Bus Driver Strikes - Lancashire and Greater Manchester

[Djb1]

deleted

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Im fairly certain if the strikes continue for the bevy few months we will see more services continue to run as drivers trickle back to work.

If that length of strike action taken by the union should occur as you say, the legal position of TfGM in issuing strictures against the bus operators for not running the bus services could well be called into question, as it is the trades union strike action that causes the problem. It is not the case that no offer has been made by the bus operators to the drivers.

 

[jfollows]

Haven’t the strikes for this weekend been called of in the face of a new pay offer?

https://tfgm.com/bus-industrial-action

Most bus services in Greater Manchester will run as normal this weekend, as unions have called off strikes that were due to take place on Friday 10 October, Saturday 11 October and Monday 13 October.

While most buses will run as normal, there may still be disruption to some services.

Please check before you travel and leave plenty of time for your journey.

 

[mayneway]

Haven’t the strikes for this weekend been called of in the face of a new pay offer?

https://tfgm.com/bus-industrial-action

Yes new offers on the table all been called off.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

And ironically Go North west is the perfect example. They took over queens road several years ago. Immediately gave drivers a pay rise that made them the highest paying in Manchester which was great.
Couple of years later and the union and its members agreed a 3 year pay deal that’s still in place now.
Queens road drivers have gone from the best paid to some of the lowest paid because of that 3 year deal and I can completely understand why the unions are against it.

You might not agree with my opinion regarding bonuses but it’s the way it is. Hitting drivers with sticks and telling them to pee in bottles so they get their bonuses is unacceptable.

It's not that opinion on bonuses - it's just the fact that these bonuses are going to be relatively minor in relation to the sum that is required.

As for the three year deal... at that time, they were getting a good deal which is why they voted for it. Thing is that no-one predicted how much inflation would kick in especially with the cost of utilities and the wholesale markets. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

If that length of strike action taken by the union should occur as you say, the legal position of TfGM in issuing strictures against the bus operators for not running the bus services could well be called into question, as it is the trades union strike action that causes the problem. It is not the case that no offer has been made by the bus operators to the drivers.

I very much doubt that is the case. The operators are being paid to provide a service, and if they fail to do so, they are liable for performance payments (aka service credits). The operator employs their drivers and they have the responsibility to manage them.

In public sector contracts, there will be a force majeure provision that affords the operator some leeway in terms of things that they could be reasonably not be expected to deal with e.g. civil unrest/war, natural disaster, etc. Strikes are not unusual and are something that they can reasonably be expected to manage.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I very much doubt that is the case. The operators are being paid to provide a service, and if they fail to do so, they are liable for performance payments (aka service credits). The operator employs their drivers and they have the responsibility to manage them.

In public sector contracts, there will be a force majeure provision that affords the operator some leeway in terms of things that they could be reasonably not be expected to deal with e.g. civil unrest/war, natural disaster, etc. Strikes are not unusual and are something that they can reasonably be expected to manage.

I think what has to be borne in mind was the proviso stated in the posting that I made reference to concerning the stated time period of "a few months".

I cannot accept that operators have the power to expect their workforce to disregard official trades union sanctioned industrial action by being able "to deal with" matters such as that. Remember the example shown by the RMT some time ago and their very long strike action strategy against the original Northern franchise. Is it not the case that trades unions cannot be sanctioned over matters caused by their sanctioned industrial action?

One extreme way that an operator could be seen to be "dealing with" matters caused by trades union sanctioned industrial action is to declare a lockout, in the manner that occurred in the days of the textile mills in Victorian days, but that particular action would never occur in the 21st century.

 

[M60lad]

While the strikes have been called off, while they were on it got me thinking the way things were going could the strikes have been ramped up to weekly strikes where nothing runs at all (apart from maybe Schools) on any day of the week?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

While the strikes have been called off, while they were on it got me thinking the way things were going could the strikes have been ramped up to weekly strikes where nothing runs at all (apart from maybe Schools) on any day of the week?

