Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal

[BestWestern]

I was thinking collectively, apart from a few poor press releases the RMT have hardly been leading from the front and allowing their members to suffer all matter of harassment

Sadly, during this and the recent GWR dispute, the RMT have failed to communicate effectively at all. It's a missed opportunity, and it demonstrates the crying need for the organisation to engage some sort of public relations function. The constant criticism of the union's shouting, hysterical and at times totally irrelevant approach is perfectly justified. Such tactics do absolutely nothing to help the membership. What is needed is a measured and to-the-point countering of the corporate spin machines, rather than the rantings of what comes across as a dinosaur organisation. Obscuring valid arguments behind froth about profits and foreign ownership is not a good strategy.

I fear we shall see a prime example of these shortcomings soon. The latest edition of Railnews contains a full page spread from Hooray Horton pumping his spin and propaganda, and apparently next issue it's Mick Cash's turn. I really hope he gets his submission proofread before it reaches the paper.

Incidentally, I have to say that I take the frequent cries of 'if only Bob Crow was still here' with a pinch of salt too; he was an inspiration to many for sure, but I personally never viewed him as a great PR man for the union either.

 

[380101]

And your fears were correct!

GTR has Won the case and the Ballot is void!

It's only an interim injunction till a trial starts on the 27th June. The ballot result still stands until then. Just means Aslef cannot take any action or announce any action until the outcome of the trial.

 

[XDM]

The hearing started at 3pm. Results imminent i guess. Not very hopeful im afraid.

All credit to physics34. The forum is here to inform us about railway matters & he got it dead right. I will take his future posts very seriously.

 

[physics34]

All credit to physics34. The forum is here to inform us about railway matters & he got it dead right. I will take his future posts very seriously.

well im an employee, so there is a little bit of insider info

We agreed 12 car DOO on the brighton main line during "degraded" working ONLY in a pay deal a few years ago, and Thameslink agreed it a few years ago aswell (for normal working).

In my eyes the moment they were agreed we have left the door open for it to be introduced for normal working on Gatwick Express and Southern, as there is little argument.

Hopefully the guards win their fight and we can keep the guard on the train in the other cases.

 

[jkdd77]

It always boils down to the contract. GTR reckon they don't have to pay anything for part performance, and they define part performance on a weekly rather than a daily basis. If this is legitimate then the deductions are legitimate: GTR say they could, if they really wanted, refuse to pay the whole week's wages. If this is not legitimate then GTR should only deduct the hours or days that were not worked.

Partial performance gets complicated. My trade union, the UCU, had a series of two-hour strikes. Most of our employers were sensible enough to only deduct two hours' pay, but some universities were more militant and deducted the whole day's pay claiming they did not have to accept partial performance. Advice from my trade union was that this was correct.

There is case law to the effect that substantive performance of a contract should result in proportionate payment; however, if the court does not accept that the contract was substantively performed, then the employee would get nothing.

Government guidance on strikes: https://www.gov.uk/if-your-business-faces-industrial-action/strike-pay-and-working-records
suggests that, if partial performance is accepted by the employer, employees should be paid for the actual work done, and further states that:

"You should only deduct the amount that the employee would have earned during the strike".

My (unqualified) view is that an employer who does not wish to accept partial performance of the contract ought to make this clear in advance so that the employee does not end up working for nothing (possibly in breach of minimum wage legislation) on other days; failure to make this clear could be seen as implied acceptance of partial performance. By paying- and thus accepting an employee's service- for some days in a week, an employer is, in my view, accepting partial performance and should pay accordingly.

I agree that the tribunal fees are disgraceful, and a severe barrier to justice.

 

[Agent_c]

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...aslef-barred-strike-southern-gatwick-services

Train drivers’ union Aslef has lost a high court fight over proposed industrial action on Southern and Gatwick services.

A judge has barred union bosses from inducing drivers employed by operating company Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR) to take industrial action in the wake of a disagreement about the introduction of driver-only operated trains.

Mr Justice Supperstone said his injunction would last until a judge had fully analysed GTR’s claims that Aslef had acted unlawfully at a trial.

