Common use of Applications on Behalf of an Employee Group Clause in Contracts

Applications on Behalf of an Employee Group. A contribution on behalf of an employee group for a premium pay award is for events requiring a "team" approach. The following criteria are applied. The contribution was: ● Clearly one in which full participation by each member of the group was maintained and an interdependency existed in a "team" sense; and ● Beyond normal job expectations. The contribution resulted in: ● Measurable improvement to the City's image and/or services; and/or ● Better use of manpower, materials, machinery, methods, and/or money. Examples of employee groups that received awards are: (1) A tree maintenance crew had been working together for about 1 year. Each crew member was assigned specific tasks; e.g., trimming, feeding, maintenance, cleaning, equipment operation, etc. The demands for tree trimming were high. The City was receiving numerous citizen requests for special trimming, which in most instances were justified. The crew was being diverted from their regular schedule and getting behind. If one member was ill or on vacation the whole system suffered. One afternoon the equipment broke down and the crew members started talking about the situation. The group decided that if each member of the crew knew all the tasks required, a number of benefits would occur. The crew members began to teach each other their various responsibilities, and rotated assignments. Each member was able to help another who was overloaded or replace someone who was absent. Fatigue and boredom disappeared. The cooperative effort led to systematizing how certain tree varieties were approached. The xxxxxxx who supervised several crews found that he was relieved from direct supervision and was able to concentrate on citizen contacts. The crew not only caught up with its schedule, but expanded its operations so that the contract for outside services on the City's parks was not renewed. The crew received a Level 1 award. (2) A task force of representative employees from different departments, whose knowledge of the operations was essential, had been assigned to examine an increase in the City's accident level and develop a program of prevention. During the prior year, a variety of accidents had occurred that had no connection with each other. The incidents ranged from bruised thighs on desk corners to a tragic fatality in a drainage cave-in. The City's insurance premiums were likely to be affected. The group examined the evidence in some depth. It considered recommending a consultant and rejected the idea realizing that if the trend was to be reversed it would have to be done by employees. Working on that premise, the group decided that the best resources were the employees themselves. The process alone would have some benefit in raising the level of consciousness of employees. The task force began by talking to the victims and then expanded to others. Task force members visited accident sites in the City. The group divided its assignments so that each had an equal workload and responsibility. The conclusion reached was that 80 percent of the accidents in the prior year could have been prevented. The group developed a system for categorizing the information into a manageable format. The task force assigned risk levels to representative work environments. Without identifying specific incidents and people, a monthly memorandum was published in which the number of days without accidents for each level was reported. An award system was developed on a graded basis to recognize employees who had no avoidable accidents. The most effective effort was the requirement that for every accident reported, the surviving victim reviewed the circumstances with other employees who had the same level of exposure. The result was that the following year accidents were reduced to below 20 percent. The City received national recognition for its safety record. The task force received a Level 2 award. (3) A Fire Department company believed that it had perfected its routine for gaining control of a fire scene to such a degree that no other company could beat it on time, performance, and safety. The members had observed companies in other agencies from time-to-time and believed that they did not match their level of accomplishment. The members believed that their high standard could be applied to the benefit of other companies. As a result, the members of the company challenged the other suppression companies to beat their record of performance. The other companies took up the challenge. Routines with simulated conditions were laid out with varying degrees of difficulty. Firefighters from other departments were invited to judge the events during regular shift hours. The initiating company prevailed as the members had expected. Their "secrets" to success were then shared with the other companies and the visitors. The members had developed a highly sophisticated systematic approach to a fire scene much like a football team facing an opponent which involved a system of signals. Once the signals were called by the Fire captain, each member knew exactly what the "play" was. The members were able to adjust quickly to changing conditions. The visitors were very impressed not only with the company but with the department. The Fire company received a Level 1 award.

