West Midlands Trains potential strike Fri/Sat 22/23May

[AlanL]

West Midlands Trains have said that there will be very limited services next Friday and Saturday 22/23 May due to industrial action by the TSSA union. Does anyone know what this is about and if there are on going negotiations?

 

[ajp999]

Rest day working payments I believe that is impacting rosters and control staff. Agreements have been reached with other unions but WMT hands are apparently tied by the DfT.

 

[officewalla]

Welcome to the new world of complete control by DfT with a mindset that says no to everything.

 

[The Planner]

I thought it required 14 days notice?

 

[scrapy]

It became 10 days when minimum service levels were abolished. That's 10 days notice from the union to the company. Its up to the company how much notice they give the public. Presumably the TOC revieved the legal amount of notice, otherwise they could successfully challenge it.

They have probably taken a few days to work out what level of service they can provide before going public. Ironically the planning staff who normally evaluate this kind of thing are involved in the action, so this has possibly been done by someone higher up who is not so experienced at this.

 

[Dave61]

Welcome to the new world of complete control by DfT with a mindset that says no to everything.

But is it if the other unions have come to an agreement?

 

[Undiscovered]

But is it if the other unions have come to an agreement?

Deleted- mixed up the topics on the thread.

 

[SCDR_WMR]

WMT are yet to open negotiations with the RMT. Indeed, we have had notice that they're preparing to enter dispute, and the National Executive will consider the matter further on Tuesday coming.
I fully expect to be on strike at some point this summer.

That's regarding this year's pay rise. The TSSA dispute is to do with RDW payments, similar to what RMT agreed to back in January, and ASLEF last year. Hence mentioning other unions had made agreements already

 

[Undiscovered]

That's regarding this year's pay rise. The TSSA dispute is to do with RDW payments, similar to what RMT agreed to back in January, and ASLEF last year. Hence mentioning other unions had made agreements already

Yeah, sorry
Forgot which thread I was in! Have deleted the post now.

 

[tram21]

Welcome to the new world of complete control by DfT with a mindset that says no to everything.

That's just not true. Disputes across the network have been resolved much quicker with the DfT, such as at EMR

 

[spp]

Striking on a bank holiday weekend. Again hitting people visiting family etc rather than hitting business….pathetic stance from a union

 

[styles]

Striking on a bank holiday weekend. Again hitting people visiting family etc rather than hitting business….pathetic stance from a union

I haven't read much into this specific dispute; but in general union action aims to cause a large impact, not a mild inconvenience. If it only affected business travellers, their companies would just buy flights or taxis. Effective union action requires mass disruption.

 

[AlterEgo]

There's been limited utility in going after "business travellers" since Covid, because everyone just works from home or Zooms their meetings.

 

[paulmch]

Welcome to the new world of complete control by DfT with a mindset that says no to everything.

I must have imagined the six years since Covid where the DfT controlled everything and said no to everything.

 

[Cross City]

Striking on a bank holiday weekend. Again hitting people visiting family etc rather than hitting business….pathetic stance from a union

That's... that's the point.

 

[The exile]

I haven't read much into this specific dispute; but in general union action aims to cause a large impact, not a mild inconvenience. If it only affected business travellers, their companies would just buy flights or taxis. Effective union action requires mass disruption.

Effective union action requires the employer to suffer more than the union - with as little effect as possible on the general public - to avoid alienating them.

 

[SCDR_WMR]

Effective union action requires the employer to suffer more than the union - with as little effect as possible on the general public - to avoid alienating them.

Right. And in a service industry like the railway, the only way to truly impact the company's image is via adverse performance stats from not running trains or public image via complaints etc.

These aren't train crew who can utilise black ink/Rest Day or OT bans. What would your alternative strategy as a union (member) be?

 

[MidsMike]

I booked advanced with the 50% offer to travel this Saturday on LNWR from Lichfield Trent Valley to Euston. Will I be allowed to travel on Avanti?

 

[SCDR_WMR]

I booked advanced with the 50% offer to travel this Saturday on LNWR from Lichfield Trent Valley to Euston. Will I be allowed to travel on Avanti?

I would very much doubt it. Trains are running between 7am-7pm so there will be LNR services for you to catch, even if at different times.

 

[Sprinter107]

According to the London North Western website, there are no Trent Valley services, along with the Potteries locals, Marston Vale or Abbey line.

 

[MKB]

It's the same every single strike, the TOC's website happily tell you what your options are if you "choose not to travel", but there is never any section outlining your options and legal rights if you do have to travel on the strike day.