The judge imposed the injunction on Thursday after analysing preliminary issues at a hearing in London.

Aslef had objected to the introduction of trains without conductors on some services – complaining that they were less safe, the judge heard.
The stories you need to read, in one handy email
Read more

Bosses had balloted members – who had voted for industrial action – and GTR had taken legal action. Company bosses claimed Aslef had – in breach of rules – already called on members to participate in industrial action. They also said the union had wrongly balloted drivers who would not be asked to drive trains at the centre of the dispute. However Aslef disputed GTR’s claims.

But Supperstone ruled in GTR’s favour. He said the operator had a “strong case”.

The judge said if GTR was successful at any trial a damages award would not be enough to compensate the company for the harm caused by industrial action.
“I am satisfied that damages would not be an adequate remedy,” he said.

“The balance of convenience falls in favour of granting an interim injunction.”

Aslef had said the imposition of an injunction barring industrial action in the wake of a ballot would be “oppressive”. Supperstone rejected the union’s complaint. He said: “The potential disruption and inconvenience to the general public and damage likely to be caused by the industrial action significantly outweighs the suggested harm to the union.”

The judge said a trial had been fixed to start on 27 June.

(my emphasis)

 

[sarahj]

TBH. I',m speechless when reading such things. Damages!!! Banning strikes on obscure points of law. I know I've said it before, but it's like we are back at Taff Vale. The whole thing is gutting to staff. There is not going back to the 70's, but instead it's heading back to the 1870's. It came out that GTR lied in the last court case, but now ASLEF cannot strike after a ballot as they said You should work 12 car DOO's, but if you don't, we will still support you. Thats what a union is about, support. But, no, by saying that they are acting illegally and could have to pay damages.

Speechless.

 

[IKB]

Sadly, during this and the recent GWR dispute, the RMT have failed to communicate effectively at all. It's a missed opportunity, and it demonstrates the crying need for the organisation to engage some sort of public relations function. The constant criticism of the union's shouting, hysterical and at times totally irrelevant approach is perfectly justified. Such tactics do absolutely nothing to help the membership. What is needed is a measured and to-the-point countering of the corporate spin machines, rather than the rantings of what comes across as a dinosaur organisation. Obscuring valid arguments behind froth about profits and foreign ownership is not a good strategy.

I fear we shall see a prime example of these shortcomings soon. The latest edition of Railnews contains a full page spread from Hooray Horton pumping his spin and propaganda, and apparently next issue it's Mick Cash's turn. I really hope he gets his submission proofread before it reaches the paper.

Incidentally, I have to say that I take the frequent cries of 'if only Bob Crow was still here' with a pinch of salt too; he was an inspiration to many for sure, but I personally never viewed him as a great PR man for the union either.

Strongly agree with that analysis.

RMT press releases have been very poor, railing against privatisation with the usual cliched phrases about profits etc. They lacked any attempt to put the case FOR conductors point by point, and even failed to hammer home the RAIB reports regarding numerous despatch incidents with DOO trains. In short, a lot of froth and waffle.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

TBH. I',m speechless when reading such things. Damages!!! Banning strikes on obscure points of law.

A point of law is still a point of law, however obscure it may seem to those unfamiliar to the full understanding of the legal process. Obscurity does not mean invalidity.

 

[HLE]

TBH. I',m speechless when reading such things. Damages!!! Banning strikes on obscure points of law. I know I've said it before, but it's like we are back at Taff Vale. The whole thing is gutting to staff. There is not going back to the 70's, but instead it's heading back to the 1870's. It came out that GTR lied in the last court case, but now ASLEF cannot strike after a ballot as they said You should work 12 car DOO's, but if you don't, we will still support you. Thats what a union is about, support. But, no, by saying that they are acting illegally and could have to pay damages.

Speechless.

As a decent amount of us are.

I just remind myself of who is in government - then I realise that the worker is the underdog.

 

[Chrisgr31]

If as is suspected GTR are effectively being subsidised for the strikes by the DfT what loses are there to receive damages to compensate for?

