FIRE FIGHTING

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 73, 28 March 1933, Page 9

FIRE FIGHTING

THE AUXILIARY SYSTEM

PROTEST AGAINST REPORT

In consequence of reports alleging poor attendance at fires and lack of efficiency of non-resident auxiliary firemen, the Fire Board at its last meeting'decided to discontinue the system and to add to the number o£ resident auxiliaries' stationed at the Constable Street'station and elsewhere. ." ''■■■■.

Objections to the statements made, as casting an unwarranted slur on the auxiliaries, are expressed in a letter to the chairman of the Fire Board by Mr. B. Churchill, a member' of the auxiliary • force in the Island Bay district. ; ' Mr. ■Churchill states that five, non-resi-dential auxiliaries in Island Bay had a fair average of attendances to each man's" credit, for which they received the annual sum of £7 10s, subject to a 10 per cent, reduction and wages tax. Non-residential auxiliaries were available only for evening, night/and early morning calls. No details were given of the' times of the 19 .calls referred to by the superintendent, : and it was apparent that the 19 calls re-! ferred to included calls during the hom-s ■of 7.30 a.m. and 5.30 when the auxiliary firemen were at their work. : ELEVEN MONTHS' REVIEW. Durine the period from April-13, 1932,1 to March 15, 1933, the Island Bay auxiliaries received ten calls, the attendances of. which were:—At 8 calls, one man was present; at 4 calls, two men; at l.eall, three men; and at 2 calls, four men. Every call received by the Island Bay auxiliary staff had been attended by one or more firemen, which fact is proved by the records, and is direct contradiction to the superintendent's statement that no auxiliaries attended at ten calls," Mr. Churchill wrofe. "Under the system! of non-residential auxiliaries it was neverl hoped that a call 'sent to an auxiliary's residence while he was employed at his work in another part of the town should be attended by that auxiliary." ' . It was also further contended that the system of calls should have been fully explained by. the superintendent, so that the apparent slur cast on non-residential auxiliaries in Island Bay would have been removed. . .. . The Island Bay auxiliaries had received •specific instructions from former superintendents not to bother with the reel if they heard the brigade coming and if the brigade would reach the fire first. On one . occasion the call was received by the foreman 35 minutes after the brigade had left Constable Street station. AUXILIARIES' EFFICIENCY. The board based_ the dismissal' of the Ti on-residential auxiliaries' on the unsatisfactory report regarding their efficiency, yet in the records, checked and signed by the senior station officer, no suggestion of inefficiency or complaint -was made. On one test the superintendent condemned the system of the auxiliaries themselves as inefficient, though he had not issued any instructions or ascertained what previous instructions had been issued to the auxiliaries. Mr. Churchill states that the additional cost ihrough abandoning the non-resident auxiliary system and substituting resident auxiliaries, was . approximately £90 per annum, and resident auxiliaries will not alwaya be available, as they will be following their ordinary vocations during the day, and so during that time will be out of touch with the brigade calls. The change of system is <not in the interests oi those whom the members of the board represent, Mr. Churchill maintains. What has been asked for in Island Bay is a residential permanent fireman, assisted by non-residential auxiliaries. The change adopted means that if any large city fire took, place, requiring the attendance -of Constable Street engines, and all available firemen, there would be no men in Island Bay to attend to an out? break in the southern suburbs. •