Applications on Behalf of an Employee Group. A contribution on behalf of an employee group for a premium pay award is for events requiring a "team" approach. The following criteria are applied. The contribution was: ● : a. Clearly one in which full participation by each member of the group was maintained and an interdependency existed in a "team" sense; and ● and b. Beyond normal job expectations. The contribution resulted in: ● : a. Measurable improvement to the City's image and/or services; and/or ● and/or b. Better use of manpower, materials, machinery, methods, and/or money. Examples of employee groups that received awards are: (1) a. A tree maintenance crew had been working together for about 1 year. Each crew member was assigned specific tasks; e.g., trimming, feeding, maintenance, cleaning, equipment operation, etc. The demands for tree trimming were high. The City was receiving numerous citizen requests for special trimming, which in most instances were justified. The crew was being diverted from their regular schedule and getting behind. If one member was ill or on vacation the whole system suffered. One afternoon the equipment broke down and the crew members started talking about the situation. The group decided that if each member of the crew knew all the tasks required, a number of benefits would occur. The crew members began to teach each other their various responsibilities, and rotated assignments. Each member was able to help another who was overloaded or replace someone who was absent. Fatigue and boredom disappeared. The cooperative effort led to systematizing how certain tree varieties were approached. The xxxxxxx who supervised several crews found that he was relieved from direct supervision and was able to concentrate on citizen contacts. The crew not only caught up with its schedule, but expanded its operations so that the contract for outside services on the City's parks was not renewed. The crew received a Level 1 award. (2) b. A task force of representative employees from different departments, whose knowledge of the operations was essential, had been assigned to examine an increase in the City's accident level and develop a program of prevention. During the prior year, a variety of accidents had occurred that had no connection with each other. The incidents ranged from bruised thighs on desk corners to a tragic fatality in a drainage cave-in. The City's insurance premiums were likely to be affected. The group examined the evidence in some depth. It considered recommending a consultant and rejected the idea realizing that if the trend was to be reversed it would have to be done by employees. Working on that premise, the group decided that the best resources were the employees themselves. The process alone would have some benefit in raising the level of consciousness of employees. The task force began by talking to the victims and then expanded to others. Task force members visited accident sites in the City. The group divided its assignments so that each had an equal workload and responsibility. The conclusion reached was that 80 percent of the accidents in the prior year could have been prevented. The group developed a system for categorizing the information into a manageable format. The task force assigned risk levels to representative work environments. Without identifying specific incidents and people, a monthly memorandum was published in which the number of days without accidents for each level was reported. An award system was developed on a graded basis to recognize employees who had no avoidable accidents. The most effective effort was the requirement that for every accident reported, the surviving victim reviewed the circumstances with other employees who had the same level of exposure. The result was that the following year accidents were reduced to below 20 percent. The City received national recognition for its safety record. The task force received a Level 2 award. (3) c. A Fire Department company believed that it had perfected its routine for gaining control of a fire scene to such a degree that no other company could beat it on time, performance, and safety. The members had observed companies in other agencies from time-to-time and believed that they did not match their level of accomplishment. The members believed that their high standard could be applied to the benefit of other companies. As a result, the members of the company challenged the other suppression companies to beat their record of performance. The other companies took up the challenge. Routines with simulated conditions were laid out with varying degrees of difficulty. Firefighters from other departments were invited to judge the events during regular shift hours. The initiating company prevailed as the members had expected. Their "secrets" to success were then shared with the other companies and the visitors. The members had developed a highly sophisticated systematic approach to a fire scene much like a football team facing an opponent which involved a system of signals. Once the signals were called by the Fire captainCaptain, each member knew exactly what the "play" was. The members were able to adjust quickly to changing conditions. The visitors were very impressed not only with the company but with the department. The Fire company received a Level 1 award.

