Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
To clarify regarding the points made about requiring an employee to work overtime this can only happen where a contract requiring an employee to work overtime has been signed between an employee and employer. This overtime must not exceed a 48 hours average working week over a 17 week period as defined by the 1998 working time directive.
All overtime requirements must meet the contracted notice periods, minimum rest requirements and comply with health and safety law. The only exceptions to this are in emergency situations agreed between employees and employers.
The exact notice required for overtime would depend on the contract signed.It would be a disciplinary offense to agreed to work overtime and not turn up on the day without good reason.
In regards to the example of a wedding given upthread, a test of reasonableness would be applied if it was to be taken to an employment tribunal. I cannot think a tribunal would consider it reasonable to refuse the right to guarantee a day off in advance for such a circumstance.
To clarify regarding the points made about requiring an employee to work overtime this can only happen where a contract requiring an employee to work overtime has been signed between an employee and employer. This overtime must not exceed a 48 hours average working week over a 17 week period as defined by the 1998 working time directive.
All overtime requirements must meet the contracted notice periods, minimum rest requirements and comply with health and safety law. The only exceptions to this are in emergency situations agreed between employees and employers.
The exact notice required for overtime would depend on the contract signed.It would be a disciplinary offense to agreed to work overtime and not turn up on the day without good reason.
In regards to the example of a wedding given upthread, a test of reasonableness would be applied if it was to be taken to an employment tribunal. I cannot think a tribunal would consider it reasonable to refuse the right to guarantee a day off in advance for such a circumstance.
In regards to the example of a wedding given upthread, a test of reasonableness would be applied if it was to be taken to an employment tribunal. I cannot think a tribunal would consider it reasonable to refuse the right to guarantee a day off in advance for such a circumstance.
We have leave declined all the time. Ours isn't guaranteed. Even if you applied months in advance, you can, and do, get refused. Even if it was for a wedding.
They most certainly do not. What they want is Sunday (and Saturday) to be "part of normal life" for everybody else, not themselves, so their weekend is as convenient as possible for them. There's a vast difference. Sundays as a "normal" day is purely for other people.
This is an inevitable consequence of a society where almost everyone is made to think they must have everything and think less about the impact on others, partly because the economy would collapse if they didn't.
Saturdays are increasingly becoming a normal office work day, it certainly is in my Department (although technically I'm on call 24/7 these days, if something blow up I gotta jump to attention). Sundays are probably not that far behind.
This is news to me, presumably the attraction of working Saturdays is to do other things midweek when things are supposedly quieter (outside school holidays), and/or to make childcare costs/logistics better? If it is notably popular now, that would also explain some of the RMT's basis for choosing Saturdays as a strike day, which otherwise debunked the idea that working from home got around strikes for many commuters.
This is an inevitable consequence of a society where almost everyone is made to think they must have everything and think less about the impact on others, partly because the economy would collapse if they didn't.
This is news to me, presumably the attraction of working Saturdays is to do other things midweek when things are supposedly quieter (outside school holidays), and/or to make childcare costs/logistics better? If it is notably popular now, that would also explain some of the RMT's basis for choosing Saturdays as a strike day, which otherwise debunked the idea that working from home got around strikes for many commuters.
Monday-Saturday, 8-6 or even 8-8 working is becoming increasingly common. Its attractive to employers because it means any front-facing services can be offered without the need to fund overtime, or employ the services of a 3rd party company. Where I work it came as part of a "package" of a pay deal, the likes of which make anything on the table with rail unions look like 24 carat gold.
As for the Saturday strikes, it is pretty obvious they were designed to disrupt shoppers and sports goers.
It may have been in place but plenty of crew haven’t worked their ‘booked’ Sundays in that time and haven’t been disciplined for it. Because you can’t be disciplined for not working overtime.
As has been pointed out to you by many of us, the Contract of Employment states that if there are committed Sunday's in that contract, as there are for all signalling staff and some TOC staff, then failure to either work that day or to have arranged a suitable replacement will be in breach of that Contract, so you can legitimately be disciplined.
That Contract is fully legal and has been agreed by the various Unions involved.
To clarify regarding the points made about requiring an employee to work overtime this can only happen where a contract requiring an employee to work overtime has been signed between an employee and employer. This overtime must not exceed a 48 hours average working week over a 17 week period as defined by the 1998 working time directive.
