RMT dispute on Merseyrail

[313103]

An interesting development in the dispute:

For those who can't read it, the relevant text is below:

As you know, we recruit trainee drivers from the guards grade. One part of the selection process looks at a guard's performance in the previous 12 months, based on a number of performance issues.

This notice is to remind you that taking strike action is absence without leave (AWOL). So if you are absent from duty by taking strike action it will be recorded as AWOL on your performance file.

In line with our established recruitment process, any guard with three recorded performance issues in the previous 12 months on their file will not be considered for promotion to trainee driver.

We will be advertising trainee driver positions in the next couple of months so you need to take this into account if you have aspirations to become a Merseyrail Train Driver.

Regards,
Jane English
HR Director

So that pretty much makes a mockery of Merseyrail's position that DOO is a good thing because nobody will lose their job and that guards will have extra promotion opportunities in the new system.

Looks like Serco have been taking their HR cue from the rest of their business.

That is quite insulting from Jane English to say going from a guard to a trainee driver is promotion. It is a side ways move not a promotion and you will take a cut in salary for the first one or even two years.

Promotion is to aspire upwards so supervisor, MS grades, Director level etc, that is what promotion is. Where do they get these Human Remains people from she certainly has no idea of railway operation and certainly has no idea about the history of the industry and how it works.

This is a form of bullying and intimidation from the company and one would call it the dirty tricks brigade in action. I will echo Arctic Trolls point that it makes a mockery of Merseyrails position about the future employment Guards.

 

[BestWestern]

£22,000 is more than enough for the job you actually do and for the skill set involved ,

Oh good, we have a qualified employment worth specialist with us. I'd give a job value of about naff all to that role...

 

[AlterEgo]

An interesting development in the dispute:

For those who can't read it, the relevant text is below:

As you know, we recruit trainee drivers from the guards grade. One part of the selection process looks at a guard's performance in the previous 12 months, based on a number of performance issues.

This notice is to remind you that taking strike action is absence without leave (AWOL). So if you are absent from duty by taking strike action it will be recorded as AWOL on your performance file.

In line with our established recruitment process, any guard with three recorded performance issues in the previous 12 months on their file will not be considered for promotion to trainee driver.

We will be advertising trainee driver positions in the next couple of months so you need to take this into account if you have aspirations to become a Merseyrail Train Driver.

Regards,
Jane English
HR Director

So that pretty much makes a mockery of Merseyrail's position that DOO is a good thing because nobody will lose their job and that guards will have extra promotion opportunities in the new system.

Looks like Serco have been taking their HR cue from the rest of their business.

That is unpleasant and unfair.

I wonder how legal it is.

I am the first to stand up and say the strike is futile and I do not support it but I fully support the *right* of every worker to do so - we would negotiate and play hardball when selling any commodity, and I see no reason why a person's labour is any different.

What is it with TOC PRs shooting themselves in the foot?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree it's a bit nasty, but equally, why should the management not fight back using (presumably) legal means? If the unions are going to be awkward, why should Merseyrail not be awkward too?

 

[Camden]

If it's an established procedure then it might have been more unkind not to alert people to the upcoming vacancies.

 

[6Gman]

What a thoroughly unpleasant organisation.

Quite.

 

[BestWestern]

I agree it's a bit nasty, but equally, why should the management not fight back using (presumably) legal means? If the unions are going to be awkward, why should Merseyrail not be awkward too?

Fighting to retain the future of your employment, in today's climate, after the GTR farce, is "awkward"? You are so much more intelligent than that!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Fighting to retain the future of your employment, in today's climate, after the GTR farce, is "awkward"? You are so much more intelligent than that!

They should be fighting to ensure that all the present guards have an operational job[1] on Merseyrail following DOO for as long as they wish to have one, on the same pay and conditions, with the exception of those on short-term contracts who knew that was the case on taking those contracts. Any losses of Guard grade staff should be by way of a good quality genuinely voluntary redundancy package, or by natural wastage i.e. retirement, resignation etc with recruitment effectively stopped.

With the phase-in of the new units and DOO being quite slow over a number of years, I think this is entirely reasonable and achievable.