It is that very type of action suggested above that the legal teams acting for the bus operators would bring to the fore when and if TfGM sought to impose sanctions against the bus operators for not running bus services, as what has been stated is a deliberate action by a third party, being mindful that the bus companies had made pay offers.

Would it be more correct to say the strikes had been suspended to allow the union members to vote of the offer just made by the bus operators rather than saying the strikes had been called off, which has a different meaning.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I think what has to be borne in mind was the proviso stated in the posting that I made reference to concerning the stated time period of "a few months".

I cannot accept that operators have the power to expect their workforce to disregard official trades union sanctioned industrial action by being able "to deal with" matters such as that. Remember the example shown by the RMT some time ago and their very long strike action strategy against the original Northern franchise. Is it not the case that trades unions cannot be sanctioned over matters caused by their sanctioned industrial action?

One extreme way that an operator could be seen to be "dealing with" matters caused by trades union sanctioned industrial action is to declare a lockout, in the manner that occurred in the days of the textile mills in Victorian days, but that particular action would never occur in the 21st century.

There's two things at play here.

There is a legal and contractual relationship between TfGM and the operator. I don't know what the contracts actually have in them, but what you typically have are clearly defined parameters in terms of performance. TfGM are paying a contractor to provide a service and unless there is a Force Majeure event (e.g. civil unrest), they will expect that service to be provided. I would typically expect clauses that provide clear terms that state what happens if the service is not provided:

• Ability to levy penalty payments
• Remediation and escalation procedure

Furthermore, if performance is so low with no reasonable expectation of resolution to the agreed measures, there will be some provision to terminate for breach of contract. That is important because it means that the operator may be on the hook financially for even more costs - e.g. the costs of a retendering exercise, funding the differential between the original price and a new price, and no comeback for any capital investment that they may have made.

Then you have the relationship between the trade union and the operator. It is not against the law to strike and/or take other industrial action. There are clearly defined laws that, whilst the provisions have changed slightly since the 1980s, detail the process that a trade union must follow. Where they don't follow the legislation, then they can be open to companies seeking to recover damages. However, if you have followed all the rules in how a strike ballot is organised and executed, with regard to timings etc, then it is deemed official and the union and its members are protected and cannot be sanctioned.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Then you have the relationship between the trade union and the operator. It is not against the law to strike and/or take other industrial action. There are clearly defined laws that, whilst the provisions have changed slightly since the 1980s, detail the process that a trade union must follow. Where they don't follow the legislation, then they can be open to companies seeking to recover damages. However, if you have followed all the rules in how a strike ballot is organised and executed, with regard to timings etc, then it is deemed official and the union and its members are protected and cannot be sanctioned.

Is it not the case in this tripartite franchising situation that is somewhat different than the usual situation of company and trades union. I am thinking of the scenario in this Bee Network franchising where industrial action by a trades union does not affect the normal company financial fares monies, but those which are taken by TfGM.

Whilst TfGM would never be seen to take action against the trades union for the loss of fares finance that comes to them as part of the franchising agreement, I do wonder what the legal position would so entail if such a matter was ever brought before a legal court of arbitration.

 

[mangad]

I think we can absolutely categorically rule out force majeure being used in strikes. It's the complete opposite of what force majeure is. So polar opposite that any contract lawyer worth their salt would never sign a contract for a provision of services where a staff taking part in IN ANY KIND of industrial action would count a force majeure.

I'm no lawyer. I do not work in the bus industry. But I have been part of teams who have put contracts out for tender. And I've seen the months of debate that go on between corporate lawyers once a contract has been awarded. TfGM will have their lawyers and part of those lawyers jobs is to ensure those contracts are watertight and will protect TfGM from exactly the kind of situation where someone could even try to claim force majeure would apply in a strike.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Oct 2025 ==

Is it not the case in this tripartite franchising situation that is somewhat different than the usual situation of company and trades union. I am thinking of the scenario in this Bee Network franchising where industrial action by a trades union does not affect the normal company financial fares monies, but those which are taken by TfGM.

