Possible Movement in RMT Dispute.

[GalaxyDog]

Compulsory overtime is a fact of life on parts of the railway. London Midland introduced it to the West Mids franchise in 2011-2012 after several Sundays had mass cancellations due to lack of traincrew.

As a result all new hires were on "contracted Sundays" which meant you had to work rostered Sundays but got 1.5x pay for them (plus any fluctuations and extras).

However, administering the rostered Sundays was, to a degree, left to depots. One depot used to include the Sundays on the weekly overtime request sheet and ran it on a prioritising system which meant that if it was your -contracted- Sunday as per roster sheet but you didnt want to work it, often you got out of it (but didnt get paid) as there were volunteers galore. Another depots LLC however put their feet up and did nothing, ensuring a rather unbalanced situation where 40% of the link did 100% of the Sundays as all the old boys didnt have to do anything, and there were no easy provisions for volunteers.

It sounds like TOCs that already have this "committed Sundays" provision will be left alone and the Ts and Cs on this particular issue will not be touched.

 

[Bald Rick]

Appendix 5, 7 day railway. Introduction to sunday commitment protocol for staff rostered on Sunday which was is voluntary depending if you work 1 in 6, 1 in 3 or 1 in 2 (with a day off rostered during the week) makes it 6 day week for those that will have to work 1 in 2 Sundays.

Thanks. i cant find that appendix, so don’t know how it would work in practice. Surely it all comesdown to rostering, turn length and how the rest days are sequenced.

 

[Krokodil]

Tfw have managed it. Shame the English TOCs aren't given the same freedom.

TfW has significantly increased depot headcounts to properly staff a true seven day timetable. That costs money.

 

[CFRAIL]

My TOC has committed Sunday's and have stated their desire to keep it this way

 

[falcon]

I would question "legally entitled" - do you have documentation which supports this? It may be custom and practice in the industry or an agreement with the union but I don't recall it being part of employment law.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Nov 2023 ==


That's pretty much how I'm reading it but I'm clearly in the minority so I'm going to withhold my scepticism and celebrate a potential forwards move. I'm not in the industry, my only dog in this race is wanting the trains to be reliable with a well-stocked bar on late evening intercity journeys so I'm happy to be wrong or corrected too.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Nov 2023 ==


Genesis before or after Peter Gabriel left?

It's contract law. It is money you are owed because you worked there at that time. The award is a back dated agreement. Google it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Nov 2023 ==

What law would that be then?

It's contract law. the employee has an agreemnet to be paid an amount for the work he does. Just because the agreement is made late does not mean that the pay is lost. It is an agrement by contract.
I hope that helps.

 

[Facing Back]

It's contract law. It is money you are owed because you worked there at that time. The award is a back dated agreement. Google it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Nov 2023 ==


It's contract law. the employee has an agreemnet to be paid an amount for the work he does. Just because the agreement is made late does not mean that the pay is lost. It is an agrement by contract.
I hope that helps.

I will try out this google of which you mention. However my understanding is that the pay is lost by default unless there is a specific agreement in the contract or associated terms to the contrary. I have never seen a railway contract of employment so please let me know if they contain such a clause - the many many contracts I have seen never do.

More likely might be an agreement with the unions or custom and practice where these deals are honoured for ex-employees.

 

[43066]

I will try out this google of which you mention. However my understanding is that the pay is lost by default unless there is a specific agreement in the contract or associated terms to the contrary. I have never seen a railway contract of employment so please let me know if they contain such a clause - the many many contracts I have seen never do.

More likely might be an agreement with the unions or custom and practice where these deals are honoured for ex-employees.

I’ll avoid getting into the union discussion more generally, but you’re right that there is no legal entitlement to back pay. As a general point you are legally entitled to be paid what your contract states for any given year and, absent a contractual clause stating otherwise (not usually present in railway employment contracts AFAIK) future back pay negotiated by a union is essentially an “ex gratia” payment by the employer.

That said, it’s longstanding industry practice to award backpay, and the wording of the offers so far clearly contemplates that it will be awarded in the usual way. If the intention is to resolve the dispute, as it now appears to be, it makes sense that the offer would follow the industry standard.

 

[Mundinho]

can anyone confirm whether this new minimum service law cannot be applied retrospectively? If it can’t what are peoples thoughts on the govt all of a sudden playing nice to reset the strike action and allowing them implement this law going forward? Seems like a motive to me for the sudden u turn. The timing is a bit of a coincidence don’t you think?

 

[Bald Rick]

can anyone confirm whether this new minimum service law cannot be applied retrospectively?

AIUI it applies to when strikes are called, and not when the dispute started.

 

[ainsworth74]

can anyone confirm whether this new minimum service law cannot be applied retrospectively? If it can’t what are peoples thoughts on the govt all of a sudden playing nice to reset the strike action and allowing them implement this law going forward? Seems like a motive to me for the sudden u turn. The timing is a bit of a coincidence don’t you think?

Whilst we have yet to see the actual regulations themselves the act (which gives the legal framework which gives the regulations force) has amended the relevant legislation (the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992) to contain the following provision:

(2) Minimum service regulations may be framed so as to have effect in relation to any strike that takes place after the day on which the regulations come into force, even if—

(a) notice of the strike under section 234A was given on or before the day on which the regulations come into force, or​

​

(b) the date of the ballot in respect of the strike was on or before the day on which the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 comes into force.​

Which basically means that the regulations can take effect regarding any announced strike action even if announced before the regulations entered into force, and they also apply to any properly balloted industrial dispute even if that ballot itself pre-dated the 2023 Act. Therefore the existing industrial disputes (both RMT and ASLEF), to my understanding, will be covered by the new law and regulations as soon as the regulations come into force. We don't know for certain if they'll do this until we see the actual regulations but it would seem barmy for them to include the power and then not use it in the actual regulations.