They should not be trying to stop DOO on Merseyrail nor trying to keep the Guard grade. As I've said (and given reasoning for) many times upthread, I am in full support of DOO on Merseyrail.

[1] Be that driver, RPI, passenger assistant, platform staff, security guard, whatever. Just not Guard. And not OBS either, it's a sham role.

 

[BestWestern]

They should be fighting to ensure that all the present guards have an operational job[1] on Merseyrail following DOO for as long as they wish to have one, on the same pay and conditions, with the exception of those on short-term contracts who knew that was the case on taking those contracts. Any losses of Guard grade staff should be by way of a good quality genuinely voluntary redundancy package, or by natural wastage i.e. retirement, resignation etc with recruitment effectively stopped.

With the phase-in of the new units and DOO being quite slow over a number of years, I think this is entirely reasonable and achievable.

They should not be trying to stop DOO on Merseyrail nor trying to keep the Guard grade. As I've said (and given reasoning for) many times upthread, I am in full support of DOO on Merseyrail.

[1] Be that driver, RPI, passenger assistant, platform staff, security guard, whatever. Just not Guard. And not OBS either, it's a sham role.

This has to be viewed in the context of the bigger picture, Merseyrail is not an isolated case. As you freely admit yourself, OBS is a lie. Why should staff on Merseyrail be any more accepting of that future than anybody else? And now, as if further assurance were ever needed, we have the 'GTR method' of staff intimidation being rolled out in retaliation to resistance. This is national policy, it is perfectly reasonable to expect it to be met with the same response nationwide.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Merseyrail is not isolated, but it *is* different, it's a city metro, almost all city metros are DOO.

I don't believe Merseyrail are proposing OBS. I'm just saying they shouldn't either. There should absolutely be trains with only the driver on board. There should also be trains that carry BTP or PCSOs at least as a matter of course, those which should carry a tourist assistant during the day, those which could probably do with revenue squads twice a week[1] etc. It's about using staff flexibly for modern needs as well as cuts.

[1] "Skoolkydd speshuls" are a particularly good example of trains that could do with a dedicated revenue and security team on board at least once or twice a week, handing out nice PFs and Byelaw citations against antisocial behaviour. The message would soon get across. Which ones are fairly obvious, the trains leaving Ormskirk around 1530-1630 are a very good example, with three lots of schoolkids using the same ones along the way. A three man revenue and Byelaw squad leaving Ormskirk on one of the trains in that time window every single day would bring more overall benefit than a guard on each of three departures from Ormskirk around 1030-1100, say, to check the ticket of the one man and his dog and bicycle who has probably paid anyway.

 

[Goldfish62]

That is unpleasant and unfair.

I wonder how legal it is.

I am the first to stand up and say the strike is futile and I do not support it but I fully support the *right* of every worker to do so - we would negotiate and play hardball when selling any commodity, and I see no reason why a person's labour is any different.

What is it with TOC PRs shooting themselves in the foot?

It's pretty outrageous and it can only serve to stir things up further. However, striking is a breach of contract for which you can be sacked, as has happened many times in the past, especially in the 70s and 80s. It looks like the company, rather than threatening to sack the entire workforce are instead hoping to pressurise staff on an individual basis. Nasty. Another GTR.

 

[313103]

Merseyrail is not isolated, but it *is* different, it's a city metro, almost all city metros are DOO.

I don't believe Merseyrail are proposing OBS. I'm just saying they shouldn't either. There should absolutely be trains with only the driver on board. There should also be trains that carry BTP or PCSOs at least as a matter of course, those which should carry a tourist assistant during the day, those which could probably do with revenue squads twice a week[1] etc. It's about using staff flexibly for modern needs as well as cuts.

[1] "Skoolkydd speshuls" are a particularly good example of trains that could do with a dedicated revenue and security team on board at least once or twice a week, handing out nice PFs and Byelaw citations against antisocial behaviour. The message would soon get across. Which ones are fairly obvious, the trains leaving Ormskirk around 1530-1630 are a very good example, with three lots of schoolkids using the same ones along the way. A three man revenue and Byelaw squad leaving Ormskirk on one of the trains in that time window every single day would bring more overall benefit than a guard on each of three departures from Ormskirk around 1030-1100, say, to check the ticket of the one man and his dog and bicycle who has probably paid anyway.

