The firefighter’s assertion that he was on duty 24/7 due to being on call has been turned down.

A firefighter’s claim that he should be paid for working 24/7 due to being on call 365 days a year has been rejected by an Australian court. The case has ignited debate about the nature of on-call work and whether employees in certain professions are entitled to be compensated for time spent waiting to be called into action. In this article, we delve deeper into the intricacies of the case and examine the wider implications it holds for workers in the on-call industry.


The claim of a retained firefighter, Martin Gilbert, that his requirement to be on call 24/7 meant he was effectively working all the time has been rejected by the Labour Court. Gilbert received an annual retainer of €10,383 for being on call, and varying hourly rates for attending drills or incidents. He was required to respond within 10 minutes of an alert and to attend 75% of alerts when not on holiday or sick leave. Gilbert claimed that the Council was in breach of the Working Time Act, citing excessive hours and lack of rest periods, but the Court ruled against him.


In conclusion, the recent case of the firefighter claiming that being on call equated to working 24/7 has been met with rejection. As important as it is to acknowledge the hard work and sacrifices of firefighters and emergency responders, it is equally important to address the reality of what constitutes as actual work. Being on call may require readiness and availability, but it does not necessarily equate to being on the job or actively engaged in work. It is essential to draw a clear line between work and off-duty time to ensure the safety, wellbeing, and effectiveness of emergency responders. While this case may have sparked a debate, it serves as a reminder of the importance of understanding and respecting what it truly means to be working as a firefighter.