Arriva Rail North DOO

[Carlisle]

Strike Ballot announced at ARN over the role of the Guard.

The RMTs own press release a few days ago welcomed ARNs confirmation they'd garuntee a second person on every train, has that offer now been withdrawn? and if not why the rush to hold a ballot right now

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Strike Ballot announced at ARN over the role of the Guard.

Yep just getting prepared for the vitriol from a minority of people on this forum. For the record I really do hope things will get sorted. I don't want to take any form of industrial action, I just want to be able to do my job and feed my family.

 

[northwichcat]

The RMTs own press release a few days ago welcomed ARNs confirmation they'd garuntee a second person on every train, has that offer now been withdrawn? and if not why the rush to hold a ballot right now

Arriva have a franchise agreement requiring them to provide DCO services whereby there's two members of franchise staff on board but the driver is responsible for the doors. They assured the RMT there would be two members of staff on all services but now Mick Cash has accused them of going back on their word because he asked for a guarantee the guard would close the doors and dispatch the service which Arriva can't give.

 

[ainsworth74]

Announcement now on the RMT website:

RMT declares dispute on Arriva Rail North and confirms ballot for action over failed assurances on guards

RAIL UNION RMT has informed Arriva Rail North that the union is now in formal dispute and will begin immediate preparations for a ballot for industrial action. This comes after the company failed to provide any assurances around the future of the safety critical role of the guard during a recent meeting between the union and the company.

RMT General Secretary Mick Cash said:

“The union’s position on Driver Only Operation (DOO) is perfectly clear. We will not agree to any extensions of DOO and will fight to retain the safety critical role of the guard and to keep a guard on the train.

“We asked Arriva Rail North whether they were prepared to guarantee a second person on all passenger services operated by the company and whether that second person would retain full operational responsibility, for train despatch, Platform Train Interface and current rule book requirements for dealing with contingency arrangements, such as evacuation and protection of the train.

“The response from the Company was ‘we are not in a position to offer either of these guarantees at this present time’. This has been particularly disappointing as Arriva North have reneged on their previous position when they stated they ‘were prepared to offer guarantees around a second person on board trains in addition to the driver’.

“This dispute, and the ballot for industrial action, were entirely preventable if the company had listened to the unions deep-seated safety concerns, had taken them seriously and had put passenger safety before profit.

“The union remains available for talks.”

Ends.

 

[Robertj21a]

I don't understand that.

How has Arriva reneged on what they said ? , they're talking at cross-purposes. Arriva only agreed to have a 2nd person on board.

 

[northwichcat]

Yep just getting prepared for the vitriol from a minority of people on this forum. For the record I really do hope things will get sorted. I don't want to take any form of industrial action, I just want to be able to do my job and feed my family.

If I was employed in your role the first things I'd want to know are:
1. Would there be any redundancies of existing guards?
2. If fully trained guards are used as the second member of staff on Northern Connect services would they continue to receive their guard salary and continue to work some non-DCO services alongside DCO services?

If the answers were then no and yes then that provide a lot of reassurance. If those weren't the answers then there would need to be more questions. However, it doesn't sound like Mick Cash is willing to talk about how the proposed DCO will work with Northern and is balloting members because they refused to drop a proposal he hasn't yet seen the details for and a proposal that DfT won't authorise them to drop.

 

[313103]

If I was employed in your role the first things I'd want to know are:
1. Would there be any redundancies of existing guards?
2. If fully trained guards are used as the second member of staff on Northern Connect services would they continue to receive their guard salary and continue to work some non-DCO services alongside DCO services?

If the answers were then no and yes then that provide a lot of reassurance. If those weren't the answers then there would need to be more questions. However, it doesn't sound like Mick Cash is willing to talk about how the proposed DCO will work with Northern and is balloting members because they refused to drop a proposal he hasn't yet seen the details for and a proposal that DfT won't authorise them to drop.

I beg to differ having gone through this.
The first and most fundamental question should read:
1. Would there be redundancies (voluntary or otherwise) as a result of the DOO plans?

Only then can a possible second question can be asked, as everything after is based on the answer given on this important t first question.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

If I was employed in your role the first things I'd want to know are:
1. Would there be any redundancies of existing guards?
2. If fully trained guards are used as the second member of staff on Northern Connect services would they continue to receive their guard salary and continue to work some non-DCO services alongside DCO services?

If the answers were then no and yes then that provide a lot of reassurance. If those weren't the answers then there would need to be more questions. However, it doesn't sound like Mick Cash is willing to talk about how the proposed DCO will work with Northern and is balloting members because they refused to drop a proposal he hasn't yet seen the details for and a proposal that DfT won't authorise them to drop.