 

[craigy68]

As a GTR staff member Sarah, and knowing many of your colleagues, and having a deep understanding of how the company are 'operating' you really do have my 101% support !!

I honestly believe (as do many of my colleagues within GTR) that they are simply acting upon the instructions of the DFT (that does not excuse their behaviour in anyway what so ever).

With the backing of the DFT (who, so far, have remained exceptionally silent, a cynic would say that they are just waiting for it all to happen and then say 'nuffin to do wiv us guv' :roll GTR, it would seem, have the ability, without question, to do whatever they want !!

In many ways they have 'stacked' the cards in their favour, especially with the 'Thameslink has been DOO for years' argument (regardless of the rights and wrongs) that is what the public hear and is exactly the message that GTR want to convey.

Training of other employees to act as 'pretend' guards during strike action has lessened the impact to services during strike action.

"Why is my train cancelled ?" .. "Sorry mate, no guard" .. "I just travelled from Bedford without one !!"

In these forums everybody knows/can argue the rights and wrongs of DOO but that's not how the general travel public who want to get from A to B perceive things ... "Who cares I just wanna get home" will be the answer.

I am a fully paid up member of the RMT (if we still say those things) and I have to say the way they have acted and responded has been nothing less than abysmal !!

I appreciate that the Union is there to support you, and in very many ways (collective bargaining to name one of many ways) they certainly do add support.

To expect/request an individual to go on strike and lose upto £258.00 especially in this day and age when many individuals budgets are exceptionally tight is sadly a big deal breaker and for a union to pay £80 as a one off payment doesn't really butter the bread :cry: from a truly personal prospective, I find this payment insulting when I look at the bank balance of the RMT .. Again, just my viewpoint.

The point is ... GTR know this, and as such, they know they can break the guards ... is it right ? No of course it isn't .. But they know they can do it !!

"Can we remove staff car parking and travel passes ?" ... "Erm, yes, but it's not really the right thing to do" .. "Can we do it ?" .. "Yes" .. "Well do it"

"Can we deduct from salary what we feel fit ?" .. "Well, erm, yes, I suppose as per contract, but do we really want to go down that route ?" .. "Yes deduct !!" .. "They may win if legal action is taken though" .. "Who cares, by the time it gets to court, it's £258.00 and we have broken the guards and the RMT and DOO will not be reversed .. WIN WIN"

If the RMT were prepared to cover the losses of guards during strike action then this would have been a winner. GTR are unable to keep the level of service during previous strikes action beyond 2/3 days, then and only then would public opinion possibly sway and the DFT may have spoken and said "ok let's stop this". As it currently stands strike action is a (costly to guards) pointless excercise.

A saving grace would have been action by the drivers .. But ASLEF boo'doo'd in their approach, and until the outcome of the hearing on June 27 this is now a no'no !! Unless of course lots of drivers go sick (back door industrial action/strike). I don't condone/suggest this, but simply say it could happen.

Without ASLEF onside we may as well "man the lifeboats" said the captain of the Titanic !! Sadly, ASLEF (by history) have only their own members interests .. which 'often' is sweetened by salary increases !! There's a reason why their salary is way beyond other railway staff !!

The 'supposed' ballot for station staff re station host, has yet to happen, and, in fact, the RMT has been very quiet on this matter. Would I vote to strike ? Yes .. And it's not because I do not think its a good idea, it's because it's being rushed through without thought or practice. Will strike action do any good ? No .. Because the DFT want it to happen. The effects of ticket office staff striking is the equivalent of a chocolate teapot vs chocolate fireguard !! Yes, useless and pointless !!



The far reaching implications from all of the current GTR 'issues/problems/disputes' is that it will spread across the country ... The DFT chose GTR for a reason !!

RMT/ASLEF and a very quiet TSSA have been exceptionally complacent and now the bird is coming home to roost !!

Sat around a table in Starbucks, Patrick McLoughin (former miner), Philip Rutnam and Claire Perry ... "How could we possibly implement McNulty" ... "Through the back door dear through the back door" said Julian Clary as he left with his latte .....