Applications on Behalf of an Employee Group. A contribution on behalf of an employee group for a premium pay award is for events requiring a "team" approach. The following criteria are applied. The contribution was: ● : a. Clearly one in which full participation by each member of the group was maintained and an interdependency existed in a "team" sense; and ● and b. Beyond normal job expectations. The contribution resulted in: ● : a. Measurable improvement to the City's image and/or services; and/or ● and/or b. Better use of manpower, materials, machinery, methods, and/or and/ or money. Examples of employee groups that received awards are: (1) a. A tree maintenance crew had been working together for about 1 year. Each crew member was assigned specific tasks; e.g., trimming, feeding, maintenance, cleaning, equipment operation, etc. The demands for tree trimming were high. The City was receiving numerous citizen requests for special trimming, which in most instances were justified. The crew was being diverted from their regular schedule and getting behind. If one member was ill or on vacation the whole system suffered. One afternoon the equipment broke down and the crew members started talking about the situation. The group decided that if each member of the crew knew all the tasks required, a number of benefits would occur. The crew members began to teach each other their various responsibilities, and rotated assignments. Each member was able to help another who was overloaded or replace someone who was absent. Fatigue and boredom disappeared. The cooperative effort led leads to systematizing how certain tree varieties were approached. The xxxxxxx who supervised several crews found that he was relieved from direct supervision and was able to concentrate on citizen contacts. The crew not only caught up with its schedule, but expanded its operations so that the contract for outside services on the City's parks was not renewed. The crew received a Level 1 award. (2) b. A task force of representative employees from different departments, whose knowledge of the operations was essential, had been assigned to examine an increase in the City's accident level and develop a program of prevention. During the prior year, a variety of accidents had occurred that had no connection with each other. The incidents ranged from bruised thighs on desk corners to a tragic fatality in a drainage cave-cave in. The City's insurance premiums were likely to be affected. The group examined the evidence in some depth. It considered recommending a consultant and rejected the idea realizing that if the trend was to be reversed it would have to be done by employees. Working on that premise, the group decided that the best resources were the employees themselves. The process alone would have some benefit in raising the level of consciousness of employees. The task force began by talking to the victims and then expanded to others. Task force members visited accident sites in the City. The group divided its assignments so that each had an equal workload and responsibility. The conclusion reached was that 80 percent of the accidents in the prior year could have been prevented. The group developed a system for categorizing the information into a manageable format. The task force assigned risk levels to representative work environments. Without identifying specific incidents and people, a monthly memorandum was published in which the number of days without accidents for each level was reported. An award system was developed on a graded basis to recognize employees who had no avoidable accidents. The most effective effort was the requirement that for every accident reported, the surviving victim reviewed the circumstances with other employees who had the same level of exposure. The result was that the following year accidents were reduced to below 20 percent. The City received national recognition for its safety record. The task force received a Level 2 award. (3) c. A Fire Department company believed that it had perfected its routine for gaining control of a fire scene to such a degree that no other company could beat it on time, performance, and safety. The members had observed companies in other agencies from time-to-time and believed that they did not match their level of accomplishment. The members believed that their high standard could be applied to the benefit of other companies. As a result, the members of the company challenged the other suppression companies to beat their record of performance. The other companies took up the challenge. Routines with simulated conditions were laid out with varying degrees of difficulty. Firefighters from other departments were invited to judge the events during regular shift hours. The initiating company prevailed as the members had expected. Their "secrets" to success were then shared with the other companies and the visitors. The members had developed a highly sophisticated systematic approach to a fire scene much like a football team facing an opponent which involved a system of signals. Once the signals were called by the Fire captainCaptain, each member knew exactly what the "play" was. The members were able to adjust quickly to changing conditions. The visitors were very impressed not only with the company but with the department. The Fire company received a Level 1 award.

Applications on Behalf of an Employee Group. A contribution on behalf of an employee group for a premium pay award is for events requiring a "team" approach. The following criteria are applied. The contribution was: ● • Clearly one in which full participation by each member of the group was maintained and an interdependency existed in a "team" sense; and ● • Beyond normal job expectations. The contribution resulted in: ● • Measurable improvement to the City's image and/or services; and/or ● • Better use of manpower, materials, machinery, methods, and/or money. Examples of employee groups that received awards are: (1) A tree maintenance crew had been working together for about 1 year. Each crew member was assigned specific tasks; e.g., trimming, feeding, maintenance, cleaning, equipment operationoperations, etc. The demands for tree trimming were high. The City was receiving numerous citizen requests for special trimming, which in most instances were justified. The crew was being diverted from their regular schedule and getting behind. If one member was ill or on vacation the whole system suffered. One afternoon the equipment broke down and the crew members started talking about the situation. The group decided that if each member of the crew knew all the tasks required, a number of benefits would occur. The crew members began to teach each other their various responsibilities, and rotated assignments. Each member was able to help another who was overloaded or replace someone who was absent. Fatigue and boredom disappeared. The cooperative effort led to systematizing how certain tree varieties were approached. The xxxxxxx who supervised several crews found that he was relieved from direct supervision and was able to concentrate on citizen contacts. The crew not only caught up with its schedule, but expanded its operations so that the contract for outside services on the City's parks was not renewed. The crew received a Level 1 award. (2) A task force of representative employees from different departments, whose knowledge of the operations was essential, had been assigned to examine an increase in the City's accident level and develop a program of prevention. During the prior year, a variety of accidents had occurred that had no connection with each other. The incidents ranged from bruised thighs on desk corners to a tragic fatality in a drainage cave-in. The City's insurance premiums were likely to be affected. The group examined the evidence in some depth. It considered recommending a consultant and rejected the idea realizing that if the trend was to be reversed it would have to be done by employees. Working