And therein lies the problem. Arriva cannot offer the guarantees that the RMT wants, even if they wanted to, as their franchise agreement specifies a method of working and staffing that means the driver is in full operational control and the train can be operated by a driver alone without any other franchise employee on board.

So the RMT can strike all they want and get nowhere at all - just like on Southern - unless the DfT / Rail North change their minds, which is unlikely.

I beg to differ having gone through this.
The first and most fundamental question should read:
1. Would there be redundancies (voluntary or otherwise) as a result of the DOO plans?

Only then can a possible second question can be asked, as everything after is based on the answer given on this important t first question.

On both posts the questions are valid and sensible. Striking at this stage I don't think will serve any useful purpose at all.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Striking at this stage I don't think will serve any useful purpose at all.

Except that in order to effectively resist DOO it is necessary for drivers to get involved. Now ASLEF would say that ultimately it's not their problem though their members may say otherwise. In order to convince drivers to show solidarity guards may very well have to demonstrate a willingness to take on the fight first and make the sacrifices that go with that course of action. I say this as this was the typical conclusion reached at the end of many a discussion I had with drivers on the subject some time ago.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

What is the current maximum number of carriages that comprise a train in the Arriva Rail North franchise. I mention this as in the Southern DOO thread, train lengths far in excess of any train length in the Arriva Rail North franchises are regularly quoted in postings as being far too long for a driver to cope with.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

What is the current maximum number of carriages that comprise a train in the Arriva Rail North franchise. I mention this as in the Southern DOO thread, train lengths far in excess of any train length in the Arriva Rail North franchises are regularly quoted in postings as being far too long for a driver to cope with.

Six carriages I think, but bear in mind that this includes multiples of non-gangway stock like classes 142, 144 and 150/1 (which can operate with classes 150/2, 153, 156 and 158), and will additionally include most of the new units when they arrive.

 

[Moonshot]

Six carriages I think, but bear in mind that this includes multiples of non-gangway stock like classes 142, 144 and 150/1 (which can operate with classes 150/2, 153, 156 and 158), and will additionally include most of the new units when they arrive.

There are a couple of services which run as an 8 car formation ( pair of 319s ), however the back set is locked out of public use.

 

[northwichcat]

Six carriages I think, but bear in mind that this includes multiples of non-gangway stock like classes 142, 144 and 150/1 (which can operate with classes 150/2, 153, 156 and 158), and will additionally include most of the new units when they arrive.

Also bear in mind it's likely to be only 195s and electric trains that will be used for DCO services and that the requirement is for a second member of franchise staff on board on services which don't require the traditional guard. I think trains like 319s and 465s have been used in the South East doubled up with only one staff member on board.

 

[northwichcat]

And therein lies the problem. Arriva cannot offer the guarantees that the RMT wants, even if they wanted to, as their franchise agreement specifies a method of working and staffing that means the driver is in full operational control and the train can be operated by a driver alone without any other franchise employee on board.

So the RMT can strike all they want and get nowhere at all - just like on Southern - unless the DfT / Rail North change their minds, which is unlikely.

DfT and Rail North like the DCO idea as it means they'll still be a second member of staff on board but they'll be able to spend more time on revenue duties by not having to do the door duties. Unless the RMT propose a solution which allow the existing guards to increase productivity or come up with proper reasons why DOO is safe on some lines but not others, they are going to get no where.

 

[DarloRich]

DfT and Rail North like the DCO idea as it means they'll still be a second member of staff on board but they'll be able to spend more time on revenue duties by not having to do the door duties. Unless the RMT propose a solution which allow the existing guards to increase productivity or come up with proper reasons why DOO is safe on some lines but not others, they are going to get no where.

You cant be that naive. You must know that as soon as a guard is declared is non safety critical he is dispensable and down gradable to the level of a hireling.

I will avoid commenting on the desire many posters have to see railway staff sacked and reduced to terms similar to those faced by many down trodden workers in the UK.

 

[northwichcat]

You cant be that naive. You must know that as soon as a guard is declared is non safety critical he is dispensable and down gradable to the level of a hireling.

And yet you have no evidence for that. Mr Wilkinson proposed reducing staff at stations in the franchise consultation document and it led to so many objections that no only was the proposal dropped, a new proposal to increase the number of station staff was drawn up.

On a London commuter network the idea of barriers is the lowest cost solution to ensuring passengers pay for their journey and if all stations have barriers then you don't need on board revenue staff. However, it isn't for the Northern network as there are many rural stations where installing barriers or having RPIs doing regular inspections would be cost prohibitive.

