-
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!
W Driver Only Operated Trains (DOO) discussion
- Thread starter 387star
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
'Perfectly' not understood by me -- but she's nice. Is that the point?
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Recipe for making a buffet:
Remove 3 rows of seats on each side of a coach. Install partition door. Install counter. Put trolley behind it. Sell stuff.
It's not the world's most difficult modification, and has been done a number of times in the past.
Remove 3 rows of seats on each side of a coach. Install partition door. Install counter. Put trolley behind it. Sell stuff.
It's not the world's most difficult modification, and has been done a number of times in the past.
Jonfun
Established Member
The problem with that is you end up with no real advantage of having a trolley, if it's just going to be parked behind a counter, and no real advantage of having a buffet, because it's tiny and is designed with the trolley being integral.
Mea Culpa.
Should have read: "The current operator has had IEP sets ordered for it without buffets."
Other facts I've got wrong? I've mostly posted my opinion. If we're to be picky, what's this 'DaFT' you talk of?
The same DaFT that was going to let the TOC decide what rolling stock they wanted until they realised that the IEP deal wasn't going to be chosen so they took the decision themselves. The DaFT is also pushing for the staff to roll over and accept the changes so their pet project isn't put into a bad light. In all this the engineering staff are going to be out of a job, to be at the mercy of the scraps Hitatchi throw at them.
Last edited:
Really, have you evidence for this ?..In all likelihood there probably aren't hundreds of good quality skilled and experienced train maintenance engineers in the areas concerned just sitting on the dole waiting for jobsi.To train up all fresh teams would take a long time , so I doubt it's quite the doomsday scenario for most of them that you predict
Last edited:
No, same as with the 700 Maintanance staff, the existing employees will be given the choice of redundancy or moving to a new employer (hitachi or Siemens) which means signing a completely new contract loosing most of the conditions and pay etc they have built up over the decades. It's a simple case of 'sign this or you are out' sadly. And of course the big issue-the company keep them in the dark about it and are refusing to talk to the affected staff about the possible changes.
Forgive me, for I don't know a lot about it, but could these jobs not be TUPE'd over in some way? My understanding is that TUPE would keep the pay and conditions, but I suppose the problem is that it isn't a straight transfer of the same facilities and work to the new company (Hitachi). Can someone elaborate on why TUPE wouldn't work? Thankyou
TUPE covers the transfer of employees. When one company takes over another. IF Hitachi/Seimens were taking over then TUPE would apply.
What is happening (similar to Southeastern) Is that Hitachi/Siemens will set up totally new. With their own staff etc. They are a totally new entity. Ergo TUPE doesn't apply.
Existing roles are being made redundant and will simply cease to exist.
I spoke to a fitter some time back and he was saying that his days were numbered unless he retrains on the new units and potentially relocates. I might have a nosy word the next time one gets in my cab with his magic screwdriver.
Much love for GTR fitters
Best of luck to them.
WRONG.
It concerns the transfer of a business undertaking. After all it stands for "Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006".
In this case the transfer would be the business of maintaining trains for Great Western. It would therefore seem a prima facie case for TUPE.
D1009
Established Member
The SouthEastern case involved a brand new service, so was different. What happened when Siemens took over maintenance on SWT?
https://www.gov.uk/transfers-takeovers/overview
It protects employees.
Is it ? or are they doing exactly what happened on Southeastern ? Are they going to be responsible for the entire fleet or just the new trains ? If they are being treated as a separate entity then it would not apply. If they are being given a separate contract then it again, would not apply. I'm no barrister by any stretch and I'm sure that someone with much more technical details as to how they are contracted/and or maintaining trains for Great Western can outline what exactly is happening.
Yes it was specifically for the introduction of the 395's We still maintain our fleet but 395's were (are ?) wholly Hitachi.
No idea about SWT.
Southeastern is something completely different. They were new trains running a new service. Nothing was transferred.
