Bull v Nottinghamshire and City of Nottingham Fire and Rescue Authority
Lincolnshire County Council v Fire Brigades Union: [2007] EWCA Civ 240

CA: Sir Anthony Clarke MR, Buxton and Toulson LJJ: 28 February 2007

In two cases heard together, fire and rescue authorities sought declarations against the Fire Brigades Union and individual firefighters employed by the authorities that firefighters were contractually obliged to respond to emergency calls from members of the public reporting potentially life-threatening conditions in situations where firefighters were in a position to respond more promptly than an ambulance crew, a practice known as "co-responding". The union had consistently resisted the practice, and there was no specific reference to co-responding in the national collective agreement, known as the "Grey Book", though it did contain a detailed statement of skills, competencies and duties expected of firefighters which were appropriate to co-responding work. The Grey Book had been negotiated by the union with fire authority employers and was incorporated in the firefighters' individual contracts of employment. The judge held that co-responding duties were outside the scope of the firefighters' contracts of employment under the national collective agreement and refused the declarations sought by the fire authorities.

The fire authorities appealed.

The Court of Appeal held:
Looking at the factual matrix to the national agreement in the Grey Book, firefighters' duties were overwhelmingly assumed to be concerned with firefighting, rescue and attendance at major incidents, and, in line with its long-standing opposition to co-responding, the union had not conceded the issue of co-responding in the negotiations leading to the agreement. Further, as a matter of general experience and common sense, firefighters were not ordinarily expected to turn out to incidents to which the ambulance service but not the fire service had been called. While the agreement provided that firefighters were expected to provide treatment to casualties, the context was attendance at major incidents, not about directly taking the place of the ambulance service, and it did not create an obligation to co-respond separate from the rest of their job. Though an employee was expected to adapt to new methods in performing his duties, co-responding was not firefighting at all, not merely a new way of doing it. Accordingly, the fire authorities could not require firefighters to carry out co-responding duties.

The appeal was dismissed.

Appearances: James Goudie QC and Peter Wallington (Browne Jacobson, Nottingham) for the fire and rescue authorities; Jason Galbraith-Marten and Edmund Williams (Thompsons) for the union and firefighters.