Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal

[Bromley boy]

I seem to recall when the last deal was thrashed out it was verbally agreed in the meeting that that trains couldn't run DOO if OBSs were on strike. However the wording of the previous agreement specified "unauthorised absence" of OBS as a permitted reason for DOO running, so seemed to be a de-facto anti-strike clause.

Had this wording been tightened up? I imagine this will be a huge sticking point for the RMT for obvious reasons.

 

[redbutton]

I seem to recall when the last deal was thrashed out it was verbally agreed in the meeting that that trains couldn't run DOO if OBSs were on strike. However the wording of the previous agreement specified "unauthorised absence" of OBS as a permitted reason for DOO running, so seemed to be a de-facto anti-strike clause.

Had this wording been tightened up? I imagine this will be a huge sticking point for the RMT for obvious reasons.

It has. It no longer mentions "unauthorised absence" in addition to late notice sickness/absence, now it's just the latter. It's not mentioned in the document because it was agreed after the papers went to print, but "late notice" has been agreed to mean two hours. So a train would only be able to run without an OBS if he or she becomes unavailable less than two hours before booking on, or at any time during the duty.

 

[Bromley boy]

It has. It no longer mentions "unauthorised absence" in addition to late notice sickness/absence, now it's just the latter. It's not mentioned in the document because it was agreed after the papers went to print, but "late notice" has been agreed to mean two hours. So a train would only be able to run without an OBS if he or she becomes unavailable less than two hours before booking on, or at any time during the duty.

Thanks, that makes sense. The wording of the document therefore accurately reflects what has been agreed.

I'm not familiar with the process of negotiating this type of agreement but is the initial document a kind of "heads of terms" that details the main areas of agreement in outline with the expectation that a more detailed formal agreement including definitions etc. will be produced later and signed by both parties?

 

[redbutton]

From what I've seen elsewhere it seems to be near as dammit exactly the same except for an additional commitment for the OBS to have PTS training. Nothing about route knowledge though, and PTS isn't always that useful without route knowledge.

Part of the rules governing PTS is that before going on or near the line, one must familiarise themselves with the route features of the area where they'll be working.

Track workers can do this through site briefings, but the only reasonable way for train crew who will need to access the track at short notice to achieve this is to learn their routes in advance.

Also, "assisting" with door dispatch (which is still an undefined procedure in terms of an OBS rather than a guard) per the rulebook requires rules training and route knowledge, so in order for OBS to be considered competent to "assist" with degraded dispatch then they would need this training.

So I suspect that this additional training will be negotiated in due course, but you're right that it seems to be a glaring omission that in the short term renders the PTS training and "assistance" with dispatch useless.

 

[redbutton]

Thanks, that makes sense. The wording of the document therefore accurately reflects what has been agreed.

I'm not familiar with the process of negotiating this type of agreement but is the initial document a kind of "heads of terms" that details the main areas of agreement in outline with the expectation that a more detailed formal agreement including definitions etc. will be produced later and signed by both parties?

Yes and no. The proposed agreement is a framework that forms the basis for ending the dispute, but it still needs to be implemented by officers with closer operational knowledge. That's why it specifies the Joint Working Party as the forum that will oversee implementation, which will undoubtedly involve further written agreements.

But if you're asking whether there will be some big master document that will come out at some point containing all the minutiae, the answer is no. It will be addressed bit by bit as issues arise and are dealt with through the machinery of negotiation.

 

[Bromley boy]

Yes and no. The proposed agreement is a framework that forms the basis for ending the dispute, but it still needs to be implemented by officers with closer operational knowledge. That's why it specifies the Joint Working Party as the forum that will oversee implementation, which will undoubtedly involve further written agreements.

But if you're asking whether there will be some big master document that will come out at some point containing all the minutiae, the answer is no. It will be addressed bit by bit as issues arise and are dealt with through the machinery of negotiation.