Here the new trains are replacing the old. The situation is different. As long as the jobs are largely the same then they should TUPE.
Generally the new maintainer wants the existing staff anyway - engineers don't grow on trees. I hear that LO staff will TUPE to Bombardier, for instance, in what's an identical situation.
Here the new trains are replacing the old. The situation is different. As long as the jobs are largely the same then they should TUPE.
Generally the new maintainer wants the existing staff anyway - engineers don't grow on trees. I hear that LO staff will TUPE to Bombardier, for instance, in what's an identical situation.
Last edited:
I am sure the staff at Laira are looking forward to being offered jobs at Bristol Parkway) because Laira won't have any repair work if these things get ordered for down here.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Old job at Plymouth Laira, new job at Bristol Parkway, yeah they are all going to jump at that aren't they!
You are aware that if the AT300s are ordered they will be maintained at Laira? If they aren't there will continue to be a need to service HSTs there.
AT300s will be maintained at BPW, the only thing done at Laira will be preps and fuelling and you won't need 50 (or however many there are) fully trained fitters for that.
Can you show me (or tell me which document it is in) where it is stated that any AT300s ordered for the South West services will be maintained at Laira please, because I haven't read it anywhere, not that I have read every document on the subject.
Last edited:
I don't know what the situation is regarding TUPE here, but ...
..TUPE applied to me, and that wasn't a case of one company taking over another.
TUPE may still apply but, as you say, the new employer can change an employees terms and conditions, this applies "if the reason is an economic, technical or organisational reason (ETO)" (See Business transfers, takeovers and TUPE).
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
TUPE certainly applies to situations like a contract being taken over (not the company). Question is if this legally counts as that or as a new contract entirely.
In terms of train Maintanance contracts (ie hitachi maintaining their trains, not FGW) TUPE would not come into it as it wouldn't be a transfer of staff. Existing FGW staff would be made redundant. Hitachi would advertise posts. An agreement would be made between the companies that those redundant FGW staff would be given priority in recruitment. They would have to sign the new contracts and TUPE along with all previous conditions wouldn't come into it.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Interesting, as I know for a fact that TUPE does apply when certain contracts change hands, e.g. Council bin collections. Is the fact that it's being contracted out for the first time relevant?
The contract is changing hands at all. A new company is coming in but not completely taking over Maintanance. The existing rolling stock will be maintained in house by first. Just the new trains will be externally maintained. This means less work for existing employees so FGW could potentially let them go. The new hitachi company will need new staff it is under no obligation to recruit current FGW staff. Therefore they are not transferring staff in but recruiting brand new staff on whatever contract they want to. So TUPE is irrelevant as no one is transferring. It's not a new thing either. TOCs lately have got rid of their cleaning staff. A cleaning agency has been brought in and has recruited new staff for the contract. Most of those staff are ex TOC cleaners who had priority at recruitment. If they wanted the job with the agency they had to accept the new terms of employment and TUPE didn't come into it.
NSEFAN
Established Member
Presumably this is a bad thing because the new company's pay and conditions were poorer over all compared to those previously? Or perhaps the new pay and conditions are not actually known yet, so you cannot be sure that staff won't lose out?A-driver said:
Which TOC has done this? It sounds like a straightforward TUPE situation. I certainly know that this has happened and TUPE applied.
When TUPE wouldn't apply would be if you cleaned several different classes of rolling stock and only 1 transferred out. Maybe this is what is happening on the maintenance side. To TUPE the majority of your work has to be transferring out.
The TOC has cleaners and they are directly employed by the TOC. They work in the "Cleaning Department"
The TOC contracts out the "Cleaning Department"
The cleaners are still employed by the TOC but the "Cleaning Department" no longer exists so they become surplus to requirement. The TOC then makes them all redundant.
Part of that redundancy package and part of the contract for the agency is that they give priority to existing employees.
TUPE never applies because there is no transfer of staff.