All overtime requirements must meet the contracted notice periods, minimum rest requirements and comply with health and safety law. The only exceptions to this are in emergency situations agreed between employees and employers.
The exact notice required for overtime would depend on the contract signed.It would be a disciplinary offense to agreed to work overtime and not turn up on the day without good reason.
In regards to the example of a wedding given upthread, a test of reasonableness would be applied if it was to be taken to an employment tribunal. I cannot think a tribunal would consider it reasonable to refuse the right to guarantee a day off in advance for such a circumstance.
Key phrase here is Contract signed. When I signed my contract it clearly stated Sundays where none mandatory overtime, so unless they go down the fire and rehire route forcing me to sign a new contract, there are going to be a very large number of "legacy" staff who will tell them to stuff their Sundays.
Key phrase here is Contract signed. When I signed my contract it clearly stated Sundays where none mandatory overtime, so unless they go down the fire and rehire route forcing me to sign a new contract, there are going to be a very large number of "legacy" staff who will tell them to stuff their Sundays.
As an aside, the above change has made it difficult to compare wages of industries that have no supplements for specific unsociable hours with those that still do, where the 'base salary' will appear lower, but the average salary for the same total hours will be closer. It makes rail staff vulnerable to being compared unfavourably to those who still have the opportunity to use additional incentives to make their salary higher than the published basic rates suggest.
Like Nurses. +30% after 8pm and before 6am (or for the entire shift if half of it falls within the above hours.) +30% all day Saturday. +60% all day Sundays and Bank Holidays.
+50% working a day off (unless on a Sunday or Bank holiday when the higher rate applies).
Compare with a South Eastern driver who gets basic salary, with no uplifts at any time, and flat rate for working a day off whatever day of the week.
It's never a like for like comparison, just the basic salary is compared.
I think it's 41 days annual leave (including Bank Holidays) for a nurse after 10 years service as well.
If one TOC can do that, that should perhaps be the standard, and it'll work itself through over time. They could also offer incentives (e.g. a financial "golden handshake") to switch to the new contract as you say.
EMR when it was East Midlands Trains were instructed by the DfT to place Sundays into the working week for Drivers. This was done via a pay deal which drivers had to opt in to, and the company stated it needed a certain proportion of drivers take up to implement.
[Funnily enough there was some displeasure amongst the opt-ins at Derby, who work 50% of Sundays, when Kettering and St Pancras work about 1 in 4.]
Sundays in the working week have an annual leave quota of course.
It's Train Managers and Senior Conductors continue to have 'committed Sundays' complete with begging notes for TMs in particular as to, "will someone please work my 10 hour Sunday (flat rate) so i can go to a relative's 70th etc."
Where I am there aren’t always enough drivers to run the service on RMT strike days without overtime, currently, so I wouldn’t bank on that. I also wouldn’t bank on logic being applied.
Has there? Is this something in addition to the RDG document upthread?
I believe that with committed Sundays a driver would be expected to work a Sunday as rostered however if they wanted to not work and have the day off instead, they would have to arrange cover and if they were unsuccessful in that endeavour then they would have to work their booked Sunday, as rostered.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The problem is when you have your Saturday annual leave confirmed, your Monday annual leave confirmed, but Vacancy and Vacancy won't cover your Sunday, so your weekend trip is stuffed.
If it’s overtime, you can’t be forced to work it. The DfT need to sort it out so Sunday is a proper working day, not a ‘have cake and eat it’ enforced voluntary day.
You can if it's in your contract. Do you ever get allocated a job longer than your 'spare' hours? You can't say, "No thanks," - your contract says you'll work it.
Key phrase here is Contract signed. When I signed my contract it clearly stated Sundays where none mandatory overtime, so unless they go down the fire and rehire route forcing me to sign a new contract, there are going to be a very large number of "legacy" staff who will tell them to stuff their Sundays.
Any changes to your terms and conditions since have been made via "collective bargaining," where the union has agreed to changes.
Pay deal with conditions you didn't like? If it got voted in, then the union agreed and those changes were made to your contract - you don't have to sign it.
In the case of this dispute (as in any other), whatever gets negotiated in or out will form changes to your contract.
Yep.
How many committed Sundays might I have to work.
We have approx 1 in 4 at the moment.