So in some ways it's the worst of both worlds. It's a heads of terms which, by definition, is pretty vague and an "agreement to agree", but is also the binding agreement despite potentially major areas of dispute remaining unresolved and presumably subject to further dispute at a later date.

It does seem a strange way of doing things. Surely it would be better to take an approach along the lines of a commercial agreement where the heads of terms are agreed in the meeting and the minutiae is thrashed-out and fully documented in due course.

 

[redbutton]

So in some ways it's the worst of both worlds. It's a heads of terms which, by definition, is pretty vague and an "agreement to agree", and is also the binding agreement despite potentially major areas of dispute remaining unresolved and presumably subject to further dispute at a later date.

It does seem a strange way of doing things. Surely it would be better to take an approach along the lines of a commercial agreement where the heads of terms are agreed in the meeting and the minutiae is thrashed-out and fully documented in due course.

Don't get me wrong, this agreement (assuming a positive result in the referendum) is the final binding document. It's just that there will always be differences in interpretation and other unforeseen snags, and those will need to be resolved through the machinery as with any matters of interpreting unionised staff T&Cs.

 

[Bromley boy]

Don't get me wrong, this agreement (assuming a positive result in the referendum) is the final binding document. It's just that there will always be differences in interpretation and other unforeseen snags, and those will need to be resolved through the machinery as with any matters of interpreting unionised staff T&Cs.

Understood. Cheers for the insight. As I say I have no familiarity with this type of agreement. As an outsider it just strikes me as somewhat surprising that potentially major issues are left undetermined.

 

[redbutton]

Understood. Cheers for the insight. As I say I have no familiarity with this type of agreement. As an outsider it just strikes me as somewhat surprising that potentially major issues are left undetermined.

Yeah, maybe I shouldn't have said "unforeseen snags" when there are some pretty obvious ones that will need to be smoothed out during the implementation.

But if your goal is to have a second member of staff on (almost) every train, guaranteed beyond the end of the franchise, and for that member of staff to be able to protect the line and evacuate the pax to a place of safety in an emergency, then I think you'll be hard-pressed to find major fault with this proposal.

 

[pompeyfan]

It still begs the question of how will the driver know what caused the absence of an OBS and how will the driver know if there is one on the train or not. With full crew working it's easy to keep an eye on absence etc, but with multiple guards/drivers through the day it's hard to know if the wool is being pulled over your eyes. Will there be a procedure of a 'handshake' so that the driver knows if they're going to be DOO or DOO + OBS.

Finally, how workable would it be for a local door to remain active, but the driver close all doors, so that the OBS can do one final safety check. When the OBS is happy, they shut their local door and away the train goes? Mitigates against a lot but maybe unworkable as I don't sign the stock I wouldn't know.

 

[Barn]

I've only seen a very fuzzy photo but it looks like it is less certain this time that OBS industrial action would allow DOO. Does this re-empower the RMT? If so, is it really much better for Southern than no deal?

 

[LAX54]

Will the OBS's be FULLY R&R trained, or selective ?

 

[pompeyfan]

Will the OBS's be FULLY R&R trained, or selective ?

Surely they can't be R&R trained if their grade doesn't officially exist in the rule book? You either have dispatcher, guard or driver.... no middle ground and no muddy water.

 

[WatcherZero]

Changes:
All OBS to be PTS trained. So that means they are capable of evacuating a train along the track one of the arguments against the original.

Three of the 8 exemptions to requiring an OBS for a service to operate have been deleted.
a) OBS absent/ late on duty, or unauthorised absence, at the start of or during the duty, and where there is no alternative cover available to run this service
g) OBS has to leave the service, to cope with a passenger incident or civil emergency.
h) Should coverage of duties be impacted as a consequence of widespread or sudden high intensity sickness, the parties commit to working together to deliver the best possible service arrangements for the benefit of passengers.