I think you are over-thinking this.

It is not a tripartite franchising situation. It's quite simple. TfGM have a contract with the operators to provide bus services. As part of that contract the bus operator must provide services. If they fail to provide services they will get sanctioned under the contract. Failure to provide services will obviously mean loss of fares revenue to TfGM is basically an irrelevance. it will all be bundled up in as part of the contractual sanctions for failure to provide the specified service.

Whilst TfGM would never be seen to take action against the trades union for the loss of fares finance that comes to them as part of the franchising agreement, I do wonder what the legal position would so entail if such a matter was ever brought before a legal court of arbitration.

TfGM don't have a contract directly with bus drivers. Ergo there would be no basis for any legal action. End of.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I think we can absolutely categorically rule out force majeure being used in strikes. It's the complete opposite of what force majeure is. So polar opposite that any contract lawyer worth their salt would never sign a contract for a provision of services where a staff taking part in IN ANY KIND of industrial action would count a force majeure.

I'm no lawyer. I do not work in the bus industry. But I have been part of teams who have put contracts out for tender. And I've seen the months of debate that go on between corporate lawyers once a contract has been awarded. TfGM will have their lawyers and part of those lawyers jobs is to ensure those contracts are watertight and will protect TfGM from exactly the kind of situation where someone could even try to claim force majeure would apply in a strike.

I'm the same - I am no lawyer but have had the same exposure to contracts, especially in the public sector. As I said in #65, industrial action is not a force majeure. That is something that cannot be reasonably expected or mitigated - like a natural disaster or civil unrest. Strikes and industrial action are part and parcel of life.

I think you are over-thinking this.

It is not a tripartite franchising situation. It's quite simple. TfGM have a contract with the operators to provide bus services. As part of that contract the bus operator must provide services. If they fail to provide services they will get sanctioned under the contract. Failure to provide services will obviously mean loss of fares revenue to TfGM is basically an irrelevance. it will all be bundled up in as part of the contractual sanctions for failure to provide the specified service.

Correct.

Fundamentally, TfGM are buying a product or service. They have provided a specification and may even provide resources like vehicles and depots. This is not uncommon in both public and private sector.

It is the operator who has signed a contract that clearly lays out their responsibilities, service levels etc, and that is the delivery of the service. Revenue is a risk borne by TfGM though the contract may have some provision to recoup some/all from the operator in the form of penalty payments etc.

TfGM don't have a contract directly with bus drivers. Ergo there would be no basis for any legal action. End of.

Correct. The relationships are TfGM with the operator, and the operator with the union/workforce. There is no tripartite element.

If TfGM want to recoup their revenue, that is between them and the operator. The operator can seek redress from a union but only if the union haven't followed due legal process in organising the strike.

 

[mayneway]

While the strikes have been called off, while they were on it got me thinking the way things were going could the strikes have been ramped up to weekly strikes where nothing runs at all (apart from maybe Schools) on any day of the week?

No. Ultimately it would cost too much and it’s one of the reasons the strikes went from 4 days down to 3.

I was part of the all out strike several years ago at Go North West and it was a massive mistake to go all out. Drivers started returning to work literally after the second week because they were loosing so much money. In the end around 45% of the drivers had returned.
The balance has to be right.

Secondly an all out strike would give the operator and TFGM the opportunity to bring in outside contractors to run the services on their behalf.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Secondly an all out strike would give the operator and TFGM the opportunity to bring in outside contractors to run the services on their behalf.

Thanks for that observation. I wonder how Andy Burnham feels, as some contributors have intimated, about his Bee Network being involved in such a matter that reflects badly upon the Bee Network.

Can't wait for the day when Andy Burnham takes eight Northern Trains from that franchise, adds them to the Bee Network, then seeing the RMT go into an industrial dispute with TfGM....