on that premise, the group decided that the best resources were the employees themselves. The process alone would have some benefit in raising the level of consciousness of employees. The task force began by talking to the victims and then expanded to others. Task force members visited accident sites in the City. The group divided its assignments so that each had an equal workload and responsibility. The conclusion reached was that 80 percent of the accidents in the prior year could have been prevented. The group developed a system for categorizing the information into a manageable format. The task force assigned risk levels to representative work environments. Without identifying specific incidents and people, a monthly memorandum was published in which the number of days without accidents for each level was reported. An award system was developed on a graded basis to recognize employees who had no avoidable accidents. The most effective effort was the requirement that for every accident reported, the surviving victim reviewed the circumstances with other employees who had the same level of exposure. The result was that the following year accidents were reduced to below 20 percent. The City received national recognition for its safety record. The task force received a Level 2 award. (3) A Fire Department company believed that it had perfected its routine for gaining control of a fire scene to such a degree that no other company could beat it on time, performance, and safety. The members had observed companies in other agencies from time-to-time and believed that they did not match their level of accomplishment. The members believed that their high standard could be applied to the benefit of other companies. As a result, the members of the company challenged the other suppression companies to beat their record of performance. The other companies took up the challenge. Routines with simulated conditions were laid out with varying degrees of difficulty. Firefighters from other departments were invited to judge the events during regular shift hours. The initiating company prevailed as the members had expected. Their "secrets" to success were then shared with the other companies and the visitors. The members had developed a highly sophisticated systematic approach to a fire scene much like a football team facing an opponent which involved a system of signals. Once the signals were called by the Fire fire captain, each member knew exactly what the "play" was. The members were able to adjust quickly to changing conditions. The visitors were very impressed not only with the company but with the department. The Fire fire company received a Level 1 award.

Applications on Behalf of an Employee Group. A contribution on behalf of an employee group for a premium pay award is for events requiring a "team" approach. The following criteria are applied. The contribution was: ●  Clearly one in which full participation by each member of the group was maintained and an interdependency existed in a "team" sense; and ●  Beyond normal job expectations. The contribution resulted in: ●  Measurable improvement to the City's image and/or services; and/or ●  Better use of manpower, materials, machinery, methods, and/or money. Examples of employee groups that received awards are: (1) A tree maintenance crew had been working together for about 1 year. Each crew member was assigned specific tasks; e.g., trimming, feeding, maintenance, cleaning, equipment operationoperations, etc. The demands for tree trimming were high. The City was receiving numerous citizen requests for special trimming, which in most instances were justified. The crew was being diverted from their regular schedule and getting behind. If one member was ill or on vacation the whole system suffered. One afternoon the equipment broke down and the crew members started talking about the situation. The group decided that if each member of the crew knew all the tasks required, a number of benefits would occur. The crew members began to teach each other their various responsibilities, and rotated assignments. Each member was able to help another who was overloaded or replace someone who was absent. Fatigue and boredom disappeared. The cooperative effort led to systematizing how certain tree varieties were approached. The xxxxxxx who supervised several crews found that he was relieved from direct supervision and was able to concentrate on citizen contacts. The crew not only caught up with its schedule, but expanded its operations so that the contract for outside services on the City's parks was not renewed. The crew received a Level 1 award. (2) A task force of representative employees from different departments, whose knowledge of the operations was essential, had been assigned to examine an increase in the City's accident level and develop a program of prevention. During the prior year, a variety of accidents had occurred that had no connection with each other. The incidents ranged from bruised thighs on desk corners to a tragic fatality in a drainage cave-in. The City's insurance premiums were likely to be affected. The group examined the evidence in some depth. It considered recommending a consultant and rejected the idea realizing that if the trend was to be reversed it would have to be done by employees. Working on that premise, the group decided that the best resources were the employees themselves. The process alone would have some benefit in raising the level of consciousness of employees. The task force began by talking to the victims and then expanded to others. Task force members visited accident sites in the City. The group divided its assignments so that each had an equal workload and responsibility. The conclusion reached was that 80 percent of the accidents in the prior year could have been prevented. The group developed a system for categorizing the information into a manageable format. The task force assigned risk levels to representative work environments. Without identifying specific incidents and people, a monthly memorandum was published in which the number of days without accidents for each level was reported. An award system was developed on a graded basis to recognize employees who had no avoidable accidents. The most effective effort was the requirement that for every accident reported, the surviving victim reviewed the circumstances with other employees who had the same level of exposure. The result was that the following year accidents were reduced to below 20 percent. The City received national recognition for its safety record. The task force received a Level 2 award. (3) A Fire Department company believed that it had perfected its routine for gaining control of a fire scene to such a degree that no other company could beat it on time, performance, and safety. The members had observed companies in other agencies from time-to-time and believed that they did not match their level of accomplishment. The members believed that their high standard could be applied to the benefit of other companies. As a result, the members of the company challenged the other suppression companies to beat their record of performance. The other companies took up the challenge. Routines with simulated conditions were laid out with varying degrees of difficulty. Firefighters from other departments were invited to judge the events during regular shift hours. The initiating company prevailed as the members had expected. Their "secrets" to success were then shared with the other companies and the visitors. The members had developed a highly sophisticated systematic approach to a fire scene much like a football team facing an opponent which involved a system of signals. Once the signals were called by the Fire fire captain, each member knew exactly what the "play" was. The members were able to adjust quickly to changing conditions. The visitors were very impressed not only with the company but with the department. The Fire fire company received a Level 1 award.

