Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Tuesday, 2nd December 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register

Strike threat after firefighter is sacked for 'being fat'



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 03 July 2008
By Frank Urquhart
A VETERAN firefighter has been sacked after 22 years with the frontline emergency service because he is too fat, it was revealed yesterday.
His dismissal has sparked the threat of strike action by furious colleagues in the Grampian Fire and Rescue Service, who claim the overweight firefighter is a victim of unjust discrimination.

And last night Alan Paterson, the local secretary of th
e Fire Brigades Union (FBU), declared: "An attack on one of us is an attack on us all."

The firefighter is in his mid 40s and is stationed at the Central Fire Station in Aberdeen.

He was sacked after failing an annual fitness test, which meant he was incapable of carrying out his duties as a frontline firefighter. Mr Paterson said: "He is totally demoralised.

This firefighter has served 22 years in the brigade and they decide to terminate his contract because they deem him unfit for operational duties.

"Rather than redeploy him, as we have suggested, into an educational or inspection role, they have decided to take the easy way out and sack him on the grounds of incapability without any compensation or recompense. We deem that a sanction far too severe. This guy is only overweight. He is not a criminal."

The FBU has called a mass meeting of Grampian firefighters in Aberdeen on 15 July to discuss possible strike action.

A spokesman for the Grampian brigade confirmed that a firefighter had been dismissed from the service.

He explained: "The firefighter involved was provided with a lot of support and assistance over a considerable period of time."



The full article contains 270 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 02 July 2008 9:42 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Paula,

03/07/2008 00:45:35
The firefighter should not be allowed on duty if he (or any of his colleagues) are unfit.

However, as mentioned, surely there is a desk job somewhere that he could put his years of experience into? Seems a waste to sack him.
2

Matt there,

somewhere 03/07/2008 01:08:28
Or had he upset someone in a position of authority with a long memory?
3

Guga II,

Rockall 03/07/2008 01:32:51
I wonder how many members of the management are unfit and fat?
4

Uilleam Mor,

03/07/2008 02:16:57
Given the physical nature of being a firefighter it does not seem unreasonable to require a level of physical fitness.

To not do so would put the firefighter at risk, as well as that of his colleagues, and the people who may be relying on his performance.

What on earth are the Union on about when they cannot accept this. Choclate firemen are as good as chocolate fireguards, and we all know that.
5

The Batboy,

03/07/2008 09:12:00
Redeployment would seem to have been the right thing to do, then back to firefighting duties if he managed to lose the unhealthy weight.

I suspect the fireman was made an example of ... or has been suggested ... he annoyed someone in management.

#3 makes a very valid point too!
6

Horrible Cankers at the Cyber Shebeen,

03/07/2008 09:28:21
This is not acceptable...a man works to save the lives of others for 22 years and he is sacked for being overweight.....totally unacceptable...he should have been given the opportunity to lose weight and get fit again....what is this going to do to his moral?...he is a human being for crying out loud!

He is being treated like sh!t......
7

Miss Pixie,

formerly of Dinleyhaughfoot Cottage, Roxburghshire 03/07/2008 12:00:06
Firemen MUST be fit if for no other reason than their own safety!

I agree with the above comments about giving him a desk job, or some other form of work, that will put his experience as a firefighter to great use.
8

zeno,

www.thinkhumanism.com 03/07/2008 12:19:01
The headline does not match the story. According to the information given, he was not sacked for 'being fat', but "He was sacked after failing an annual fitness test, which meant he was incapable of carrying out his duties as a frontline firefighter".

Now, we may question whether the criteria for fitness are correct or not, but does anyone have such information? And if the test is appropriate to the job, why should anyone be employed to do a job that they are deemed not fit to do? This could be potentially dangerous to both him and his colleagues.

However, the right action by his employers might have been to work with him to help him regain his fitness, rather than waste his experience by sacking him or moving him to a different role.
9

Mr Jinx,

Glasgow 03/07/2008 14:24:04
re comment no. 3 - all personnel who are required to undertake firefighting duties as part of their role are required to undergo fitness testing. Personnel are required to reach an aerobic fitness of 40 vo2max. However an interim figure of 34 vo2max is in place & assistance & guidance given to those who require it. See firefit website for more detail.
http://www.firefitsteeringgroup.co.uk/
10

Ribbonman,

03/07/2008 16:29:37
Its all to common in our country to-day,people waddling around unfit and fat. It is seldom that you see a female who isn't stuffing her face with a burger and looking like an add for the Michelin x man.I think that the time has now come to take some action against the fattys,They are a burden on our health services,and I am not talking about the chairs in the waiting rooms.
11

Geomac 1,

Scotland 03/07/2008 16:47:48
If this gentleman is unfit for his job, then what's all the fuss about laying him off? He must be a liability to his colleagues never mind the dependent public.
12

Mcsnagpile,

03/07/2008 18:52:19
The job is of a nature that makes people unfit. Unsociable working hours; attending fires at all hours; putting oneself in danger; breathing in smoke and other poisonous fumes; being required to run in the opposite direction of the public.
Counselling?? – Not on your Nelly.
Fitness training regimes—ye wot??
How does this obese guy get into a BA set anyway?
The council is correct in addressing this problem. Their method of dealing with it is cause for public concern. They obviously do not know what they are doing.
We do not want unfit fire persons—so what is the council doing about it??
I hope the council give concessions for access to leisure gyms—in fact fitness regimes for people to meet certain fitness requirements.
We do not need fatties that cannot reach the rounds on a ladder, or too heavy to do ladder load tests, in fact a hazard atop a ladder or on a window ledge.
Corpulent fire persons must be refused access to the pie wagon.
The uniform should conform to a certain maximum size. So effectively one can grow out of the job.
I notice the Police are spending more time in training, in fact some are nearly as good as myself.
13

Hugh ,

Edinburgh 03/07/2008 20:31:58
If the guy is too fat to do his job, then out he goes. I would not want him around to rescue my child from a burning building.

As for giving him a desk job, why should another guy be deprived? Fat is a self inflicted injury, and is not worthy of sympathy.

Alan Paterson, the local secretary of the Fire Brigades Union, is wrong on this, and his statement that this is an 'attack' on the too fat one. Unless they are all fat.

14

Auld Holburn,

Aberdeen 06/07/2008 07:50:57
Everyone appears to have overlooked the last sentence in the article

"He explained: "The firefighter involved was provided with a lot of support and assistance over a considerable period of time."

OK, I, like the rest of you do not know the full facts, but this direct quote would appear to indicate that this has been an ongoing issue.
The support and assistance could well have been a fitness programme, a diet and the chance to redo the test on more than one occasion. In which case the way it has been dealt with is fine by me.
15

nala,

aberdeen 16/07/2008 21:19:44
7*
I'm pretty sure that this guy did not just turn up for work, fail a fitness test and get dismissed. The fire brigade like every other public sector employer would have had to have gone through a long list of procedures, involving warnings, counselling and offers of support to help him get back to the required level of fitness before dismissal was ever considered. Although I have sympathy for the firefighter, if he is unfit for duty, he becomes a liability both to himself and his fellow firefighters and makes an already dangerous job even more hazardous.
As for redeployment, I understand that there was not a suitable position for him and as a tax payer I am not in favour of job creation.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.