That is what may be happening with the maintenance staff. As they are employed by the TOC unless the TOC gets changed then they will still be considered to be employed by the TOC. TUPE may not apply because there is no change of employer.
A friend of mine is going through exactly that. His department is being closed and his job will cease to exist with his company. He comes under redundancy because his company have decided to close that department. IF his job still existed and the services he provided still existed but the new company were just running the department under contract etc then he would have been TUPE'd
@yorkie et al.
Contracts work slightly different as well as those on various service agreements etc. It is difficult to decide if and when TUPE applies. In general if you are working under contract to carry out regular work etc then when the contract is retendered then you should be covered. It happened with some of our ex Drivers who went over to someone else. They were working for company X but they lost the contract. When it was taken over by the new company everyone transferred over. There are also "service provisions" to take into account.
Again it will depend on how Hitachi are being brought in and in what capacity before anything is decided. As someone has already pointed out. It can be in the best interest of Hitachi to employ existing staff as there may be a financial benefit.
Its a very complicated law and I have been on both sides. In general if your job remains but your employer changes then you come under TUPE. If your employer remains but your job doesn't then your looking at redundancy.
Redundancy can be just as complicated :/
The TOC contracts out the "Cleaning Department"
The cleaners are still employed by the TOC but the "Cleaning Department" no longer exists so they become surplus to requirement. The TOC then makes them all redundant.
Part of that redundancy package and part of the contract for the agency is that they give priority to existing employees.
TUPE never applies because there is no transfer of staff.
That is what may be happening with the maintenance staff. As they are employed by the TOC unless the TOC gets changed then they will still be considered to be employed by the TOC. TUPE may not apply because there is no change of employer.
A friend of mine is going through exactly that. His department is being closed and his job will cease to exist with his company. He comes under redundancy because his company have decided to close that department. IF his job still existed and the services he provided still existed but the new company were just running the department under contract etc then he would have been TUPE'd
@yorkie et al.
Contracts work slightly different as well as those on various service agreements etc. It is difficult to decide if and when TUPE applies. In general if you are working under contract to carry out regular work etc then when the contract is retendered then you should be covered. It happened with some of our ex Drivers who went over to someone else. They were working for company X but they lost the contract. When it was taken over by the new company everyone transferred over. There are also "service provisions" to take into account.
Again it will depend on how Hitachi are being brought in and in what capacity before anything is decided. As someone has already pointed out. It can be in the best interest of Hitachi to employ existing staff as there may be a financial benefit.
Its a very complicated law and I have been on both sides. In general if your job remains but your employer changes then you come under TUPE. If your employer remains but your job doesn't then your looking at redundancy.
Redundancy can be just as complicated :/
As I already pointed out, TUPE is about transfer of business, not transfer of staff. When there is such a transfer the staff have rights to retain employment with the new business owner. In your example the business clearly transfers and therefore the employees will have TUPE rights.
It's what has been happening with cleaners all over the place-East Coast and FCC both did it for sure and it's what the plan is for hitachi and Siemens.
Nothing is transferring. In Hornsey depots case Hornsey will still maintain some trains, but far, far less than they currently do. There for they will have numerous surplus staff who may face redundancy. Up the road a new depot is opening to maintain a brand new fleet of trains. That depot will need staff and will recruit for them. They may give priority for redundant staff but they will not be covered by TUPE as nothing at all is transferring. One business is closing and another opening. As nothing is transferring TUPE dosnt apply. Not sure if you are misunderstanding something but there is no transfer of business. It's how many businesses work when moving to agencies. Same staff but new contracts with no TUPE as it isn't a transfer of business.
FCC did it? When? It's news to me.
About 2/3years ago. Same cleaners but different uniforms. I believe kings x cleaners are still in house but everywhere else is agency-initial I believe. Welwyn train cleaners (station not yard) used to be FCC employees, a couple of years back they became initial.
- Status