The United Firefighters Union (the UFU) asked the Fair Work Commission the intervene in a dispute with Fire Rescue Victoria (FRV) over the amount of the allowance that should be paid to firefighters who are part of FRV’s emergency medical response (EMR).   There is a currently an allowance of $2.65 per hour paid to firefighters to reflect the extra duties that come with the EMR.   The UFU argued that the allowance should be increased to $7.95 per hour to reflect both the changing nature of the EMR duties and the number of EMR callouts (see United Firefighters’ Union of Australia v Fire Rescue Victoria [2025] FWC 1297, [1]-[2]).

The UFU argued ([13)] that  there had been no reassessment of the work related to the EMR or the allowance paid since 1998; the allowance had only be increased with general increases and not as a reflect to the changing work.  They led evidence to show ([16]):

… that in 1994/95, some 246 emergency medical calls had been attended by firefighters. The evidence of Samuel Watterson, FRV’s acting commander of emergency medical response, was that as of 17 February 2025, ‘Firecom’, FRV’s central communications system, had recorded 9,731 EMR calls across FRV in the past 12 months. This was the number of times that a FRV crew had been dispatched to an EMR event, but for various reasons, the real incidence of the performance of EMR duties was likely to be higher, as some FRV responses to Priority 0 events are not recorded in Firecom, and EMR duties might be performed at road accidents despite not being coded as EMR calls.

They also led evidence to show that the type of events that firefighters were dispatched to had also changed.  Firefighters had always been dispatched to calls with the highest risk of out of hospital cardiac arrest but (at [18]):

… on 30 June 2023, there was a change to the Priority 0 calls to which FRV employees were required to respond. The change coincided with Ambulance Victoria (AV) upgrading its software. Some event types were removed from FRV’s Priority 0 responses, including various choking, drowning and electrocution events, but other event types were added, including: animal bites and attacks – arrest (i.e. cardiac arrest); drowning / diving – arrest; falls – arrest; falls – arrest (suicide attempt); haemorrhage / lacerations – arrest; stab/gunshot – arrest; traffic / transport incident – arrest; traumatic injuries – arrest. The evidence demonstrated that the new event codes were those most likely to involve an out of hospital cardiac arrest, and that the event codes that were removed were those least likely to involve an out of hospital cardiac arrest.

The value of the work had also increased with firefighters having to undertake more extensive training and the use of more equipment.  Firefighters were also remaining on scene longer to assist Ambulance Victoria and to help deal with ‘the family and loved ones of patients or deceased, which required the use of ‘soft skills’ to provide emotional support and to obtain essential information for the treatment of patients’ ([21]).   At [22]:

The UFU submitted that the evidence showed that the exposure of firefighters to trauma and death, and to grieving relatives, had a cumulative adverse psychological impact, and that research had shown this to increase risks to mental health, including of PTSD, depression and sleep difficulties. On the other hand, the benefits to the community of the EMR work was significant, especially since the expansion of the EMR program after 30 June 2023. The demands of EMR work were now greater and had a bigger personal impact on firefighters. The UFU said that the FRV EMR program played an important part in Victoria having one of the highest survival rates in the world for cardiac arrests that occur outside of hospitals.

The legal issue was whether the Fire Rescue Victoria Operational Employees Interim Enterprise Agreement 2020 (‘the Agreement’) allowed the Commission to determine the matter.  According to the UFU ‘the Commission is empowered by clauses 85.3 of Division A and 92.3 of Division B to determine unresolved claims for increases to allowances’ ([2]).  According to FRV, on the other hand (at [3]):

… clauses 85.3 of Division A and 92.3 of Division B are general provisions relating to the determination of disputes about claims for new or increased allowances and that they do not apply to the EMR allowance which has its own specific adjustment mechanism that is found in clause 132.6 of Division A and clause 142.6 of Division B. These provisions state that the operation of the EMR clauses can only be varied by agreement of the parties in writing. FRV submits that the Commission is not authorised by the 2020 Agreement to arbitrate the dispute, because it would be contrary to these express terms.

Further, argued the FRV, the Commission should not involve itself in the dispute as (at [3]):

… the parties are preparing for an intractable bargaining workplace determination (IBWD) before a Full Bench of the Commission in which the quantum of the EMR allowance is a matter at issue between the parties, and it is appropriate that any increase to the EMR allowance be considered holistically in the context of all of the disputed terms and conditions of employment that are before the Full Bench.

Finally, argued FRV ‘as a matter of merit, the proposed increase should not be granted because the gradual changes to the EMR duties over time do not justify a threefold increase’ in the hourly allowance ([3]).

Outcome

Deputy President Colman agreed with FRV that he did not have jurisdiction to determine the matter.  Although there is a general power in the agreement to arbitrate disputes over allowance these general provisions could not override specific provisions relating to the EMR allowance that had to be resolved by agreement ‘if the EMR duties expand beyond 6000 calls annually, or if they expand beyond Priority 0 calls as defined’ ([36]; [46]).

Even if he had jurisdiction he would have declined to exercise it. He said (at [47]):

… it is more appropriate that the UFU’s claim be decided by the Full Bench in the IBWD proceedings. The EMR allowance is just one of various conditions of employment that are the subject of a broader dispute in that matter. It is preferable for the question of whether to award an increase to the EMR allowance, and if so by how much, to be determined in the context of the other claims that are at issue between the parties in the IBWD proceedings. There is merit in FRV’s submission that these claims should be considered and determined holistically.

In the circumstances the Deputy President made no decisions on the merits of the UFU’s claim.

Conclusion

The matter of the allowance to be paid to firefighters who are part of the EMR program will be considered by the Full Bench of the Commission in the matter listed for hearing on 22 September 2025. The Deputy President said (at [47]):

The role of firefighters in undertaking EMR duties would appear to be relevant to the assessment of their work as a whole and how this work should appropriately be remunerated in wages. It may be relevant to consider arguments about the intensification of EMR work in the context of employees’ overall duties, including the incidence and intensity of the other components of their job. In my assessment it is appropriate that the UFU’s claim for an increase to the EMR allowance be considered and determined by the Full Bench together with the other conditions of employment that are at issue in that matter.

This blog is made possible with generous financial support from (in alphabetical order) the Australasian College of Paramedicine, the Australian Paramedics Association (NSW), the Australian Paramedics Association (Qld), Natural Hazards Research Australia, NSW Rural Fire Service Association and the NSW SES Volunteers Association. I am responsible for the content in this post including any errors or omissions. Any opinions expressed are mine, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or understanding of the donors.

This blog is a general discussion of legal principles only.  It is not legal advice. Do not rely on the information here to make decisions regarding your legal position or to make decisions that affect your legal rights or responsibilities. For advice on your particular circumstances always consult an admitted legal practitioner in your state or territory.