But if the reasoning is that Sundays are growing in user numbers and we need more services then how many extra days work will it be.
2 a month, 3 a month?
All on top of the normal full working week with no other days off to compensate and with no option to book the day off with annual leave etc.
It's not acceptable to me.
It should be Sundays in the week if they want more services.
As I said earlier, if you want your committed Sunday off then you find another (in the signalling world) member of your roster group or Box staff to do your shift. If there is no-one willing to do that then you work. That is what it states in all signallers contracts and as has been said here exactly the same for drivers (and guards)
Yes, can confirm for Signalling, if you want your rostered Sunday off, you can ask the roster clerk, but if they say no cover, you have to persuade someone yourself to help you out an cover it, if no one wants to, they you have to work or be marked AWOL.
Sunday is outside the working week, but really for all intents and purposes it is within the week on the roster, 1989 and later Signallers had the chance to bring Sundays within the week with a fair % compensation on salary, and more rest days obviously, but the Union at the time recommended no, and that is what many followed.
EMR when it was East Midlands Trains were instructed by the DfT to place Sundays into the working week for Drivers. This was done via a pay deal which drivers had to opt in to, and the company stated it needed a certain proportion of drivers take up to implement.
[Funnily enough there was some displeasure amongst the opt-ins at Derby, who work 50% of Sundays, when Kettering and St Pancras work about 1 in 4.]
How on earth did they manage to implement this? when I was at StP they were talking about 50% staffing which meant increasing Drivers on duty from 8 to 25, what do they do on Sundays and how do they cover the resultant weekday rest days?
Key phrase here is Contract signed. When I signed my contract it clearly stated Sundays where none mandatory overtime, so unless they go down the fire and rehire route forcing me to sign a new contract, there are going to be a very large number of "legacy" staff who will tell them to stuff their Sundays.
From the follow up material at my TOC I think get the sense that the point the industry is trying to get to is removing the ability - once someone is committed to overtime - for someone to pull out at the last minute. It seems like that would not necessarily require a change to terms and conditions.
Yep, as I said previously, it needs doing properly or not at all. Get Sundays in the full working week if you want a full reliable service. Potentially being forced to do three out of four Sundays as enforced overtime is not the way.
The TOCs won't want that and nor will the Government as it will either cost too much money or result in a drastic reduction of the service in order to prevent it costing too much money (assuming the Government actually cares about service provision which is debatable)
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Plenty of other conditions in that document that not only don't make sense but also probably wouldn't facilitate the savings expected.
Surely making Driver Managers drive trains during a strike constitutes a change to the DM's contract which is unlikely to be accepted?
Not to mention the rubbish about training being done on a 'competency' basis, rather than within a particular timeframe. If Driver A is currently allowed say 15 days to learn a particular route, under the new scheme they would be able to sign it earlier if they are competent. All well and good, but maybe they haven't reached the desired level of competency within 15 days and need an extra week, effectively costing more than the current system, not less.
The whole thing smacks of being drawn up by people who haven't got the faintest idea of how the railway works.
As has been pointed out to you by many of us, the Contract of Employment states that if there are committed Sunday's in that contract, as there are for all signalling staff and some TOC staff, then failure to either work that day or to have arranged a suitable replacement will be in breach of that Contract, so you can legitimately be disciplined.
That Contract is fully legal and has been agreed by the various Unions involved.
I’m pointing out to you that on the TOC side at least, staff with committed Sundays don’t turn up for them every single week and are never disciplined for it.
I’m pointing out to you that on the TOC side at least, staff with committed Sundays don’t turn up for them every single week and are never disciplined for it.
Not to mention the rubbish about training being done on a 'competency' basis, rather than within a particular timeframe. If Driver A is currently allowed say 15 days to learn a particular route, under the new scheme they would be able to sign it earlier if they are competent. All well and good, but maybe they haven't reached the desired level of competency within 15 days and need an extra week, effectively costing more than the current system, not less.
The whole thing smacks of being drawn up by people who haven't got the faintest idea of how the railway works.
I certainly will be taking my time to learn new routes if these conditions come in.
The only way I can see drivers/guards wanting to complete the learning any quicker is if there was a cash incentive or pay increment to do the training in the allocated time. But that would lead to safety being compromised so can't see that happening.