 

[Carlisle]

I’ll avoid getting into the union discussion more generally, but you’re right that there is no legal entitlement to back pay. As a general point you are legally entitled to be paid what your contract states for any given year and, absent a contractual clause stating otherwise

Makes sense, considering employers often try & claw back holiday pay claiming one hasn’t accrued enough days before leaving even though the law isn’t exactly clear on that either.

 

[12LDA28C]

The timing is a bit of a coincidence don’t you think?

Not really. You might recall that on many routes December was a disaster last year with an RMT overtime ban which lasted for weeks and greatly impacted services. I'd imagine the Government, even being as staunchly anti-rail as it is doesn't want to risk a recurrence of that situation.

 

[Starmill]

It's contract law.

Most claims for back pay will not be able to rely on a provision in the contract, because most employment contracts don't or can't include terms for what would happen if a retroactive pay award were agreed.

 

[matthewjohnson]

Not really. You might recall that on many routes December was a disaster last year with an RMT overtime ban which lasted for weeks and greatly impacted services. I'd imagine the Government, even being as staunchly anti-rail as it is doesn't want to risk a recurrence of that situation.

If they really wanted to avoid December chaos they'd sort out the far more disruptive Aslef dispute

 

[dk1]

If they really wanted to avoid December chaos they'd sort out the far more disruptive Aslef dispute

Not sure how that works at the moment as we are currently in ballot. That closes on 30th November.

 

[12LDA28C]

If they really wanted to avoid December chaos they'd sort out the far more disruptive Aslef dispute

Far more disruptive in terms of generally very few trains running on an ASLEF strike day but of course the ASLEF action has generally been on an occasional day here and there, not for any prolonged period as it was with the RMT last December. Maybe if the RMT deal gets accepted by the members, a similar deal might then be put to ASLEF.

 

[Richardr]

Not sure how that works at the moment as we are currently in ballot. That closes on 30th November.

Not sure why the fact that the RMT is currently balloting should make any difference to the possibility of reaching a deal with ASLEF?

 

[dk1]

Not sure why the fact that the RMT is currently balloting should make any difference to the possibility of reaching a deal with ASLEF?

No I’m talking about ASLEF. We are currently in ballot.

 

[12LDA28C]

Not sure why the fact that the RMT is currently balloting should make any difference to the possibility of reaching a deal with ASLEF?

The RMT is not currently balloting. The last re-ballot concluded on 19th October.

 

[Starmill]

No I’m talking about ASLEF. We are currently in ballot.

I don't think there's any reason why that'd mean negotiations couldn't take place, although I suspect there's been little formal negotiation happening recently?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Nov 2023 ==

Makes sense, considering employers often try & claw back holiday pay claiming one hasn’t accrued enough days before leaving even though the law isn’t exactly clear on that either.

This is a big part of why some employers won't allow paid holiday to be taken from work until it has already been accrued. Again this is permitted, although it's poor practice, because it makes for a very narrow window for your employees to use all of their paid leave.

 

[dk1]

I don't think there's any reason why that'd mean negotiations couldn't take place, although I suspect there's been little formal negotiation happening recently?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Nov 2023 ==

It might be nothing to do with any negotiations, I just wondered if that would stall them until the vote was announced even though I think we all know what the result is going to be.

 

[falcon]

What law would that be then?

See post 172

 

[Dogbox]

Minister: No positive ‘mood music’ in train drivers’ pay dispute

Transport Secretary Mark Harper urged union Aslef to put an offer to a vote of its members.

www.shropshirestar.com

Doesn't sound very promising.

 

[dk1]

Haha, he's certainly clutching at straws there. Action to continue then.

 

[jon0844]

Minister: No positive ‘mood music’ in train drivers’ pay dispute

Transport Secretary Mark Harper urged union Aslef to put an offer to a vote of its members.

www.shropshirestar.com

Doesn't sound very promising.

ASLEF hasn't been given a revised offer so will definitely want to vote yes to keep the right to strike. That doesn't mean ASLEF can't do the same as the RMT and agree to hold off strikes pending further negotiations, so in effect this is vital to give that extra ammunition to get an offer.

 

[Dogbox]

ASLEF hasn't been given a revised offer so will definitely want to vote yes to keep the right to strike. That doesn't mean ASLEF can't do the same as the RMT and agree to hold off strikes pending further negotiations, so in effect this is vital to give that extra ammunition to get an offer.

Just doesn't make any sense, why do a deal with RMT to avoid strikes through Christmas but not offer aslef the same.

 

[jon0844]

Just doesn't make any sense, why do a deal with RMT to avoid strikes through Christmas but not offer aslef the same.

I'm not sure, but maybe they want to deal with one thing at a time. I am pretty sure that, especially after the latest reshuffles, the Government is preparing to announce an election date and start campaigning, so they want the current disputes, in all industries, settled (relating to 2022/3 pay deals) and to kick the next lot of negotiations to impact the next parliament.

In a way, the Government has done okay because the RMT deal is 5% which is way below inflation, but after 18 months people have had enough. The dropping of crazy terms and conditions is considered the victory, not the pay.

 

[Ashfordian6]

Just doesn't make any sense, why do a deal with RMT to avoid strikes through Christmas but not offer aslef the same.

If the ballot dates I have seen are correct I don't think ASLEF can strike over the Christmas period. January on the other hand...

 

[dk1]

If the ballot dates I have seen are correct I don't think ASLEF can strike over the Christmas period. January on the other hand...

Ballot closes on the Nov 30th. So only 2 weeks grace required.

 

[greyman42]

In a way, the Government has done okay because the RMT deal is 5% which is way below inflation,

Not any more it isn't.