Comments for Equipment, OHS, local feedback at http://www.cfaconnect.net.au , comment 1 to 6 out of 6 comments http://www.cfaconnect.net.au Sun, 26 May 2013 00:16:35 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.cfaconnect.net.au/blog-mainmenu-8/Equipment-OHS-local-feedback.html#comment-1915 Euan - thanks very much for the clarification. - Wayne Charlton Sat, 16 Jul 2011 01:36:46 +0100 http://www.cfaconnect.net.au/blog-mainmenu-8/Equipment-OHS-local-feedback.html#comment-1912 Leadership and communication- well done boss. - Randall Bacon Fri, 15 Jul 2011 22:30:27 +0100 http://www.cfaconnect.net.au/blog-mainmenu-8/Equipment-OHS-local-feedback.html#comment-1911 Dear Wayne, In respect to your concern expressed at the “no women on the back of the truck” comment: Be assured that we cannot find a factual basis to the statement. We believe that the comment was a well intended misinterpretation of a statement made by a new member who was part way through her minimum skills. We understand that her comment was made in the context of two new members, who were a couple, who were assessing their ability to both being able to make a commitment to turning out with CFA. Cheers, Euan - Euan Ferguson Fri, 15 Jul 2011 20:21:00 +0100 http://www.cfaconnect.net.au/blog-mainmenu-8/Equipment-OHS-local-feedback.html#comment-1910 [quote]I was very concerned about a report that a female member belonged to a brigade that had a policy that women were "not allowed on the back of the truck". This matter has been investigated. Inquiries have revealed that there is no such policy at the brigade in question. It must be strongly reinforced that CFA is an equal opportunity organisation. A suggestion that anyone who is appropriately trained and equipped should not be "allowed on the back of the truck" is out of step with CFA's equal opportunity policies. Any such policy that discriminates on any basis will not be tolerated.[/quote] Whilst I have no knowledge of the brigade or members involved and am not wanting to draw this out, I would be interested in some extra information here. I am sure no brigade would have a 'policy' of this occuring, but that is not to say it didn't occur. So was this a personality issue that required some 'direction' and counselling? Was it a misunderstanding between parties? Or was it a 'Chinese whispers' situation and the original claim at the forum was simply incorrect? I understand the confidentiality issues here, and certainly appreciated the feedback on the topics above, however the feedback on this item doesn't quite close the loop for me. - Wayne Charlton Thu, 14 Jul 2011 20:25:43 +0100 http://www.cfaconnect.net.au/blog-mainmenu-8/Equipment-OHS-local-feedback.html#comment-1909 First off I must say thank you for replying to some of the questions posed at the open forum, but I must correct you on the Fire-Pro glove issue. They were also being issued for both structural and wildfire application despite not being appropriate and despite both FirePro2 and proper Wildfire gloves being available at the time. The issue of not having the water proof membrane and the dye leeching through was in my eyes only secondary to the problem of incorrect PPE being issued in the first place. - Lachlan Leatham Thu, 14 Jul 2011 05:10:52 +0100 http://www.cfaconnect.net.au/blog-mainmenu-8/Equipment-OHS-local-feedback.html#comment-1906 Information/feedback/communication Well done boss:) - Randall Bacon Wed, 13 Jul 2011 04:52:48 +0100