Yes, can confirm for Signalling, if you want your rostered Sunday off, you can ask the roster clerk, but if they say no cover, you have to persuade someone yourself to help you out an cover it, if no one wants to, they you have to work or be marked AWOL.
Sunday is outside the working week, but really for all intents and purposes it is within the week on the roster, 1989 and later Signallers had the chance to bring Sundays within the week with a fair % compensation on salary, and more rest days obviously, but the Union at the time recommended no, and that is what many followed.
I joined in 2007 and was only ever offered "Committed Sundays".
Atleast with our contracts, if we'd booked the Saturday and the Monday off we'd automatically get the committed Sunday off, unlike that mentioned by @whoosh above.
I’m pointing out to you that on the TOC side at least, staff with committed Sundays don’t turn up for them every single week and are never disciplined for it.
Yes they are disciplined. At my TOC Northern Rail.
I was chatting to a colleague before Xmas and he has had a final written warning over not coming in for 3 booked Sundays over an approx 2 year duration.
Plenty of others have been given informal warnings over the last year or two.
Key phrase here is Contract signed. When I signed my contract it clearly stated Sundays where none mandatory overtime, so unless they go down the fire and rehire route forcing me to sign a new contract, there are going to be a very large number of "legacy" staff who will tell them to stuff their Sundays.
Its the same with pensions - many "signed up" to retire 40 years later on a proportion of their final salary only to have it watered down over the years to a "career average" or "defined contribution" scheme.
Its the same with pensions - many "signed up" to retire 40 years later on a proportion of their final salary only to have it watered down over the years to a "career average" or "defined contribution" scheme.
There is a big difference in a state pension and a pension that has to be funded by a private company.
I work for a very profitable multi national and their final salary scheme had to go as it was not sustainable.
Its the same with pensions - many "signed up" to retire 40 years later on a proportion of their final salary only to have it watered down over the years to a "career average" or "defined contribution" scheme.
This is probably not the thread for this but this is a rather terse summary of the position. If there was a move to career average or defined contribution schemes, this would have been in respect of further pensions entitlement only after a future date, the historic entitlement prior to that date would have been protected. In any case, I seem to recall that NR has only ever offered career average etc. as an option, rather than a requirement to anyone transferring into them with final salary entitlment. Only new recruits have only been offered career average etc. And, in TOC-land, the requirement to offer final salary pensions is, I believe, still a franchise requirement. If the employers attempted to negotiate that out, it would (understandably) take things even further from reaching a settlement. This would be a whole other dispute in its own right.
And, in TOC-land, the requirement to offer final salary pensions is, I believe, still a franchise requirement. If the employers attempted to negotiate that out, it would (understandably) take things even further from reaching a settlement. This would be a whole other dispute in its own right.
In TOC-land it is not a final salary scheme any longer. For anyone. For those joining after privatisation and ex-BR.
This has been the case since 2016 I think it was - whenever the Second State Pension (which many workplace pension schemes were 'contracted out' of) was abolished.
It is a Defined Benefit scheme, but not a final salary one - this is despite TOC job adverts still containing this mis-information.
There is a big difference in a state pension and a pension that has to be funded by a private company.
I work for a very profitable multi national and their final salary scheme had to go as it was not sustainable.
The problem comes when the cost of the pension scheme exceeds the profits. Then comes bankruptcy, the current employees lose their jobs and the pensioners potentially lose their pensions.
The problem comes when the cost of the pension scheme exceeds the profits. Then comes bankruptcy, the current employees lose their jobs and the pensioners potentially lose their pensions.
In that case they would be, but many companies have got rid when that wouldn't have been the case.
Schemes have been closed on the back of cost valuations which often differ considerably depending on the agenda of people doing them.
It is part of the DM contracts (generally speaking, I know there are different arrangements depending on TOC). If you're competent and its part of your working week, you're obliged to do it.
Not to mention the rubbish about training being done on a 'competency' basis, rather than within a particular timeframe. If Driver A is currently allowed say 15 days to learn a particular route, under the new scheme they would be able to sign it earlier if they are competent. All well and good, but maybe they haven't reached the desired level of competency within 15 days and need an extra week, effectively costing more than the current system, not less.
Is this really how it works at the moment? Its not based on whether someone can demonstrate they're competent along a particular route, just that they've carried out 15 day's of route learning?