Cross-ticket acceptance with Avanti is surely the bare minimum duty of care that LM owes to affected passengers in places they are running no trains themselves.

I have never understood how the current situation is tolerated by consumer law. It's a clear breach of contract that needs to be remedied, but somehow, businesses are given a free pass during strikes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I have never understood how the current situation is tolerated by consumer law. It's a clear breach of contract that needs to be remedied, but somehow, businesses are given a free pass during strikes.

It legally comes under the principle of a frustrated contract, i.e. they are unable to deliver the service because of something that is not within their direct control. In such circumstances both parties are just required to be put in the position they were in before the contract was formed, i.e. a full refund to the customer.

It came up a lot during COVID with regard to holidays where legal restrictions prevented the holiday from taking place.

It could however be argued that the EU-derived passenger rights to rerouteing apply, but good luck getting that accepted. It should however be possible to travel to/from Lichfield via Birmingham as I believe the Cross City is running during the limited operating day.

This is the first time I ever heard of a Control strike causing service withdrawal, though. Does anyone know what's different/specific to this case?

 

[SCDR_WMR]

It's the same every single strike, the TOC's website happily tell you what your options are if you "choose not to travel", but there is never any section outlining your options and legal rights if you do have to travel on the strike day.

Cross-ticket acceptance with Avanti is surely the bare minimum duty of care that LM owes to affected passengers in places they are running no trains themselves.

I have never understood how the current situation is tolerated by consumer law. It's a clear breach of contract that needs to be remedied, but somehow, businesses are given a free pass during strikes.

Isn't the notice period given to protect the company from a legal perspective. Contracts will always have clauses that timetables may change in extenuating circumstances, they'd be daft not to.

Statements like this get brought up for every strike day, what exactly are you expecting the TOC to provide? Whilst ticket acceptance may be plausible generally, I would not expect all routes to be covered. And road replacement clearly is not so easy to provide for such huge distances.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 May 2026 ==

This is the first time I ever heard of a Control strike causing service withdrawal, though. Does anyone know what's different/specific to this case?

It also covers some station staff and all DTCM/Managers.

So there is nobody to provide diagrams and book staff on at depots.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It also covers some station staff and all DTCM/Managers.

So there is nobody to provide diagrams and book staff on at depots.

Ah, so the issue is that managers who would normally step in and do those admin tasks to cover are themselves taking action too? Makes sense - but very rare!

 

[DarloRich]

This is the first time I ever heard of a Control strike causing service withdrawal, though. Does anyone know what's different/specific to this case?

Roster Clerks, Duty Train Crew Managers and Control Staff out on strike. One train perhour Brum > Liverpool & Brum - Northampton - Milton Keynes - London Euston.

The Marston Vale isnt running but whats new

 

[MKB]

It legally comes under the principle of a frustrated contract, i.e. they are unable to deliver the service because of something that is not within their direct control. In such circumstances both parties are just required to be put in the position they were in before the contract was formed, i.e. a full refund to the customer.

...

I thought that legal remedy was to put the aggrieved party in the position they held had the breach not occurred, not had the contract not existed? Otherwise, any contract would be worthless.

It's also notable that under EU261/UK261 for airlines, strikes by directly employed staff are no longer considered extraordinary circumstances that allow a get-out.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I thought that legal remedy was to put the aggrieved party in the position they held had the breach not occurred, not had the contract not existed? Otherwise, any contract would be worthless.

That's the case where the contract was breached by an act over which the party has control, which is not a frustrated contract. A frustrated contract is where the contract could not be performed for reasons wholly out of control of the provider (and possibly also "not anticipated by them at the time of the contract's signing"?). It's a great example of one, indeed - the Union will strike unless they receive their demands, the DfT will not permit the demands to be met. The TOC is just stuck in the middle and is powerless to deliver the contract for reasons that they cannot influence.

It's also notable that under EU261/UK261 for airlines, strikes by directly employed staff are no longer considered extraordinary circumstances that allow a get-out.

That may be so but it does not of course apply to railways. The PRO does however and may provide rights in this case over and above contract law, but good luck trying to get it delivered anywhere other than Court.

 

[Watershed]

It legally comes under the principle of a frustrated contract, i.e. they are unable to deliver the service because of something that is not within their direct control. In such circumstances both parties are just required to be put in the position they were in before the contract was formed, i.e. a full refund to the customer.