Remaining ones still in effect.
b) Late notice OBS sickness / emergency leave and where there is no alternative cover available to run this service.
c) OBS delayed whilst ‘passing’ to work.
d) OBS displaced by late running or service disruption.
e) OBS unable to continue duty having commenced booked diagram (for example through sickness or deal with customer service incident/emergency).
f) Driver or OBS error. (e.g. if OBS is left behind by driver/OBS error or OBS misreading roster/diagram)

 

[HH]

Surely they can't be R&R trained if their grade doesn't officially exist in the rule book? You either have dispatcher, guard or driver.... no middle ground and no muddy water.

Allegedly it says PTS trained. Loads of people are PTS trained that are not dispatchers, guards or drivers.

 

[pompeyfan]

Allegedly it says PTS trained. Loads of people are PTS trained that are not dispatchers, guards or drivers.

Appreciate that, I'm struggling to get my point across. What I'm getting at is how can a grade be 'rules and regs' competent, when their grade doesn't even exist in the rule book?

 

[Robertj21a]

Just before we get a stack of basic misunderstandings, can anyone confirm precisely what the railway means when it says 'PTS trained'.

Thanks.

 

[muz379]

Just before we get a stack of basic misunderstandings, can anyone confirm precisely what the railway means when it says 'PTS trained'.

Thanks.

Personal track safety training is the training that people who go on or near the line are required to have in order to do so in line with carrying out their duties.

Looking at train crew and clearly there are situations when Drivers and Guards in their traditional form will have to go on or near the line . Before the advent of GSMR for example drivers fairly frequently had to do so in order to use SPT's and Lineside telephones to ring signallers when detained at a signal or when an incident/issue occurred with their train causing them to stop out of course .

I think it is fair to say that in assisting or carrying out an evacuation PTS training would be something that staff members should have in order to be aware of the hazards on the railway and best offer direction to members of the public being evacuated .

So yeah to clear up any misunderstanding PTS training is a stand alone qualification that tens of thousands of people who work on the railway have .Anyone who has certificates to prove that they meet the medical standards can attend their own PTS course offered by numbers of training providers.

 

[physics34]

Still do not like this one :

Late notice OBS sickness / emergency leave and where there is no alternative cover available to run this service.

a) What constitutes "late notice"?.

b) What are the plans for "alternative" cover? Will their ever be any cover?
b)

 

[physics34]

............

 

[HH]

Appreciate that, I'm struggling to get my point across. What I'm getting at is how can a grade be 'rules and regs' competent, when their grade doesn't even exist in the rule book?

I think it's simple speculation that they will be R&R compliant; the agreement doesn't seem to say that. Whether they ought to be is another matter, but clearly ASLEF think not. I imagine they are thinking of the support their members would receive in event of, say, an evacuation, rather than what would happen in the event the driver was incapacitated (which to be fair is exceedingly rare).

 

[jopsuk]

Appreciate that, I'm struggling to get my point across. What I'm getting at is how can a grade be 'rules and regs' competent, when their grade doesn't even exist in the rule book?

By adding a grade to the rule book? These things are not set in stone

 

[Lemmy99uk]

By adding a grade to the rule book? These things are not set in stone

As far as the rule book is concerned, the OBS would be come under the umbrella of PTS-N (non track worker), and would not need any grade specific mention.

They would need to be familiar with:

G1 General safety responsibilities and personal safety for non-track workers
and
DC electrified lines
and (possibly)
RS521 Signals, Handsignals, Indicators and Signs handbook

There is a handy matrix on the RSSB site that shows the requirements for each type of worker.

 

[danbarnstall]

Still do not like this one :

Late notice OBS sickness / emergency leave and where there is no alternative cover available to run this service.

a) What constitutes "late notice"?.

b) What are the plans for "alternative" cover? Will their ever be any cover?
b)

Late notice is within 2 hours. Had that confirmed today.

 

[redbutton]

Still do not like this one :

Late notice OBS sickness / emergency leave and where there is no alternative cover available to run this service.

a) What constitutes "late notice"?.