I will avoid commenting on the desire many posters have to see railway staff sacked and reduced to terms similar to those faced by many down trodden workers in the UK.

Maybe you could point out a few posts where posters have said sacking staff is a good idea?

There will be guards who wish to retire, change career (e.g. become a driver or move to another industry) and there will be new services which existing staff won't be able to cover, so supporting the employment of staff for a new role is not the same as sacking guards.

 

[DarloRich]

And yet you have no evidence for that. Mr Wilkinson proposed reducing staff at stations in the franchise consultation document and it led to so many objections that no only was the proposal dropped, a new proposal to increase the number of station staff was drawn up.

On a London commuter network the idea of barriers is the lowest cost solution to ensuring passengers pay for their journey and if all stations have barriers then you don't need on board revenue staff. However, it isn't for the Northern network as there are many rural stations where installing barriers or having RPIs doing regular inspections would be cost prohibitive.

Perhaps you are that naive that you simply accept things important people tell you at face value. The point you miss is that "breaking" the guards means they can be replaced with cheaper, more casual, labour who are easier to dispense with or push around when you want rid of them once the fuss blows over

Looking at station staff many TOCs ( my local one included) have reduced station staff presence and thus facility opening hours. However I am sure the reduction in staff budgets by replacing employed station staff with hired security goons in a high viz results in trebles all round in the board room.


Barriers simply ensure that a person has ticket not the right ticket. My local station is has barriers. The way to defeat that system is blindingly obvious especially if that is the only method used to check tickets!

Maybe you could point out a few posts where posters have said sacking staff is a good idea?

Although you do seem to subscribe to the race to the bottom argument that point should have been above your quoted post as a general point. Apologies

There will be guards who wish to retire, change career (e.g. become a driver or move to another industry) and there will be new services which existing staff won't be able to cover, so supporting the employment of staff for a new role is not the same as sacking guards.

Employment of less qualified, less experienced and less well remunerated and protected employees? I wonder who benefits from that. Hint: it wont be the passengers.

It is the same as sacking guards as they will be forced to apply for a new, less advantageous job or do one. Surely you know this............

Finally, lets not dress these changes up as anything more than they are - an attempt to increase dividends to shareholders at the expense of staff.

 

[hwl]

Also bear in mind it's likely to be only 195s and electric trains that will be used for DCO services and that the requirement is for a second member of franchise staff on board on services which don't require the traditional guard. I think trains like 319s and 465s have been used in the South East doubled up with only one staff member on board.

465s/466s trippled up for 10 car since introduction in the early 1990s and more recently 12car too. 319s only doubled but not tripled with 1 staff member but that is for other reasons mainly DOO monitor positioning (or lack of them in the right place for 12car).

 

[Legzr1]

You cant be that naive. You must know that as soon as a guard is declared is non safety critical he is dispensable and down gradable to the level of a hireling.

I will avoid commenting on the desire many posters have to see railway staff sacked and reduced to terms similar to those faced by many down trodden workers in the UK.

Well said, especially the second paragraph.

Do you think recent and ongoing industrial action causes this or have the undertones been there for some time?

 

[northwichcat]

Although you do seem to subscribe to the race to the bottom argument that point should have been above your quoted post as a general point. Apologies

You did say posters are saying railway staff should be sacked. I've not seen these posts so was wondering where you had seen them.

Like I've said before 'race to the bottom' is a term invented by a stupid union leader and repeated by sheep who say it without even thinking and you've just given a perfect example of that which backs up my previous claim nicely.

Earlier I said:

If I was employed in your role the first things I'd want to know are:
1. Would there be any redundancies of existing guards?
2. If fully trained guards are used as the second member of staff on Northern Connect services would they continue to receive their guard salary and continue to work some non-DCO services alongside DCO services?

Obviously saying about retaining existing guards on their existing salaries and continuing to work at least some services as guards fits the description of the stupid term of 'race to the bottom.' :roll:

Employment of less qualified, less experienced and less well remunerated and protected employees? I wonder who benefits from that. Hint: it wont be the passengers.

How are they less protected? Any contracted employee is allowed to join a trade union and any new employee (guard, driver, ticket office staff, admin staff in head office etc.) has less protection when they have worked for their employer for less than 2 years than when they have over 2 years service. Are you suggesting the RMT is going to refuse to allow staff employed in this new role to join the union as they are a threat to guards?

It is the same as sacking guards as they will be forced to apply for a new, less advantageous job or do one. Surely you know this............

What the hell are you going on about?

