Genuine consultation of firefighters on decisions that affect their health and safety is frequently described as “veto”. That is simply incorrect. Seeing as the term is popping up in the media once again, with the continuation of negotiations around a new Enterprise Bargaining Agreement between firefighters and the Metropolitan Fire Brigade, it’s worth taking a look at this claim.
What does veto actually mean? The term is Latin for ‘I forbid’, and all of the dictionaries I have consulted (e.g. Cambridge, Merriam-Webster, Collins) speak of a right, power or authority to prevent or prohibit something. It does not mean the opportunity to raise an objection, or the opportunity to refer a matter for arbitration. It means if the holder of veto power says no, the answer is no.
The opponents of genuine consultation, along with many journalists and editors, frequently apply the label of veto to consultation clauses in firefighter EBAs. This is purely and simply incorrect. The 2010 MFB agreement, the 2016 proposed CFA agreement, and presumably the proposed 2018 MFB agreement, all stipulate that if consultation discussions do not result in agreement, the matter proceeds to external dispute resolution. The union does not have the authority to veto a management decision. Instead, the decision is handed to an external authority, such as the Fair Work Commission.
The fact that the word ‘veto’ is not applicable to the consultation clauses in question was confirmed by CFA Chief Officer Steve Warrington, in testimony to the Senate Inquiry into the Fair Work Amendment (Respect for Emergency Services Volunteers) Bill 2016:
Consultation with external dispute resolution is not veto. It’s genuine consultation. Without the stipulation to send disputes to external resolution, it’s not genuine. It would mean that managers are free to stare at the wall while firefighters express their concerns, then ignore them and proceed with decisions that endanger their health and safety.
Firefighters know first-hand what can happen when managers are able to dismiss the concerns of those who actually do the work, who face the consequences of risks and who are experts in the hazards involved. For example, in 2012 MFB deemed consultation unnecessary concerning their decision to send recruit trainees to the contaminated CFA training ground at Fiskville. The CEO emailed recruits — at their home email addresses — with an order to attend. It is only because of a heroic act of defiance by their instructors who refused to comply with the order — a chargeable offence under the MFB Act — that these recruits were not exposed to contaminants with a known potential to cause acute and chronic health problems.
The work of a firefighter is inherently risky: after all, the very reason we are called is to deal with uncontrolled hazards posing a significant threat to life or property. We know from experience that we cannot always trust senior managers to prioritise safety. That is why we seek legally binding commitments to consultation, with prescribed mechanisms to deal with disputes, that rest the ultimate decision-making power with independent third parties. That’s genuine consultation, not veto.
Those who employ the word ‘veto’ have one thing in common: they prioritise absolute managerial prerogative over the health and safety of those who devote their careers to helping the community deal with perilous situations.
The media’s go-to figure for commentary on that topic is former MFB Chief Officer Peter Rau. It was Rau’s prominent media commentary that CFA Chief Officer Steve Warrington was refuting in the document shown above (which received zero media coverage.)
Under the Napthine Government, while Rau was Chief Officer, the MFB applied to the Fair Work Commission to terminate the 2010 EBA, on the basis of its consultation clauses. Central to MFB’s case was the characterisation of consultation rights as an unworkable ‘veto’. The Fair Work Commission rejected this application, because it found that removing consultation provisions would unreasonably damage the workplace health and safety of firefighters:
As noted by the 2015 Fire Services Review, the MFB’s losing bid to terminate not only vital health and safety provisions but all conditions of employment of firefighters was a key driver in the development of an ‘almost uncrossable chasm’ between management and the workforce. The Review slammed the MFB’s actions as ‘unnecessary,’ ‘costly, lengthy and legally aggressive,’ and ‘clearly inflammatory and designed to portray firefighters in a poor light’. According to the Review, the action was part of an ‘industrial war’ with the workforce, conducted at the encouragement of the Liberal-National government, which had ‘deployed a deliberately ideological attack against the UFU.’
Media bias against firefighters was not curtailed by either the Fair Work Commission’s rejection of the MFB’s claims, or the Fire Service Review’s condemnation of MFB’s actions. In the wake of the FWC finding, The Age continued to employ the terminology of the losing side, including the misuse of the word ‘veto’. The evisceration delivered to the then-management of MFB (and CFA) by the Fire Services Review was ignored by the media.
To any reasonable observer, the credibility of the losing argument ought to have been destroyed by the decision made by the Fair Work Commission, on the basis of extensive evidence and deliberation. Instead, the losers continued to peddle the ‘veto’ argument to an enthusiastically receptive media.
Liberal staffer-turned-Herald Sun-’journalist’ James Campbell used the term in a March-6th, 2015 spray against the proposed CFA EBA, explicitly invoking the arguments of the MFB managers found to be incorrect by the Fair Work Commission. By March 17, 2016, Campbell was suggesting that Garrett agreed with the ‘veto’ characterisation, and all media outlets including the ABC and The Age were misusing the word ‘veto’ as if it was factual and undisputed.
In so-doing, they uncritically adopted the counterfactual propaganda of the opponents of firefighter safety, including the then-Board of CFA, Volunteer Fire Brigades Victoria and the Liberal Party.
The lie of ‘veto’ became a central plank in the anti-firefighter side of the CFA dispute, and now it’s popping up again in the context of a new MFB EBA. But here’s the thing:
It’s a lie.
Read a dictionary. Read the agreements. There is no veto.
Read the finding of the Fair Work Commission. Consultation is about safety.
Have I convinced you yet? No? Then try this: have some empathy.
Could you imagine being legally compelled to follow an order to undertake dangerous work, using substandard equipment and procedures? Don’t you think you should have a right to dispute the choice of equipment and procedures? Remember, you’re the expert. You do this work. You’re drawing on the collective experience and knowledge of 3000 professional colleagues. The people making the decision may or may not have that experience and knowledge, and they may or may not be beholden to priorities other than your safety. Remember this, too: you’re doing this dangerous work not just to provide for your family, but to protect the community.
Wouldn’t you think you deserve better?