Applications on Behalf of an Employee Group. A contribution on behalf of an employee group for a premium pay award is for events requiring a "team" approach. The following criteria are applied. The contribution was: ● • Clearly one in which full participation by each member of the group was maintained and an interdependency existed in a "team" sense; and ● • Beyond normal job expectations. The contribution resulted in: ● • Measurable improvement to the City's image and/or services; and/or ● • Better use of manpower, materials, machinery, methods, and/or money. Examples of employee groups that received awards are:: RAFT (1) A tree maintenance crew had been working together for about 1 year. Each crew member was assigned specific tasks; e.g., trimming, feeding, maintenance, cleaning, equipment operationoperations, etc. The demands for tree trimming were high. The City was receiving numerous citizen requests for special trimming, which in most instances were justified. The crew was being diverted from their regular schedule and getting behind. If one member was ill or on vacation the whole system suffered. One afternoon the equipment broke down and the crew members started talking about the situation. The group decided that if each member of the crew knew all the tasks required, a number of benefits would occur. The crew members began to teach each other their various responsibilities, and rotated assignments. Each member was able to help another who was overloaded or replace someone who was absent. Fatigue and boredom disappeared. The cooperative effort led to systematizing how certain tree varieties were approached. The xxxxxxx who supervised several crews found that he was relieved from direct supervision and was able to concentrate on citizen contacts. The crew not only caught up with its schedule, but expanded its operations so that the contract for outside services on the City's parks was not renewed. The crew received a Level 1 award. (2) A task force of representative employees from different departments, whose knowledge of the operations was essential, had been assigned to examine an increase in the City's accident level and develop a program of prevention. During the prior year, a variety of accidents had occurred that had no connection with each other. The incidents ranged from bruised thighs on desk corners to a tragic fatality in a drainage cave-in. The City's insurance premiums were likely to be affected. The group examined the evidence in some depth. It considered recommending a consultant and rejected the idea realizing that if the trend was to be reversed it would have to be done by employees. Working on that premise, the group decided that the best resources were the employees themselves. The process alone would have some benefit in raising the level of consciousness of employees. The task force began by talking to the victims and then expanded to others. Task force members visited accident sites in the City. The group divided its assignments so that each had an equal RAFT workload and responsibility. The conclusion reached was that 80 percent of the accidents in the prior year could have been prevented. The group developed a system for categorizing the information into a manageable format. The task force assigned risk levels to representative work environments. Without identifying specific incidents and people, a monthly memorandum was published in which the number of days without accidents for each level was reported. An award system was developed on a graded basis to recognize employees who had no avoidable accidents. The most effective effort was the requirement that for every accident reported, the surviving victim reviewed the circumstances with other employees who had the same level of exposure. The result was that the following year accidents were reduced to below 20 percent. The City received national recognition for its safety record. The task force received a Level 2 award. (3) A Fire Department company believed that it had perfected its routine for gaining control of a fire scene to such a degree that no other company could beat it on time, performance, and safety. The members had observed companies in other agencies from time-to-time and believed that they did not match their level of accomplishment. The members believed that their high standard could be applied to the benefit of other companies. As a result, the members of the company challenged the other suppression companies to beat their record of performance. The other companies took up the challenge. Routines with simulated conditions were laid out with varying degrees of difficulty. Firefighters from other departments were invited to judge the events during regular shift hours. The initiating company prevailed as the members had expected. Their "secrets" to success were then shared with the other companies and the visitors. The members had developed a highly sophisticated systematic approach to a fire scene much like a football team facing an opponent which involved a system of signals. Once the signals were called by the Fire fire captain, each member knew exactly what the "play" was. The members were able to adjust quickly to changing conditions. The visitors were very impressed not only with the company but with the department. The Fire fire company received a Level 1 award.