Your right they are not proposing a obs style grade, Yes they are proposing total DOO with ONLY the driver on board. Who will pay for BTP or PCSO officers to roam around the network taking into account that the btp budget is cut year on year in real terms? a tourist assistant are you for real if indeed it did come to fruition (Arsenal have more chance of winning the league) it would be the only railway company to have them.

The company are planning to reduce the overall headcount from around 200 guards to around 50 so called other grade (as of yet they havent told anyone what they are) so how do plan using three men teams in just one area with a byelaw squad! whatever they are.

From what you are saying it is only school children that are fare evaders which is a damming indictment on them.

It is not about using staff flexibly, it is all about cuts. You know it (even if you deny it) i know it and i think the majority of the traveling public in Liverpool know it, if not around the country.

 

[Bletchleyite]

From what you are saying it is only school children that are fare evaders which is a damming indictment on them.

I didn't say that, what I said is that doing revenue enforcement on very low-loaded trains is not financially sensible. School children *are* serial fare evaders, though, they don't get the consequences in the same way adults do. "Bunking the train", as it used to be called down that way when I was a kid, then spending it on sweets, was very common. I'd guess at least a third of kids did it at least sometimes, and many of the other two thirds only didn't because the parents (like mine) had had the sense to buy a season ticket for them.

Usual practice was to pay cash "at the other end", if collected, with short-faring very common and essentially unenforced, though some would be honest about origin. The only sanction for being caught having not paid was to pay the fare. And as I said upthread I bet a lot of it was pocketed by staff as tickets were never issued - one of the first visible changes privatisation brought was that such people were marched to the ticket office to pay and had to then hand over the ticket.

It is not about using staff flexibly, it is all about cuts. You know it (even if you deny it) i know it and i think the majority of the traveling public in Liverpool know it, if not around the country.

No, I know it is about saving money - the affordability of the new fleet is predicated on it.

 

[Tetchytyke]

the affordability of the new fleet is predicated on it.

The new trains are going to cost £460m.

The cost of the guards is loose change compared to that.

But it's a good line, innit: "you can have guards or the new shiny thing, but not both".

 

[Fawkes Cat]

However, striking is a breach of contract

Yes

for which you can be sacked

No. Not if you've followed the law. See https://www.gov.uk/industrial-action-strikes/your-employment-rights-during-industrial-action - all of it, and in particular

You can’t be dismissed for industrial action if:

- it’s called as a result of a properly organised ballot
- it’s about a trade dispute between workers and their employer (eg about your terms and conditions)
- a detailed notice about the industrial action (which is legally required) has been given to the employer at least 7 days before it begins

 

[Camden]

Your right they are not proposing a obs style grade, Yes they are proposing total DOO with ONLY the driver on board. Who will pay for BTP or PCSO officers to roam around the network taking into account that the btp budget is cut year on year in real terms? a tourist assistant are you for real if indeed it did come to fruition (Arsenal have more chance of winning the league) it would be the only railway company to have them.

There already are enforcement officers that roam the network. Given how the network has been transformed for the better since they were introduced and guards have always been present, it is arguable that this kind of safety feature is much more effective when done right.

If the argument was about purposefully retaining staff that technology could otherwise realistically render obsolete then the opportunity to start any kind of discussion about that in relation to these jobs has long since gone, as over £400m has just been spent on technology which will do exactly that.

I think you are off with your staff numbers, with around 60 new positions on offer, but yes of course it means saving money. The new trains have been specifically ordered with a specification that results in lower running costs both mechanical and operational, and they won't need guards to function efficiently.

A multi-million pound annual saving is not to be sniffed at, especially when an organisation is and will still be quite heavily staffed. Given a choice between DOO trains and fare increases, which is the choice, I expect I know what most passengers would plump for.

 

[HH]

I'd get what you can while the going is good, Merseyrail guards. Once the nasty party get their landslide victory things can only get worse...

 

[Carlisle]

It is not about using staff flexibly, it is all about cuts. You know it (even if you deny it) i know it and i think the majority of the traveling public in Liverpool know it, if not around the country.

