FIRE BRIGADE AWARD

Grey River Argus, 27 May 1938, Page 12

FIRE BRIGADE AWARD

further argument By Fire Board Chairman [Per Press Association.] CHRISTCHURCH, May 26. “Six firemen on leave who were sleeping at the Christchurch Fire Brigade’s headquarters on Monday morning failed to answer the sounding of the general alarm for the fire in Colombo Street,” said Mr T. .M. Charters, chairman of the Christchurch Fire Board, when he issued a reply to the criticism of his contention that the award provisions prevented the calling out of men on leave for duty. Of the staff of 67, 19 brigadesmen and one volunteer from holiday leave attended the fire, said Mr Charters, and in actual fact the number on duty was sufficient. The question was whether, under the existing conditions, more men would have been available in the event of the spread of the fire towards Armagh Street. “The object of my remarks to “The Press” on the subject of the award is being achieved, the Board’s chairman said. “My first remarks were made advisedly after consultation with members of the Fire Board, because it was felt that the demands at present being made throughout New Zealand by fire brigadesmen ’s unions should be ventilated and resisted to the fullest extent possible." In “The Press” on Wednesday the union appeared to be endeavouring to make one believe that the award under which the men were now working was similar to the award made in March, 1935, in regard to the holiday provisions, said Mr Charters. That award provided that senior firemen received 21 days’ leave on full pay out of every 286 days, plus one day’s leave in every five days. The new award provided that every fireman shall receive 56 days’ leave on full pay out of every 365 days,_ plus one day in every four days. “In my experience of fire board conItrol, I have found that the average fireman is a man of a very good type. Unfortunately, excessive unionism is to-day tending to lead firemen to take an almost extortionate view on their rights ” The following was a case in ooint:—Two months ago, the Christchurch Fire Board negotiated with the Firemen's Union in an endeavour to arrange definite meal hours of one hour for each meal. That was lo enable the men to go away from the station to have their meals wherever they chose. The negotiations, which were conducted in the Conciliation Commissioners’ room broke down eventually through the Board receiving a written demand from the Firemen’s Union that, although the Board’s proposal was otherwise acceptable, it would be necessary for the Board to undertake that if any (delay in meal hours arose, the Board would pay each fireman so deleyad 15/-, and provide the fireman with a meal at the Board’s expense.

“Is it any wonder, in view of such a demand, that the superintendent would hesitate to call out to any out-break-men who are on leave, unless the award specifically stated that the superintendent had such right ? Thb superintendent has the right to withhold leave not already given but the award does not state that he has the authority to call back from leave any men actually on leave, even though they may be sleeping on the Board’s premises." Mr Charters said he was very interested to learn that tiie Auckland

brigade was subject to a “gentlemen’s agreement." If nothing else arose from the discussion but the adoption of such an agreement in Christchurch without' penalties, such as 5s for meal hours as desired by the union, his statements and those of the various opposing representatives of unions and others would not have been made in vain.

The actual staff position when the alarm was received, said Mr Charters, was that SO men were on holiday, one was on sick leave, and eight men were standing by at four stations. Nineteen men turned out to Mac Duff’s, plus one volunteer from holiday leave. Of the remaining 19 men on holiday leave, six were sleeping at headquarters, and one at Sydenham.

“The point is made tnat three men who ordinarily were to have taken their day’s leave on the day of the fire, voluntarily placed themselves under the orders of the superintendent”, said Mr Charters. “That definitely creates a wrong impression. The fact is that these three men were due to go on leave at 8 a.m., but, as they were at the fire at. that hour they could be asked naturally to carry on. Regarding Mr Glover’s statement that the men on leave at the station were not asked to fight the flames, I would point out that there was no response from these men to the general alarm, .which was sounded throughout the station. There is no time to run round the station to find out who is lhere. If there is no response, it must oe assumed that no men are there. No penalty i< provided for not icsponding. This is clearly indicated by the Auckland superintendent's statement; otherwise, why should that only a srr.a'l number of those offering their services wore accepted, and II at the ethers wete t >'d lo ’stand

by' for orders, whico never came As six men who have since been, found to have slept on the station did not respond to the general alarm, it is apparent that they could not have received orders of any kind. Whether the staff is or is not adequate to handle efficiently any potential out-, break in the city, will be largely governed by thd number of men left on the stations, if and when further increased leave allowances are granted. I should like to assure Mr Glover that I bow not even to film in my appreciation of the work of the firefighters of this Dominion. Any other interpretation of my remarks would be grossly unfair and entirely misleading.”

LLOYD’S MANAGER’S CRITICISM. CHRISTCHURCH, May 26. The request tor a public inquiry into the tire fighting methods at Christchurch was strongly supported by the mangaer of the local branch of Lloyds’ Insurance Company, Mr W. B. Honour, to-day. He said that questions regarding the tactics employed by the brigade

in combating the fire which caused extensive damage at Mac Duff’s building and the State Theatre on Monday, had been answered by .Superintendent A. Morrison, to th& full satisfaction of his company,-, but the question did not end there. Although Superintendent Morrison had given satisfactory answers, it was now clear factors over which he had no control contributed largely to the destruction of the buildings. At this point it was for the public authorities to step in and hold an investigation. .The possibility was that some serious structural faults would be shown, and that these were the basic cause of the spread of the fire. “In the interest of public safety the incidehce of two strenuous fires with in a few days of each other, and the presence of factors that made the work of the brigade ineffectual t;> prevent heavy losses, a public inquiry into all aspects of fire fighting in the city is warranted,” said Mr Honour. He added that his company was not looking on the question from the com mercial standpoint, but thought that a lead should be given to public opin ion. Any question of the inquiry would have no bearing on the settlement of the claims. These were being dealt with as speedily as possible. Mr Honour added that while this chairman of the Fire Board (Mr 1 M. Charters) appeared to be mainly concerned with combating award conditions that he considered likely to affect the efficiency of the brigade, this was not the main issue in Mi Honour’s opinion. He wanted to cor rect any impression that might have been drawn from the remarks he made yesterday, that Mr Charters was attempting to avoid discussion of the main issue. What he had wished to imply was that if the inquiry were confined to the operation of the award, other important questions would not receive attention. In add! lion to the examination of the conditions prescribed in the award, the scope of investigation should be wid ened so that it could deal with the trength of the brigade, condition of the equipment, the equipment itself and the question of enrolling and (raining auxiliary firemen for service in cases of emergency. The inquiry should also be comprehensive enough to deal with building by-laws which seemed to require revision.