Two hours. It's in writing in a separate letter from GTR to the ASLEF FTO, fully binding.

b) What are the plans for "alternative" cover? Will their ever be any cover?
b)

The roster is to be established with two OBS for every diagram, so presumably there will be enough spares built into the roster that it won't come to that. But before even considering running the train without an OBS, the company must ensure that every option for covering the turn at some point during the duty is exhausted. That means cross-covering from other depots, rest day working, the lot.

 

[redbutton]

I think it's simple speculation that they will be R&R compliant; the agreement doesn't seem to say that. Whether they ought to be is another matter, but clearly ASLEF think not. I imagine they are thinking of the support their members would receive in event of, say, an evacuation, rather than what would happen in the event the driver was incapacitated (which to be fair is exceedingly rare).

ASLEF absolutely do think they should have all the same training that a guard had. But it's not ASLEF's place to negotiate the T&Cs for a grade they don't represent, except to ensure that the driver won't be negatively impacted by having to work with a OBS that has no safety training whatsoever. Hence he requirement for PTS as a minimum standard.

This proposal is merely a baseline that will be improved upon as it goes through the company-level machinery (the joint working party) for implementation.

 

[redbutton]

Surely they can't be R&R trained if their grade doesn't officially exist in the rule book? You either have dispatcher, guard or driver.... no middle ground and no muddy water.

You don't have to be called a "guard" to fulfill the role as described in the rule book. Some TOCs call them conductors, train managers, train captains, etc.

They can easily be trained up exactly the same as a guard but only be called upon to operate the doors when the CCTV fails. I believe this is how they work on HS1?

 

[LowLevel]

They *could* be but ASLEF have failed to specify that they *are*, except of course in that they have specified they are happy to operate without them anyway.

PTS training is a red herring anyway - our RPOs and first class hosts are evacuation trained to assist the guard without holding PTS - and as the OBS no longer has charge of their train as a guard did, that's all they'll do anyway.

A lot of drivers not remotely happy about this one even at my TOC which is nothing to do with it. They've had a few incidents of late that have brought home what having a guard means to them and unfortunately they've been in the shape of the driver being physically hurt.

 

[muz379]

They can easily be trained up exactly the same as a guard but only be called upon to operate the doors when the CCTV fails. I believe this is how they work on HS1?

This is possible although I am sure the details of the last agreement and what I have seen about this supposed new agreement suggest that only people who previously had competency as a guard will be retaining that . So it sounds like none of the newly recruited OBS's will be trained to have this competency so over time that provision will become redundant .

Besides which how are they going to maintain this competency . Surely observing them doing it at the same intervals as is required to maintain their PTS qualification would not be adequate .

The fact that staff in the OBS grade are now going to be PTS trained and some of them maintaining previously held door closing competencies means that they are also going to have to meet medical standards and have money spent on training and maintaining those competencies etc which wipes out a lot of the cost savings from making the second member of train crew non safety critical .

 

[HH]

ASLEF absolutely do think they should have all the same training that a guard had. But it's not ASLEF's place to negotiate the T&Cs for a grade they don't represent, except to ensure that the driver won't be negatively impacted by having to work with a OBS that has no safety training whatsoever. Hence he requirement for PTS as a minimum standard.

This proposal is merely a baseline that will be improved upon as it goes through the company-level machinery (the joint working party) for implementation.

Do you have any evidence to back the claim in your first sentence?

I agree that it is absolutely not ASLEF's place to negotiate the T&Cs for Guards/OBS. What they are doing is addressing the concerns of drivers, also expressed numerous times in this thread, about the presence of a second, suitably trained person to help the driver when necessary. This agreement means that ~99.9% of trains will have a second PTS-trained person on board, which they must think covers that concern.

While the detail will be expanded in Company Council and any JWP that is set up, changing the OBS T&Cs is not going to happen there.