I’ve posted before about the fine line of balancing responsibilities as a PIO and firefighter. A recent automatic alarm call was a case in point.
My Department received an automatic alarm call for a duct detector activation at a popular Italian restaurant in town. Just a few weeks back we were at the same establishment for a similar call. The alarm toned out at just around 23:30 after the restaurant closed. There were no customers on the premises, but the wait and counter staff as well as kitchen personnel were all still working on straightening things out for closing.
We arrived with an Engine, officer and crew of 4 firefighters. We entered the premises and went to the area of concern, the duct detector right above on of the restaurants ovens. It was the same detector as the previous call. The manager told us that the oven door was open, and smoke had emanating from an overcooked dish, but he didn’t think it was enough to set off the detector. We did our due diligence listening to the managers story, examining the detector, using a thermal imaging camera to double check, popped a couple of ceiling tiles to further check and did an internal walkthrough of the restaurant to further make sure all was well.
A typical automatic alarm response to be sure except for one nagging problem. With tight quarters in the service areas and kitchen, the staff assumed a lackadaisical response to our presence. They went about their work with barely enough room for us to maneuver through to do our job. I politely asked staff to get out of the way during our search. Eventually, after repeated asks, they got the message.
The dilemma? Two problems here from a PIO/firefighter standpoint –
- Once the alarm was toned out and we arrived on the scene, the building in essence belonged to us. We have every right to make the ultimate decision on whether to let employees stay on the premises or make them evacuate. Since this was a reoccurring detector issue and the initial size up showed a negative problem, we let the staff remain.
- From a PIO standpoint, with the employees not moving out of our way, tact had to be used to inform them of the situation and their need to let us do the job. A combination of firmness and community relations was the order.
My first irritated instinct though was to get the OIC, read the riot act and order a terse evacuation. But we let community relations obviously prevail and took the manager aside, and calmly informed him of the following –
- The law as it pertains to the fire departments control over the building during an alarm.
- The lack of understanding by his staff of the significance of an alarm and how to react.
- The need to have all shifts understand the procedures for an alarm on premises.
- The need to develop an internal evacuation plan in the event of an emergency, especially if customers are seated.
- His need to lead as a manager in such a situation and be exemplary to his employees as to how he responded to their lack of effort in letting us do our jobs.
- The importance of having a rapid service call to examine the detector in question.
Hopefully this tact educated the manager and showed what cooperation we needed to do our job rather then create a confrontational situation with him and his employees.
Also on The Fire PIO…
- Tragic Flint, Michigan apartment fire raises response time questions – February 17, 2010
- Magic Wands are only in Fairy Tales – May 18, 2010
- A Volunteer Fire PIO must have a redundant “tool box” – March 26, 2010
- Crisis Communications Review of the Austin IRS building crash and fire – February 22, 2010
No Comments