As railways aren't generally profitable, hasn't it always been that way? , Wasn't the funding of Sprinterisation in the 1980s mostly justified on the back of replacing old costly/labour intensive loco hauled trains (and their supporting infrastructure) with significantly cheaper alternatives so operators this time round can't gain anything remotely equivalent in cost savings purely by introducing new stock alone

 

[Chester1]

I am sympathetic to Northern and Southern DOO strikes but I have very little sympathy for Merseyrail strikes because its clearly about union power through maintaining staffing levels and not about safety. However, I think the policy of treating striking as AOWL is disgusting, I support unions right to strike even if I think they are being self serving. The right to strike is a fundamental part of a free society and this pushes the viability of that right.

 

[robertclark125]

Yes



No. Not if you've followed the law. See https://www.gov.uk/industrial-action-strikes/your-employment-rights-during-industrial-action - all of it, and in particular

There is one slight, shall we say, point, in that weblink worth mentioning.

"After 12 weeks, you can be dismissed if you take industrial action and your employer has tried to settle the dispute. For example, your employer may bring in advisers from Acas to help find a solution."

Taken from the above weblink, under the heading "dismissal for industrial action"

Southern hasn't chosen to go down that road, in their dispute with the RMT, yet. Let's hope Merseyrail don't go down it either, but let's hope that both parties are aware of it. It could put pressure on the RMT to seek a solution, even if it's not to their favour, but at the same time, if Merseyrail did try to go down that road, I'm not sure about how they would come out of it, with the bad publicity.

 

[Bellbell]

There is one slight, shall we say, point, in that weblink worth mentioning.

"After 12 weeks, you can be dismissed if you take industrial action and your employer has tried to settle the dispute. For example, your employer may bring in advisers from Acas to help find a solution."

Taken from the above weblink, under the heading "dismissal for industrial action"

Southern hasn't chosen to go down that road, in their dispute with the RMT, yet. Let's hope Merseyrail don't go down it either, but let's hope that both parties are aware of it. It could put pressure on the RMT to seek a solution, even if it's not to their favour, but at the same time, if Merseyrail did try to go down that road, I'm not sure about how they would come out of it, with the bad publicity.

I suppose it depends on the exact legality of the 12 weeks thing - how quickly after the 12th week of action would you have to be sacked? If you were kept on after 12 weeks and continued to take action but weren't sacked what, if anything, would that mean for a company who later tried to sack you? If you need some or all of your guards after the 12 weeks how would that work with sackings, would there be a law around who was sacked of the strikers?

Edited to add I've only read briefly through some links but it looks like you'd have to sack all striking workers or be at risk of claims for unfair dismissal, so would be tricky for Northern or Southern.

 

[robertclark125]

It's very difficult to say Bellbell. Your thoughts are exactly correct, what is the exact legality of the 12 weeks? One thing I would say is, that in the piece I quoted above, from the webpage, there is the word "dispute". When this first flared up, which I believe was back in January, the RMT informed Merseyrail they were now in dispute with them.

So, it could mean that after 12 weeks of the official dispute starting, that is to say that the RMT has told Merseyrail it's now in dispute, then Merseyrail could, and I stress could, take such action.

But, as a disclaimer, I'm not an expert in that field, and really a lawyer is the best person to ask.

That said, an employer has done such a thing before. Back in November 1987 what was then the ACTT, now Bectu, were involved in aa dispute with TV-am over staffing levels for coverage of a charity appeal. TV-am said it was a news item and needed four people, the union said it was an outside broadcast and needed six people.

The ACTT went on a 24 hour strike, despite talks which failed, but the following day, management locked the 234 strikers out, and refused even to talk until the strikers accepted a new 10 point plan. The dispute lasted into February, when TV-am then sacked the strikers, stating that no progress had been made in settling the dispute, and the 10 point plan had not been accepted by the strikers.

It's worth mentioning as well that management took over production of the programmes at TV-am until new staff were employed, though it as not as many as 234 staff who got taken on.

