FOURTEEN FIRE officers have been removed from the payroll by Roscommon County Council in a dispute which some firefighters maintain could lead to a national firefighters’ strike.
Roscommon County Council yesterday said it had no option but to dispense with the services of 14 firefighters out of the complement of 57, after the 14 refused to go on a refresher breathing apparatus training course.
The council said it would like to reassure the public that despite the reduced numbers, each fire brigade in the county was fully operational. It added it had sought the assistance of the Labour Relations Commission in resolving the issue.
At the centre of the dispute is the introduction of an assessment system, which evaluates the participation of fire officers in the breathing apparatus refresher course. John Kidd, general secretary of the Irish Fire and Emergency Services Association, which claims to represent 24 of the 57 fire officers in Roscommon, said the assessment had been introduced without any consultation and could see members of long standing being removed from the service.
Labour Senator John Kelly, a former member of Roscommon County Council, said the fear among firefighters was that the assessment could be used to “settle some long-running human resources issues”.
Mr Kelly, who will seek to raise the issue in the Seanad today, said he believed four out of 11 officers in a neighbouring county had already been told they had failed the assessment and were due to be dismissed.
Mr Kelly said these were “officers of long standing with 10 years of service” who would be much more experienced fighting fires than those imposing the assessment.
He would use his Seanad time to call on Minister for Environment Phil Hogan to intervene to help resolve the dispute.
A statement issued on behalf of the Roscommon firefighters said they each received a letter “with the sacking notice attached”.
The firefighters said they objected to “this kind of bully tactics being used by Roscommon Fire Authority” but were not at all surprised by them.
They wanted to emphasise they had “never refused outright to do any course of training and that this continues to be the case. However course detail and assessments have been changed without correct consultation and agreement in this case.”
