“During the letters of legislation, we asked the government and officials of the Ministry of Insurance that this bill would not affect industrial agreements and conditions for professional firefighters. During this debate, we continue to ask the minister for these assurances. That is why it is important that we recognize that in order to integrate the fire brigades, so that they can be an effective and homogeneous force, we must encourage and encourage volunteers, but also recognize the fundamental rights, responsibilities and aspirations of firefighters. Start with our search for documents and try to search for full-text chords. Second, it is difficult, if not impossible, to see how the agreement does not change the role of volunteers. While the CFA and volunteer firefighters move the issue forward clearly and make their position clear and public, the UFU is relatively calm. UFU officials have been quoted in the press (z.B. `Victoria`s CFA, union Enterprise Bargaining Agreement dispute explained`, ABC News (Online) 8 June 2016), but there is very little on the UFU website to refute arguments that the proposed agreement represents a radical change in the CFA and the role of volunteers. Second, this clause states that “the parties have given priority to the health and safety of the worker covered by this agreement… Since the volunteers are not parties to the agreement, I would like to conclude that this clause should be understood as “the parties have agreed to prioritize the health and safety of employees over other concerns,” and not because “the parties have agreed to prioritize the health and safety of employees over others. , like volunteers,” but it is ambiguous and the clause may well see that the health and safety of paid firefighters is treated differently from volunteers.

Under this clause, volunteers may be equipped with clothing, equipment, etc., which paid staff would not approve. If, in turn, Victoria had passed the Model Work Health and Safety Act 2011, this would be problematic, since any obligation due to a “worker” is due, whether that worker is paid or voluntary. In Victoria, the Occupational Health and Safety Act deals with “workers” and “employers,” so this clause is authorized, but could result in different uniforms and equipment. No, I don`t see that the 6F itself is contradictory, but even if it does, it says what it says. As for the analysis of “7 on the fireground” from an “abstract legal perspective”, that is indeed my role. I regret the absence of “important operational considerations.” My conclusion is that the proposed EB, at least the clauses I have discussed, are not compatible with the CFA Act and, to the extent that they require an agreement with the UFU rather than advising it that the agreement confers on the UFU “unprecedented powers”, or at least much more powers than those expected by the Occupational Safety and Health Act.