 

[Chrisgr31]

The BBC report on south east was interesting as it said that the passengers seemed to support the staff.

Indeed every interview with passengers they showed the passenger was sympathetic to the drivers and guards and critical of Southern.

 

[phoenixcronin]

As a decent amount of us are.

I just remind myself of who is in government - then I realise that the worker is the underdog.

Surely you realise that the government cannot coerce the judge, as the judiciary is designed to be independent.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Surely you realise that the government cannot coerce the judge, as the judiciary is designed to be independent.

That's the best joke I've heard all week.

Sir Michael Supperstone, educated at Lincoln College Oxford and St Paul's School London, defending Big Business against the noisy unwashed proles. Couldn't be any other way, could it.

 

[DarloRich]

A point of law is still a point of law, however obscure it may seem to those unfamiliar to the full understanding of the legal process. Obscurity does not mean invalidity.

and, of course, I am sure you would take the same position should the obscure piece of legislation or interpretation mean that strikes were valid.

 

[HH]

"Can we deduct from salary what we feel fit ?" .. "Well, erm, yes, I suppose as per contract...

It's not at all clear that this is legal, part performance applying to a whole week looks a stretch to me. It appears from Hartley that an employer could deduct a payment based on the days not worked compared to the days expected to be worked (in other words they can remove bank holidays and annual leave from the calculation of the daily rate). Applying that to people on variable shift working they could possibly apply an hours calculation instead. This will mean that it's a rather higher value than dividing by 52 and then by 5.

What I cannot see is any basis for deducting 2 days pay if you only miss one shift, or for rounding the deduction to £258 for everyone - the only way that could be justified is if it was lower than the 'proper' level of deduction for every member of staff. However, there is one caveat to this - one Judge in that case said that an employer could get damages for breach of contract. In that case they could deduct their losses as a result of the strike by an individual. I don't think this has been tried in practise, but it's obviously an option that GTR might pursue if challenged in the courts.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Sir Michael Supperstone, educated at Lincoln College Oxford and St Paul's School London, defending Big Business against the noisy unwashed proles. Couldn't be any other way, could it.

I don't know Supperstone, but I think you are unfairly maligning him. Their background can be a bar to understanding the issues facing the common man, but very few Judges, if any, are deliberately biased, and most probably think big business is rather gross.

The problem is not the Judges, but the Law, which has been changed by successive Conservative governments (and not changed by Labour) to stack the dice against industrial action.

 

[whoosh]

The judiciary may well be designed to be independent, but the laws of the land are made/changed by the government.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It's not at all clear that this is legal, part performance applying to a whole week looks a stretch to me.

I'd agree with that interpretation, but I'm not sure I'd want to spend £390 + legal fees testing it out. Which I think is the big problem here.

I don't know Supperstone, but I think you are unfairly maligning him. Their background can be a bar to understanding the issues facing the common man, but very few Judges, if any, are deliberately biased

I don't think there is deliberate bias, far from it, the issue is cluelessness about the real world. But there is an unfortunate tendency to be pedantic when it's someone wanting to strike, or when it's to do with bank overdraft charges, but nowhere near so pedantic when it is an employer riding roughshod over employment rights.

In this case, the judge is being extremely pedantic about the ballot, but taking an extraordinarily liberal view of what DOO duties were actually agreed to. Just fancy that.

I also don't think it helps ASLEF that Supperstone is a member of the Garrick Club and Charles Horton is a fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, but there we go.

I would also agree that the judiciary can only enforce the laws that are written, and the laws are written by the government. If the government write the laws properly then the judiciary only have one interpretation open to them,

 

[DarloRich]

I'd agree with that interpretation, but I'm not sure I'd want to spend £390 + legal fees testing it out. Which I think is the big problem here.

but hold on aren't the Conservative party the party of the worker? Are they not the party of the striver and not the skiver? Surely they wouldn't change the ET rules to make them less accessible to normal working people seeking to ensure their workplace rights were protected ?? I wont have it.............