 

[Bellbell]

The link I read said that the clock stops if employees are locked out so from my reading of the dispute you've mentioned they would no longer have been able to sack the workers in Feb were the same thing to happen today but I'm not familiar with the dispute and may have missed some details.

If Merseyrail were to sack all their guards at just the 'right' point so they moved straight onto DOO I think the public would be outraged, locally at least. Not that outrage pays your bills as a sacked guard. From the way the Merseyrail drivers have stood with the guards though I don't know that that would be an ideal avenue for Merseyrail to go down.

I'm anti DOO anyway but I'm heartened that the general consensus seems to be that blackmailing guards into not striking by holding a driver's job over their head is unpleasant.

 

[syorksdeano]

Maybe I am wrong here but how can Merseyrail claim that it is AWOL especially if notice has been given of strike action?

Sent from my SM-T555 using Tapatalk

 

[Goldfish62]

There is one slight, shall we say, point, in that weblink worth mentioning.

"After 12 weeks, you can be dismissed if you take industrial action and your employer has tried to settle the dispute. For example, your employer may bring in advisers from Acas to help find a solution."

Taken from the above weblink, under the heading "dismissal for industrial action"

Southern hasn't chosen to go down that road, in their dispute with the RMT, yet. Let's hope Merseyrail don't go down it either, but let's hope that both parties are aware of it. It could put pressure on the RMT to seek a solution, even if it's not to their favour, but at the same time, if Merseyrail did try to go down that road, I'm not sure about how they would come out of it, with the bad publicity.

Exactly. Plenty of workers have sacked in the past for taking strike action because employers have used this clause. I believe even dear old BR did it.

 

[455driver]

The link I read said that the clock stops if employees are locked out so from my reading of the dispute you've mentioned they would no longer have been able to sack the workers in Feb were the same thing to happen today but I'm not familiar with the dispute and may have missed some details.

If Merseyrail were to sack all their guards at just the 'right' point so they moved straight onto DOO I think the public would be outraged, locally at least. Not that outrage pays your bills as a sacked guard. From the way the Merseyrail drivers have stood with the guards though I don't know that that would be an ideal avenue for Merseyrail to go down.

I'm anti DOO anyway but I'm heartened that the general consensus seems to be that blackmailing guards into not striking by holding a driver's job over their head is unpleasant.

If MerseyTravel oops I mean MerseyRail went down that route who wouldopen the doors?
I am not aware of an agreement with the drivers to do it, or are they all going to be sacked as well with the jobs being advertised at £22k?

 

[Goldfish62]

Maybe I am wrong here but how can Merseyrail claim that it is AWOL especially if notice has been given of strike action?

Sent from my SM-T555 using Tapatalk

Absent Without Leave. Strike action isn't leave. However, actually counting it as absence as part of a company attendance policy is unpleasant to say the least.

 

[HH]

Absent Without Leave. Strike action isn't leave. However, actually counting it as absence as part of a company attendance policy is unpleasant to say the least.

You appear to be confusing the "leave" in AWOL, where it means permission, with the "leave" in annual leave, which means time off work.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You appear to be confusing the "leave" in AWOL, where it means permission, with the "leave" in annual leave, which means time off work.

As "annual leave" is taken only with permission, it's basically the same.

Yes, you're legally entitled to a minimum number of days and contractually entitled to any additional ones (in the UK it's fairly widespread to be more generous than legally required), of course, but not to any kind of choice of when they are to be taken. For example, while I can mostly choose mine my company does have a mandated shutdown, taking 3 of them, between Christmas and New Year. I don't mind as I always want to take those days anyway.

 

[HH]

As "annual leave" is taken only with permission, it's basically the same.

Yes, you're legally entitled to a minimum number of days and contractually entitled to any additional ones (in the UK it's fairly widespread to be more generous than legally required), of course, but not to any kind of choice of when they are to be taken. For example, while I can mostly choose mine my company does have a mandated shutdown, taking 3 of them, between Christmas and New Year. I don't mind as I always want to take those days anyway.

Yes, but Strike Action is absence and it's not permitted absence (leave). Why would any company treat it in any other way?

"Oh you were absent 25 times, but because they were strikes we're still going to pay you your attendance bonus". Let's get serious.