The FBU is currently balloting members over pensions.
We expect a bit of a war of words at such a time. The governments(s) have started responding. So have various Chief Officers and other principal managers. One theme of these responses is that the FBU is overstating the case on capability.
There is no real threat of mass dismissals. There is nothing to worry about. Everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
In the London Fire Brigade the head of Human Resources, James Dalgleish, has posted some comments to this affect on the blog of the Commissioner, Ron Dobson. Mr Dalgleish says, among other things,
“No one knows what will happen in nine years time, but management don’t expect to see sudden increases in capability dismissals and there is no evidence to suggest that that will be the case.” (26 July)
So let’s look at this a little more closely. Is it true that there is no such evidence?
They’ve got form for it
Mr Dalgleish is trying to suggest that: The London Fire Brigade, like other fire services, is a caring employer. They would not put employees in such a position, would they? Well they have already tried it – but want us all to forget the harsh reality.
The London Fire Brigade infamously stopped the pensions of three London firefighters in 2007. The three firefighters had already been retired (by decision of the LFB) but the government then changed the rules for ill-health retirements.
The London Fire Brigade stopped the three pensions, on the basis that the three no longer qualified for an ill-health pension. But the LFB also refused to re-employ the three, saying that they were no jobs for them. They were placed in the position of having NO JOB and NO PENSION.
What brought this to an end? Did the Commissioner step and say it was unfair? Did government take urgent action to address this injustice? Did the London HR department (led by a certain Mr. James Dalgleish) see the error of their ways and reinstate the pensions? No, none of these things happened.
Instead, the FBU had to fight a long campaign, politically and legally until we eventually won an appeal in court (after initially losing the case). The pensions were restored. No thanks whatsoever to LFEPA. No thanks to the commissioner. No thanks to Mr. Dalgleish. No, the pensions were restored purely as a result of legal action taken on behalf of FBU members by – the FBU.
They wouldn’t put people in the position of No Job and No Pension would they? Pull the other one, James.
The employers warned that capability dismissals would rise if the pension changes were made
We also find that they are not being entirely straight about the long running discussions on pensions. These have included tripartite meetings between the FBU, CLG officials and representatives of the fire and rescue service employers.
During the course of these, the FBU argued that the increase in pension age would lead to a consequential increase in ill-health retirements. As people got older, they would be unable to carry out their role and more would need to be retired on health grounds.
Oh no, said the employers. This would not be the most likely outcome. If fitness declined, that would not constitute the basis for retirement since declining fitness should not be classified as ill-health. Such people would not meet the requirements of the pension scheme and would not be entitled to a pension. No, anybody so affected would be more likely to face dismissal under capability and we would be likely to see a significant increase in such dismissals as a result of the changes.
Let us be absolutely clear here.
It was the fire and rescue service employers’ representatives who first stated, very clearly, that the increase in normal pension age to 60 would lead to an increase in capability dismissals in the fire and rescue service. To claim otherwise now is…. well you can make your own mind up about that.
And which fire service provided the lead advisor for the employers throughout these discussions? We’ll leave you to guess.