 

[Rich McLean]

Could the drivers now effectively "Work to rule" or would this require a ballot as well. As I understand, "Work to Rule" does not require a ballot, but can the Union legally instruct their members to "Work to Rule" or not?

As for Guards working to rule, sadly at this point, it would be counter productive

 

[Carlisle]

and, of course, I am sure you would take the same position should the obscure piece of legislation or interpretation mean that strikes were valid.

So you feel the law should permit the union to deploy every possible strategy and loophole available to inflict maximum hardship on their company but it should be more or less totally impermissible the other way round

 

[Deepgreen]

but hold on aren't the Conservative party the party of the worker? Are they not the party of the striver and not the skiver? Surely they wouldn't change the ET rules to make them less accessible to normal working people seeking to ensure their workplace rights were protected ?? I wont have it.............

Indeed - the endless references at election time to all those hard working families up and down the length and breadth of the country...etc.

 

[DarloRich]

So you feel the law should permit the union to deploy every possible strategy and loophole available to inflict maximum hardship on their company but should be totally impermissible the other way round

no - I am simply making a point about the stance taken by the quoted poster. Although whats good for the goose should be good for the gander.

 

[Dave1987]

Could the drivers now effectively "Work to rule" or would this require a ballot as well. As I understand, "Work to Rule" does not require a ballot, but can the Union legally instruct their members to "Work to Rule" or not?

As for Guards working to rule, sadly at this point, it would be counter productive

I think you misunderstand what "Work to rule" means. It means that drivers work exactly to the rules and agreements set out and agreed. So if you are given 5 minutes to change ends you take exactly 5 mins to do so, if you have a 30 min PNB plus 10 mins to walk to and from the mess room you take exactly that. It requires no ballot at all and is perfectly legal to do so.

 

[Rich McLean]

I think you misunderstand what "Work to rule" means. It means that drivers work exactly to the rules and agreements set out and agreed. So if you are given 5 minutes to change ends you take exactly 5 mins to do so, if you have a 30 min PNB plus 10 mins to walk to and from the mess room you take exactly that. It requires no ballot at all and is perfectly legal to do so.

Then I suggest this maybe now the way forward for ASLEF members if striking is no longer an option, as much as a pain it would be. (but would also prove a pain for GTR with delay minutes)

 

[craigy68]

The first course of action, if considering the tribunal route in respect of possible illegal deductions from salary, is the Acas Early Conciliation service, which is free.

Whatever the result, it will be late to reverse any decisions GTR take/have taken in respect of guards/obs.

If deemed to be illegal, GTR pay back any deductions. Either way, it's had the desired effect they wanted in discouraging any further industrial action.

 

[tony6499]

I think you misunderstand what "Work to rule" means. It means that drivers work exactly to the rules and agreements set out and agreed. So if you are given 5 minutes to change ends you take exactly 5 mins to do so, if you have a 30 min PNB plus 10 mins to walk to and from the mess room you take exactly that. It requires no ballot at all and is perfectly legal to do so.

Many drivers as is their right do that anyway, it's more of 'please oblige' situations that cause the disruption when train crew won't 'oblige' anymore.

 

[phoenixcronin]

That's the best joke I've heard all week.

Sir Michael Supperstone, educated at Lincoln College Oxford and St Paul's School London, defending Big Business against the noisy unwashed proles. Couldn't be any other way, could it.

Not sure what his education has to do with it. I went to a private school and then Cambridge, and I'm certainly not a Tory/Big Business

 

[Wolfie]

Surely you realise that the government cannot coerce the judge, as the judiciary is designed to be independent.

Absolutely correct....BUT the judiciary are limited by what the legislation actually says and three guesses who controls what is in that.....

I don't know Supperstone, but I think you are unfairly maligning him. Their background can be a bar to understanding the issues facing the common man, but very few Judges, if any, are deliberately biased, and most probably think big business is rather gross.

The problem is not the Judges, but the Law, which has been changed by successive Conservative governments (and not changed by Labour) to stack the dice against industrial action.

Spot on....