Applications on Behalf of an Employee Group. A contribution on behalf of an employee group for a premium pay award is for events requiring a "team" approach. The following criteria are applied. The contribution was: ● Clearly one in which full participation by each member of the group was maintained and an interdependency existed in a "team" sense; and ● Beyond normal job expectations. The contribution resulted in: ● Measurable improvement to the City's image and/or services; and/or RAFT ● Better use of manpower, materials, machinery, methods, and/or money. Examples of employee groups that received awards are: (1) A tree maintenance crew had been working together for about 1 year. Each crew member was assigned specific tasks; e.g., trimming, feeding, maintenance, cleaning, equipment operation, etc. The demands for tree trimming were high. The City was receiving numerous citizen requests for special trimming, which in most instances were justified. The crew was being diverted from their regular schedule and getting behind. If one member was ill or on vacation the whole system suffered. One afternoon the equipment broke down and the crew members started talking about the situation. The group decided that if each member of the crew knew all the tasks required, a number of benefits would occur. The crew members began to teach each other their various responsibilities, and rotated assignments. Each member was able to help another who was overloaded or replace someone who was absent. Fatigue and boredom disappeared. The cooperative effort led to systematizing how certain tree varieties were approached. The xxxxxxx who supervised several crews found that he was relieved from direct supervision and was able to concentrate on citizen contacts. The crew not only caught up with its schedule, but expanded its operations so that the contract for outside services on the City's parks was not renewed. The crew received a Level 1 award. (2) A task force of representative employees from different departments, whose knowledge of the operations was essential, had been assigned to examine an increase in the City's accident level and develop a program of prevention. During the prior year, a variety of accidents had occurred that had no connection with each other. The incidents ranged from bruised thighs on desk corners to a tragic fatality in a drainage cave-in. The City's insurance premiums were likely to be affected. The group examined the evidence in some depth. It considered recommending a consultant and rejected the idea realizing that if the trend was to be reversed it would have to be done by employees. Working on that premise, the group RAFT decided that the best resources were the employees themselves. The process alone would have some benefit in raising the level of consciousness of employees. The task force began by talking to the victims and then expanded to others. Task force members visited accident sites in the City. The group divided its assignments so that each had an equal workload and responsibility. The conclusion reached was that 80 percent of the accidents in the prior year could have been prevented. The group developed a system for categorizing the information into a manageable format. The task force assigned risk levels to representative work environments. Without identifying specific incidents and people, a monthly memorandum was published in which the number of days without accidents for each level was reported. An award system was developed on a graded basis to recognize employees who had no avoidable accidents. The most effective effort was the requirement that for every accident reported, the surviving victim reviewed the circumstances with other employees who had the same level of exposure. The result was that the following year accidents were reduced to below 20 percent. The City received national recognition for its safety record. The task force received a Level 2 award. (3) A Fire Department company believed that it had perfected its routine for gaining control of a fire scene to such a degree that no other company could beat it on time, performance, and safety. The members had observed companies in other agencies from time-to-time and believed that they did not match their level of accomplishment. The members believed that their high standard could be applied to the benefit of other companies. As a result, the members of the company challenged the other suppression companies to beat their record of performance. The other companies took up the challenge. Routines with simulated conditions were laid out with varying degrees of difficulty. Firefighters from other departments were invited to judge the events during regular shift hours. The initiating company prevailed as the members had expected. Their "secrets" to success were then shared with the other companies and the visitors. The members had developed a highly sophisticated systematic approach to a fire scene much like a football team facing an opponent which involved a system of signals. Once the signals were called by the Fire captain, each member knew exactly what the "play" was. The members were able to adjust quickly to changing conditions. The visitors were very impressed not only with the company but with the department. The Fire company received a Level 1 award.