the increasing need to consider how the workforce's skills and commitment can best be utilised, including the type of activities undertaken, any additional functions that may be required and the implications of this for the nationally agreed rolemaps”

•        “the potential to build upon, and expand, this piece of work to encompass a more wide-ranging and strategic look to the future. Consideration will include issues covered in the independent review - Facing the Future – which was commissioned by DCLG, as well as matters of interest to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.”

3.       This matter has been considered at a number of joint lead members’ meetings and meetings of the Joint Secretariat. A survey of fire authorities has also been undertaken to inform those discussions.

4.       NJC members agreed to put in place a number of work streams. Circular NJC/6/14 set out the terms of reference, structure and process for this work.

Current position

5.       Each side of the NJC has appointed three representatives and in some cases a number of advisers per workstream, with technical expertise in the particular fields and their composition is detailed below.

7.       All the workstreams have now met at least once. In accordance with the NJC commitment, each workstream discussed how the service may look in 5-10 years’ time and how uniformed fire service employees could potentially broaden the scope of work currently undertaken to deliver that.   

8.       At the outset of each respective workstream meeting, representatives acknowledged the need to be able to have open, frank and confidential discussions in order to best be able to explore and progress this work.  Moreover, the final outputs produced by the workstreams will be used to inform the respective sides of the NJC in order for both sides to consider which issues each of them wish to seek to have progressed. Each side will use its own internal mechanisms in deciding on their position on such matters.

9.       A number of workstreams identified that there was likely cross-over between some of the work streams (eg Emergency Medical and Multi Agency) and that in the early stages this potential should be noted and not be allowed to complicate the discussions.

10.     Each work stream recently provided an update report on their first meetings for consideration by NJC joint lead members and then the full NJC, which identified that in each case the discussion had been very constructive. A wide spectrum of issues had been explored, and monthly dates set forward to May to progress the work.

(a)   Environmental Challenges – considered the type of information available on the current national position, e.g. on flood response, and what else  the service could do to diversify, support local communities and national resilience, and future direction for the group in order to take that forward.

(b) Emergency Medical Response - discussed the breadth of potential emergency medical response, in particular but not exclusively co-responding, and issues around training, insurance, and liability exploring perceived or actual barriers and obstacles in order to take this work forward. The group also began to explore what other work areas could potentially be introduced.  

(c) Multi-Agency Response - discussed the breadth of potential multi-agency response, in particular but not exclusively Marauding Terrorist Firearms Attack (MTFA), exploring potential training, insurance and liability issues in the context of perceived or actual barriers and obstacles in order to take this work forward. The group also began to explore other potential work areas involving other agencies. 

(d) Youth and Social Engagement - discussed the implications of FRS’s remaining relevant and future proof including exploration of different activities such as the role of a public health worker and how firefighters could potentially utilise community trust to deliver the best possible outcomes by engaging communities proactively and providing enhanced value to the community. The group felt that adult social care was also a key issue. The group also began to explore the potential for the fire service to be commissioned to carry out work by other organisationsgroups.

(e) Inspection and Enforcement - explored a number of issues including business continuity and the loss of businesses, through fire, to communities and the role FRS’s could play; employee fire safety knowledge and training; and potential new activities which could be undertaken by Fire Safety Officers and other uniformed employees.. 

Conclusion

11.     All workstreams have reported currently anticipating completion of their work by the end of May, setting monthly meeting dates in order to facilitate that.

12.     Joint lead members were pleased with the positive reports from each of the work streams and members of the NJC were content to accept their recommendation  of May for completion given the complexion of the detailed work which will need to take place and that a further report indicating progress in each group should be provided to the next meeting of the NJC.

13.     The next part of the process - meshing together of the outcomes, consideration of what it is appropriate to take forward at national level, local level or not at all - will then need to take place. As previously agreed, that process will take place initially through the Joint Secretariat, to be followed by discussion through joint lead members in the first instance, and then the full NJC. Middle Manager Negotiating Body views will be sought. Consideration will also be given to the viability of any potential funding streams identified by the respective work streams and whether they should be explored further.

14.     We understand that FRAs are keen to progress these issues. The information above will assure FRAs that work is in hand at national level.

Yours faithfully

SIMON PANNELL

MATT WRACK

Joint Secretaries