So, if the rail companies choose not to use the powers they don't have to provide any service. If they choose to exercise the powers then they must legally provide a 40% service level.
I know which option I'd choose!
A lower service level is allowed as long as no work notices are issued.So an all (in this case all being 40%) or nothing situation with nothing in the middle like some TOCs have been doing with ASLEF strikes upto now being allowable?
So an all (in this case all being 40%) or nothing situation with nothing in the middle like some TOCs have been doing with ASLEF strikes upto now being allowable?
I didn't see the bit where they are legally obliged to provide a 40% service if they invoke the act. They are expected to and must dragoon staff to support that but it if turns out that they don't deliver it are they subject to legal sanctions?So, if the rail companies choose not to use the powers they don't have to provide any service. If they choose to exercise the powers then they must legally provide a 40% service level.
I know which option I'd choose!
They are expected to and must dragoon staff to support that but it if turns out that they don't deliver it are they subject to legal sanctions?
It still seems to be the easiest way to trash the service in protest against the legislation is to take all steps to manage these work orders and then call strikes off at 1500 hours the previous day. I know the RMT did it with us a few years ago and the management were furious but couldn't actually do anything about it, thus having no loss of pay for staff, a hugely reduced train service and large numbers of contingent staff to pay bonuses to to boot.If by “they” you mean:
the train company, then no.
the union, then yes (if they ”do not take reasonable steps to ensure that their own members who are identified on the work notice comply with it”)
Well of course it would have anticipated it, and will no doubt welcome it. In the last few years the government has been more interested in whipping up hatred and confrontation rather than resolving often very complex issues. It's no different with this situation.The Government have decided their time to play nasty is the time to do this, having never needed to do it before going back over 100 years of organised labour - surely it should be anticipated that this is going to be met with some sort of reaction if they try and use it.
I'm curious about this. Whilst unions have called off strikes at the last minute because something has happened, I don't recall an instance where they have claimed to call a strike then called it off simply to create disruption. My guess is that if they do this overtly then a court could rule that there were acting maliciously and were therefore subject to damages if a civil claim was made by a TOC.It still seems to be the easiest way to trash the service in protest against the legislation is to take all steps to manage these work orders and then call strikes off at 1500 hours the previous day. I know the RMT did it with us a few years ago and the management were furious but couldn't actually do anything about it, thus having no loss of pay for staff, a hugely reduced train service and large numbers of contingent staff to pay bonuses to to boot.
I'm curious about this. Whilst unions have called off strikes at the last minute because something has happened, I don't recall an instance where they have claimed to call a strike then called it off simply to create disruption. My guess is that if they do this overtly then a court could rule that there were acting maliciously and were therefore subject to damages if a civil claim was made by a TOC.
I'm sure that their lawyers have been over this in detail
No indeed - but given the impact it has I'd be surprised if they'd not considered it as an option.I'm curious about this. Whilst unions have called off strikes at the last minute because something has happened, I don't recall an instance where they have claimed to call a strike then called it off simply to create disruption. My guess is that if they do this overtly then a court could rule that there were acting maliciously and were therefore subject to damages if a civil claim was made by a TOC.
I'm sure that their lawyers have been over this in detail
I'd be astonished if they hadn't considered it. The fact that they don't do it suggests to me that they can't.No indeed - but given the impact it has I'd be surprised if they'd not considered it as an option.
Interesting.RMT were certainly thinking about that as a strategy in the national dispute.
Of course were that to happen, I imagine Government (blue version) would legislate that once notified, strikes would need a minimum notice period to be called off, possibly the same 7 days out that the work notices have to be issued at.
Since I posted last, a colleague - who is actually legally qualified - has suggested a range of implications if a union were to call strike action maliciously. Her phrase not mine.
Funnily enough I said that but her point was quite specific. They can call a strike off maliciously and just be annoying. However if they call a strike with the express intent of calling it off, then there is a cause of action.Its more about calling it off ’maliciously’, although i take the point.
I doubt a professional organisation would respond to it as a "declaration of war". They might well conclude that the union was an untrustworthy or unreliable negotiating partner and that generally leads to a different approach, but I imagine the TOCs are already in that place.It may be that there is an understanding of some sort that deliberately calling off a strike in such circumstances would be regarded as a 'declaration of war'.