Self Rostering Staffing Systems Area Manager Stephens Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service

Aim  To detail two of the self rostering staffing systems in operation within MFRS  To explain the methodology and advantages of the two systems  To state the limitations of the two systems

Background  First introduced self rostering in November 2004 with Search and Rescue Team  Subsequently extended self rostering concept to Incident Management Team, LLAR and Retained Resilience  This presentation reviews methodology employed within SART and LLAR

Search and Rescue Team  Located at Croxteth Fire Station  Rescue Tender (5 riders)  Rapid Response Vehicle (4 riders)  SRU (1 driver)  CLG USAR modules  Core staffing of 44 personnel + detachments

Methodology  8 week staffing period  Must work 336 hours in 8 weeks (42 hours x 8)  Can carry over hours into next 8 week period (over or under)  Any hours worked over 336 can be paid at flat rate  Shift duration of 10, 14 or 24 hours

Advantages  Maximum flexibility  Accounts for dynamic staffing requirements (short notice courses etc)  Very low levels of sickness  Cost effective  Resilience provided by detachment if required

LLAR  In operation at 4 locations  All single pump stations  Rescue Tender (5 riders)  Core staffing of 50 personnel  Distribution of WTE  View to move to WTE

Methodology  52 week staffing period  Submit A/L in October of preceding year  Ensure 5 riders per appliance to grant A/L  Surplus of 275 shifts  Resilience provided by reengaged personnel on retained contracts

Advantages  Attractive system for employees  Accounts for more static staffing requirements of the system (significantly less training demand than SART)  Low levels of short term sickness  Cost effective  Resilience provided by reengaged personnel

Limitations  Limited resilience  Requires commitment of personnel working the system  No facility to detach into LLAR