• Guards retiring when they reach retirement age is not the sacking of guards. (Unless they are made to retire when they want to continue working, which is now illegal unless they are no longer fit to carry out the role.) If anything I would have thought the RMT would be against guards having to continue working longer than they want to.
  
• Guards choosing to become drivers is an advancement.
  
• Railway staff leaving and moving to another industry is something that has been happening for a very long time. Not everyone wants to work in the same industry for life.
  
• New on board staff being employed to cover new services doesn't mean existing staff will be made redundant.

Not replacing staff who leave with people in the same roles is not the same as making staff redundant. (Sacking staff actually means the staff are dismissed and they are to blame e.g. by constantly being late for work, so I presumed you meant making them redundant.)

You seem happy to come up with all these hypothetical scenarios based on the RMT saying Arriva have confirmed what's in the franchise agreement is going to happen (nothing new) but the RMT appear to have no idea how it will be implemented, which would be new information. As yet there is no evidence that even one Northern guard will be made to take redundancy.

 

[Carlisle]

Employment of less qualified, less experienced and less well remunerated and protected employees? .

To be fair you've never required vast amounts of high end qualifications or experience to train as a guard, preferably a fairly reasonable standard of education+ the right attitude yes, but of course the pretty good salary offered nowadays means TOCs can afford to be far more picky than BR once was

 

[yorkie]

I will avoid commenting on the desire many posters have to see railway staff sacked and reduced to terms similar to those faced by many down trodden workers in the UK.

This is clearly not anything like the case whatsoever.

 

[DarloRich]

You did say posters are saying railway staff should be sacked. I've not seen these posts so was wondering where you had seen them.

This is clearly not anything like the case whatsoever.

My interpretation of the positions of several posters views and positions. It may be wrong but it is a view held by many railway staff.

Like I've said before 'race to the bottom' is a term invented by a stupid union leader and repeated by sheep who say it without even thinking and you've just given a perfect example of that which backs up my previous claim nicely.

Whereas other types of sheep ( not someone of your vast intellect ) simply parrot the vomit spewed out by the Mail and Sun to express their positions on the evils of unions and their bolshie scum members.

Regardless of that there is a race to the bottom in this country which can not be denied. We see increasing levels of casualisation, bogus self employment, zero hours contracts, other non guaranteed wage contracts, services contracted out, public services cut etc etc. I am sure you will say these are all good things. Many people working under those conditions might disagree.

How are they less protected? Any contracted employee is allowed to join a trade union and any new employee (guard, driver, ticket office staff, admin staff in head office etc.) has less protection when they have worked for their employer for less than 2 years than when they have over 2 years service. Are you suggesting the RMT is going to refuse to allow staff employed in this new role to join the union as they are a threat to guards?

I am suggesting that new staff will be employed on contractual terms that are somewhat below those currently offered to guards. I suspect at most 6 month rolling contracts with no permanency and much reduced wages, longer hours, less advantageous T&C IF they are even directly employed staff.

Casualisation is a superb way to ensure that there is no automatic right of representation by a union and the ability to very quickly remove people considered "agitators" means getting the groundswell needed for a representation vote among the workforce can prove impossible.

What the hell are you going on about?

• Guards retiring when they reach retirement age is not the sacking of guards. If anything I would have thought the RMT would be against guards having to continue working longer than they want to.
  
• Guards choosing to become drivers is an advancement.
  
• Railway staff leaving and moving to another industry is something that has been happening for a very long time. Not everyone wants to work in the same industry for life.
  
• More staff being employed to cover more services doesn't mean existing staff are made redundant.

Not replacing staff who leave with people in the same roles is not the same as making staff redundant.

(Sacking staff actually means the staff are dismissed and they are to blame e.g. by constantly being late for work, so I presumed you meant making them redundant.)

Call it what you will. You seem happy to see decent people made unemployed. I wonder why?

Of course people will leave for different roles ( although from my limited experience few choose to leave the railway once they are "on") and retire. This time they will be replaced by staff on different ( aka reduced) terms doing a different job.

However I bet those numbers will be dwarfed by the people who just want to do a job and provide for their families. You seem happy for them to suffer for no real benefit - I am not.

You seem happy to come up with all these hypothetical scenarios based on the RMT saying Arriva have confirmed what's in the franchise agreement is going to happen (nothing new) but the RMT appear to have no idea how it will be implemented, which would be new information. As yet there is no evidence that even one Northern guard will be made to take redundancy.

Indeed - I am simply outlining my view of what could very well happen based on my direct experience of similar situations. None of it may come to pass and you may be right to believe all of the statements given by the company. I doubt it though.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Six carriages I think, but bear in mind that this includes multiples of non-gangway stock like classes 142, 144 and 150/1 (which can operate with classes 150/2, 153, 156 and 158), and will additionally include most of the new units when they arrive.