 

[mayneway]

Thanks for that observation. I wonder how Andy Burnham feels, as some contributors have intimated, about his Bee Network being involved in such a matter that reflects badly upon the Bee Network.

Can't wait for the day when Andy Burnham takes eight Northern Trains from that franchise, adds them to the Bee Network, then seeing the RMT go into an industrial dispute with TfGM....

Well Andy Burnham was on local radio yesterday suggesting he wanted to bring all contracts onto a level pay deal - yet TFGM have continually said they cannot legally get involved in any pay negotiations as it’s it’s down to the operator.

Burnham regularlly runs his mouth off with comments suggesting all is drivers work for him and TFGM when we don’t!
He’s also very quiet about TFGM staff potentially going on strike next month over pay and conditions.

 

[johncrossley]

Well Andy Burnham was on local radio yesterday suggesting he wanted to bring all contracts onto a level pay deal

This may be a something he has said to sound good politically, but this sounds like a pretty bad idea if they are actually planning to do this, unless they are serious about bringing all contracts in house in the future.

 

[M60lad]

Speaking of Andy Burnham I've heard a rumour that he was behind the strikes being called off with a new/improved pay offer which the drivers are voting/voted on which is supposedly a better offer than what Stagecoach/Metroline were offering anyway, is there any truth is this rumour?

 

[mayneway]

Speaking of Andy Burnham I've heard a rumour that he was behind the strikes being called off with a new/improved pay offer which the drivers are voting/voted on which is supposedly a better offer than what Stagecoach/Metroline were offering anyway, is there any truth is this rumour?

How can Andy Burnham be involved? We don’t work for Andy or TFGM.

 

[mangad]

How can Andy Burnham be involved? We don’t work for Andy or TFGM.

I am not saying this did happen, but it's not unheard of for politicians and bodies like TfGM to act in an arbitrator role - helping to bridge the gap between both sides.

 

[Megafuss]

Well Andy Burnham was on local radio yesterday suggesting he wanted to bring all contracts onto a level pay deal - yet TFGM have continually said they cannot legally get involved in any pay negotiations as it’s it’s down to the operator.

Burnham regularlly runs his mouth off with comments suggesting all is drivers work for him and TFGM when we don’t!
He’s also very quiet about TFGM staff potentially going on strike next month over pay and conditions.

*Tongue in cheek*

Maybe Burnham should take all contracts in house and then fire/rehire drivers to get them on the same terms?

 

[mayneway]

I am not saying this did happen, but it's not unheard of for politicians and bodies like TfGM to act in an arbitrator role - helping to bridge the gap between both sides.

They can gently push operators and the union to resolve the issues but they cannot insist operators pay a certain hourly rate. We had all this when Burnham promised we’d all have the same pension provider back in 2022. Terns out it’s completely illegal for them to insist companies use a certain provider so we are all on different pension plans.

 

[robertclark125]

I expect the answer to this to be no, but in terms of either TfGM, or the operators, would either of them have any insurance, to cover lost revenue, during strikes?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I expect the answer to this to be no, but in terms of either TfGM, or the operators, would either of them have any insurance, to cover lost revenue, during strikes?

It was part and parcel of the Burnham-led move for the Bee Network to take all the bus fares revenue when that re-regulation was set up.

 

[Cesarcollie]

I expect the answer to this to be no, but in terms of either TfGM, or the operators, would either of them have any insurance, to cover lost revenue, during strikes?

I‘m not sure any underwriter would cover that risk. if they did, the premium would be huge!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Just returned home on a 368 bus (Metroline) from the chemists in the village centre and the bus driver said their company and Stagecoach Manchester had made a much-improved offer that was balloted upon.

 

[mayneway]

Just returned home on a 368 bus (Metroline) from the chemists in the village centre and the bus driver said their company and Stagecoach Manchester had made a much-improved offer that was balloted upon.

Old news now.
Drivers at both companies balloted on Tuesday and voted to accept the offer so all future strikes are off.