If you had spent even a moment researching it you would know that a strike by a company's own staff comes nowhere close to amounting to a frustrated contract; see this solicitor blog which discusses the topic, for example:

Whilst the doctrine of frustration appears to be well known about, it is rarely successfully relied upon. Like with force majeure events, delay (unless it is abnormal) or increased costs are not sufficient to amount to frustration and so in many cases, strike action is unlikely to amount to an event which frustrates the contract in legal terms.

Additionally, as mentioned above in relation to force majeure, an affected party will not be able to claim frustration if the strike is within their control and in the current economic climate, it may be arguable that strike action in many industries is entirely foreseeable in any event.

It is absolutely within WMT's gift to prevent the strike from happening; every business operates under financial constraints and they are simply choosing to accept the consequences of the strike rather than coming to a settlement. That is their decision but it in no way gets them out of their contractual obligations to customers, any more than they could refuse to pay their train leases or pay unaffected staff wages because they've lost revenue due to the strike.

The fact that they operate under DfT control changes nothing. If it did, every company would set itself up so that it is funded and "controlled" by an external party that conveniently prevents it from honouring its contracts!

It came up a lot during COVID with regard to holidays where legal restrictions prevented the holiday from taking place.

That is quite different - holidays basically became legally prohibited, a change that was external and quite unforeseeable at the time of booking (entering into the contract). By contrast, industrial action has been around on the railways since the year dot and so cannot be regarded as unforeseeable in any way. WMT will no doubt have been aware of the circumstances leading up to this strike for months but have continued to sell tickets and advertise services normally. Any suggestion of frustration of contract is meaningless in that context.

It could however be argued that the EU-derived passenger rights to rerouteing apply, but good luck getting that accepted.

Even just NRCoT 28.2 would cover this situation. But both this and the PRO are equally unlikely to be honoured on the ground, representing yet another breach of operating licences that the ORR is knowingly turning a blind eye to.

It should however be possible to travel to/from Lichfield via Birmingham as I believe the Cross City is running during the limited operating day.

I agree, however it is plainly non-compliant with the obligation to re-route subject to comparable transport conditions to suggest a journey which is many times longer and involves an extra change. I think even WMT would accept this is not a serious alternative.

Isn't the notice period given to protect the company from a legal perspective.

Giving notice of a strike doesn't reduce TOCs' responsibilities under the NRCoT, any more than saying a week in advance that you'll be travelling without a ticket relieves you of the obligation to buy a ticket!

Contracts will always have clauses that timetables may change in extenuating circumstances, they'd be daft not to.

The NRCoT does allude to that but it does not - and could not, under consumer law - say that you are on your own if strikes happen.

Statements like this get brought up for every strike day, what exactly are you expecting the TOC to provide? Whilst ticket acceptance may be plausible generally, I would not expect all routes to be covered.

Universal ticket acceptance on any TOC providing any form of alternative would be the bare minimum I'd expect, to be honest. But even that seems to be too much to expect from the self-serving industry.

And road replacement clearly is not so easy to provide for such huge distances.

Clearly it is not possible to provide replacement buses for all routes. That being said, at least some effort should be made for those routes that don't have another TOC or local bus routes providing an alternative. Ticket acceptance on local buses would be a start too.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The fact that they operate under DfT control changes nothing. If it did, every company would set itself up so that it is funded and "controlled" by an external party that conveniently prevents it from honouring its contracts!

If you set up your own parent to do that (as is often done to avoid tax) then that was in your control.

DfT fully hold the purse strings. A TOC cannot financially settle a dispute without their explicit permission. If that permission is not forthcoming then there can be no settlement. It's very different from a strike against a franchised TOC where they could foresake a bit of profit and settle.

 

[Watershed]

If you set up your own parent to do that (as is often done to avoid tax) then that was in your control.

DfT fully hold the purse strings. A TOC cannot financially settle a dispute without their explicit permission. If that permission is not forthcoming then there can be no settlement. It's very different from a strike against a franchised TOC where they could foresake a bit of profit and settle.

WMT have a choice: they can act in breach of their contract with the customer or with the DfT. They freely chose to enter into both contracts. Their choice to breach the customer's contract rather than the DfT one does not amount to a frustrated contract. Many companies will face similar choices in the course of business; and that does not allow them to act with impunity.

Indeed WMT are still operating services that would allow them to convey passengers from London to Lichfield, albeit very indirectly. Equally there is absolutely nothing stopping them from coming to a financial agreement with Avanti and other TOCs to allow ticket acceptance. The bar for 'frustration' is very high and the circumstances here come nowhere close to meeting it. I would be very careful when throwing such suggestions around, as there are plenty of people who will believe you even if your answers are legally unsound.