Non-gangway is a nuisance for DOO but is not a bar to it. There is no requirement nationally to have staff in each set.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I wonder how the RMT stated view on their understanding of matters would stand up to legal scrutiny, where the RMT would have to explain the factual basis of their understanding on what exactly had been said by Arriva Rail North in discussions with the union.

Could they claim there had been a misunderstanding because what had been stated was unclear in its definitions and also a clarification made of any fallacious statement made by Arriva Rail North that the RMT states as constituting a reneging of an previously agreed statement that could be examined in a Court of Law.

 

[185]

And yet you have no evidence for that.

The evidence at Scotrail speaks for itself. The retention of the door operator function physically ties companies to two man operation only. Evidence at Scotrail shows fairly extensive running of services without the promised TI / revenue person.

I'm sorry, but I think this is nothing to do with safety, modern trains or replacing an outdated railway, it is solely due to cash - not the guard's wage but TOCs trying to keep train performance high, whilst considering guards a hindrance to punctuality in that they are more likely to notice incidents which genuinely require a train to be held.

Not long ago seen one investigation where a Duty Control Manager cancelled a BT Police request, stating 'it was all concluded', after an allegation of sexual assault onboard. This was originally called in by onboard staff, and it certainly wasn't concluded. The company denied the DCM was paid a performance bonus at this time.

Some months later, the same DCM was on shift during a (two-unit, non gangway) train failure halfway up a hill. After several uncouple- re-couple attempts it was established the fault was in the rear set. The DCM told the driver and guard to board the front unit, and set off as eg 1X03 and abandon the rear set, with it's passengers on. Another crew would come by taxi and the back half would set off as 1X99. This DCM did not realise a senior NR manager was on board the back set, and for abandoning a train full of passengers on the mainline minus staff the DCM is now controlling a brush somewhere I hear. The company then admitted the huge bonuses involved after this event.

Putting bonuses as a performance/punctuality incentive is a disaster waiting to happen, in my view.

 

[Carlisle]

I wonder how the RMT stated view on their understanding of matters would stand up to legal scrutiny, where the RMT would have to explain the factual basis of their understanding on what exactly had been said by Arriva Rail North in discussions with the union.

Could they claim there had been a misunderstanding because what had been stated was unclear in its definitions and also a clarification made of any fallacious statement made by Arriva Rail North that the RMT states as constituting a reneging of an previously agreed statement that could be examined in a Court of Law.

Something doesn't quite add up, RMT welcomed a confirmation a few days ago stating there will always be at least 2 staff on every train, if Arriva are still honouring that commitment and the dispute is purely about failing to provide assurances on safety critical status and/or dispatch duties, then the RMT should be clear to all concerned about that

 

[Bertie the bus]

I'm sorry, but I think this is nothing to do with safety, modern trains or replacing an outdated railway, it is solely due to cash - not the guard's wage but TOCs trying to keep train performance high, whilst considering guards a hindrance to punctuality in that they are more likely to notice incidents which genuinely require a train to be held.

Even if I was to agree with this point, and I don’t 100%, one of the problems I have noticed on Northern is that on many services guards do try to do their job of both doing the doors and selling/inspecting tickets and often there are delays opening the doors because the guard is half way through printing a ticket or in the wrong place on the train. So, I would suggest, delays attributed to guards is mostly because they often can’t do both jobs in the time permitted, not that they delay services because they see obstructions and potentially dangerous situations.

 

[455driver]

DfT and Rail North like the DCO idea as it means they'll still be a second member of staff on board but they'll be able to spend more time on revenue duties by not having to do the door duties.

Just like southern and the OBS, who then sent all the OBS a letter telling them that as the train approached a station they were to stop what they were doing (Customer service) and make their way to a door to see if there was anyone on the platform that needed their help, which sort of negates one of the supposed advantages of the OBS role over a traditional Guard!

 

[455driver]

You cant be that naive. You must know that as soon as a guard is declared is non safety critical he is dispensable and down gradable to the level of a hireling.

As soon a they are non safety critical they are dispensable,once they are dispensable they are gone, see what happened to the second person on the BedPan line, Gatwick Express etc.

I will avoid commenting on the desire many posters have to see railway staff sacked and reduced to terms similar to those faced by many down trodden workers in the UK.

Its basic jealousy because we stick together to protect our pay, terms and conditions where-as others will do anything for a quick win without looking at the long term repercussions and then Bitch and moan when it goes wrong.