Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 20 January 2006 10:09:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Philip Roberts
Can a LA mandate staff to become Fire Evacuation Wardens who will be required to search and clear unfamiliar areas or should these positions be voluntary.
There has been no training offered and no change of contract or job descriptions just a bold statement that this is now part of the job.

your thoughts would be appreciated

Phil Roberts
Admin  
#2 Posted : 20 January 2006 10:23:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By David A Jones
I don't think you can insist on general employees becoming fire wardens, unless it is included in their job descriptions - which may need a contractuial change to be agreed. Arguably you could place the duties on managers as they have a responsibility to manage all H&S issues. However, volunteers are by far the best solution as they are more bought into the process. Many companys offer an incentive (small payment) for such volunteers to recognise their efforts.

In short employers have a responsibility to manage fire issues and the provision, or not, of fire wardens falls into this. Employees, unless contractually obliged, do not have to be fire wardens.
Admin  
#3 Posted : 20 January 2006 10:28:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Paul Leadbetter
As this matter concerns employee health and safety, shouldn't the staff have been consulted rather than the change being imposed?

Paul
Admin  
#4 Posted : 20 January 2006 10:59:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Andrew Veale
Fire Wardens (if required) should be "competent persons". If the employer
requires employees to assist him/her to fulfill his/her obligations under
the act then training must be provided. Morale wise it is better to have
volunteers. Terms of reference can be changed with consent of both
parties.
Admin  
#5 Posted : 20 January 2006 12:05:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Mark Talbot
Yes, terms of employment can be changed with due notice, and provided there is training provided and a safe system of work established, it would be lawful.

However, no-one should begin the duties until such training is completed. The training would have to be provided by a suitably competent person, and the results of the training measured to ensure that it was suitable and effective.

There is no requirement for it to be rewarded beyond salary, but I agree it is a great incentive.

One volunteer is usually worth ten pressed people, but that is not my experience in this case. It seems quite similar in terms of effectiveness and compliance (as volunteers are often from the same pool of people that are pressed).
Admin  
#6 Posted : 20 January 2006 12:42:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Alan Murphy
Firstly I feel, and my local fire authority agrees with the new fire reforms coming in sometime this year it will be even harder to get people to become wardens when they see the responsibilities it will bring.

So to the next question payment, a Director once said to me with responsibility comes pay. These wardens will certainly have that responsibility.

Alan
Admin  
#7 Posted : 20 January 2006 13:21:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By DJ
Mark,

On a point of law, one party cannot unilaterally change the conditions of a contract. Any change would require the agreement of both parties.

I agree however, that case law supports an employer effectively dismissing and employee and re-engaging them under different terms. Nevertheless, there is always the risk that the employee can argue the dismissal was unfair.

On the wider point of Fire Wardens, no employee (with a few exceptions) is required to put their own health and safety at risk. Therefore any attempt to 'force' employees to undertake Fire Wardens duties, which puts them at risk, could result in them seeking recourse at law.

Regards.

DJ
Admin  
#8 Posted : 20 January 2006 13:23:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Paul Leadbetter
Never mind contracts, what about the Consultation with Employees Regs?

Paul
Admin  
#9 Posted : 20 January 2006 13:53:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Philip Roberts
Thanks to all the responses so far most of which reflect my own views. Can anyone recommend a plan of action for those employees who do not wish to become Fire Wardens, some but not all of them are union members.
I am asking the questions on behalf of a friend who has been put in this position by their LA employer.

regards
Phil Roberts
Admin  
#10 Posted : 20 January 2006 15:17:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Frank Hallett
The majority of earlier responses have given a consistant line on the issues Philip.

My advice would be to go back to the HR Dept and get them to sort it out - it is really an HR issue at this stage rather than a fire safety issue as the HR Dept should not have let it come to this.

The undesirability of imposing undesired duties and functions with [apparently] no effective consultation or consequent reward is a clear recipe for a total breakdown of trust and therefore co-operation between the employers representatives and the main body of employees - in fact, it's downright stupid.

Once the contractual and consultation issues have been addressed to the satisfaction of the majority; you must now recognise that the need to consider the requirements for capabilities and training must be addressed. And, it won't matter how hard you beat someone with a contract, they will only do what they can't avoid if that's how they feel. This means that installing someone as a Fire Warden who doesn't want to do it could well create bigger problems of group confidence that adopting an alternative strategy.

A Fire Warden, by the nature of their functions, is not normally directly supervised for the fulfilling of those functions - so, how does the employer ensure that they do the job to the standard required? I can just see the headlines spinning out of the more hysterical papers!

The old adage that you can lead a horse to water but can't make it drink is very relevant here.

Frank Hallett
Admin  
#11 Posted : 23 January 2006 14:17:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Martin J Morley
Previous replies have addressed the issues surrounding the appointment and the need for training of Fire Wardens.

I am worried though (and any trainers will surely also be) by your suggestion of "Fire Evacuation Wardens who will be required to search and clear unfamiliar areas"

This is not generally a function of Fire Wardens. Whilst it is nice to be able to assure the Fire Service that the building is clear, if necessary they will proceed without that assurance.

regards
martin

Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.