Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal

[northwichcat]

Only one on Southern - 8th January.

Probably pretty pointless - I can think of much better things the RMT could be doing but there we are.

Indeed. As ASLEF have accepted DOO on Southern the RMT can't now do anything to stop it but they can still do things to ensure their guard members retain their jobs and aren't forced to move to a lower CSA pay grade.

 

[pompeyfan]

Apparently Grayling has now offered to guarantee the role of a 2nd member of crew rostered to all services until the end of the next franchise on all affected franchises. An interesting move considering ‘this is a dispute between the operators and the RMT’

 

[northwichcat]

Apparently Grayling has now offered to guarantee the role of a 2nd member of crew rostered to all services until the end of the next franchise on all affected franchises. An interesting move considering ‘this is a dispute between the operators and the RMT’

That won't be enough to please the RMT but it will be enough to please the majority of the general public. End result public turns against RMT.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Apparently Grayling has now offered to guarantee the role of a 2nd member of crew rostered to all services until the end of the next franchise on all affected franchises. An interesting move considering ‘this is a dispute between the operators and the RMT’

Guarantee of a "job" into the next franchise not the end. It Could be a month into so really no changes.

 

[Chrisgr31]

Only one on Southern - 8th January.

Probably pretty pointless - I can think of much better things the RMT could be doing but there we are.

Presumably the RMT are testing the ASLEF agreement to see if drivers will drive without a second member of staff. If memory serves me right its not until January that the ASLEF agreement comes in to affect.

 

[Chester1]

Presumably the RMT are testing the ASLEF agreement to see if drivers will drive without a second member of staff. If memory serves me right its not until January that the ASLEF agreement comes in to affect.

Strikes are not one of the three exceptions so they shouldn't work, does that mean drivers will be paid or not? Will drivers be allowed to work without an OBS or would Southern breach the agreement if they allowed this?

 

[Skimble19]

Strikes are not one of the three exceptions so they shouldn't work, does that mean drivers will be paid or not? Will drivers be allowed to work without an OBS or would Southern breach the agreement if they allowed this?

Drivers should still be paid as they aren’t the ones striking, it just so happens that as a result of the strike their second member of staff is missing so they won’t be able to drive the trains...

Should be very interesting to see what happens with this.

 

[Andrew32]

Graylings offer

 

[InOban]

I thought they could only call out those in the grade affected, ie the guards, so the OBS will still be working?

 

[infobleep]

Guarantee of a "job" into the next franchise not the end. It Could be a month into so really no changes.

Why did he have to wait until now to do this? He could have offered this instead if saying it's not his place e to get involved in a dispute between staff and a private company.

If he couldn't, perhaps at best he shouldn't have said it's not his place to get involved.

 

[northwichcat]

Guarantee of a "job" into the next franchise not the end. It Could be a month into so really no changes.

Do all rail staff have a guarantee of TUPE to all future franchises until they retire? If not he's given a guarantee of TUPE which is potentially very valuable to all long serving staff.

 

[ComUtoR]

Do all rail staff have a guarantee of TUPE to all future franchises until they retire?

Pretty sure that's a yes. TUPE is there to protect continuity of employment. Each time a new franchise comes in all employees and their existing roles will get TUPEd over. Any new franchise can restructure and redeploy any employee after a set amount of time. This allows for continuity of employment and any new owner flexibility to change and restructure how they wish.

With the Guards/OBS roles it is because the role may or may not exist in the future. A new franchise can take over, wait out the transfer period and then remove the OBS role completely. Saving a fork ton of cash, especially in the long term.

What he is offering I have no idea as there are no details in that letter other than offering 'employment' They could be offered cleaning roles and that would be considered 'employment' It's like he is guaranteeing that no-one will be made redundant because of any future changes. That is typically what can happen anyway. Those being made redundant get offered other roles within the company. It keeps good employees and makes those resistant to change a bit more... pliant.

Personally I don't know why they aren't just bribed like the Drivers were. Offer a crap ton of cash and a guarantee of redeployment and the RMT will fold like an Origami puppy.

 

[Bromley boy]

Do all rail staff have a guarantee of TUPE to all future franchises until they retire? If not he's given a guarantee of TUPE which is potentially very valuable to all long serving staff.

ComUtoR beat me to it, but yes.

In fact all employees, not just rail staff, have protection from changes in their terms and conditions where the ownership of their employer is transferred in circumstances where the TUPE regime applies.

That is the whole point of the existence of the regime in the first place.

 

[northwichcat]

ComUtoR beat me to it, but yes.

In fact all employees, not just rail staff, have protection from changes in their terms and conditions where the ownership of their employer is transferred in circumstances where the TUPE regime applies.

That is the whole point of the existence of the regime in the first place.

I'm aware TUPE applies outside the rail industry as it's applied to me before.

Although, outside the rail industry if you were a bus driver working for a small independent and that independent (including it's vehicles and contracts) were purchased by Arriva then you'd transfer to Arriva under TUPE. However, if the small independent loses council contracts to Arriva (when the contracts come up for renewal) then TUPE doesn't apply but drivers from the small independent choose to take vacancies with Arriva.

 

[Bromley boy]

I'm aware TUPE applies outside the rail industry as it's applied to me before.

Although, outside the rail industry if you were a bus driver working for a small independent and that independent (including it's vehicles and contracts) were purchased by Arriva then you'd transfer to Arriva under TUPE. However, if the small independent loses council contracts to Arriva (when the contracts come up for renewal) then TUPE doesn't apply but drivers from the small independent choose to take vacancies with Arriva.

I'm not sure it's as clear cut as that - from memory the key question is whether a "relevant transfer" has taken place and the situation you describe *might* give rise to a TUPE issue.

I'd suggest the bus industry isn't a particularly good comparator to the railway: the key difference being that it would be impossible to transfer a rail franchise without also transferring all the contracts (employment and otherwise) necessary to run the railway, since ultimately you will require the same trains to be driven on the same routes by the same staff.

I would imagine a bus route can just be tendered out to a rival bus company (with different busses and different drivers) much more easily.

 

[scrapy]

Why did he have to wait until now to do this? He could have offered this instead if saying it's not his place e to get involved in a dispute between staff and a private company.

If he couldn't, perhaps at best he shouldn't have said it's not his place to get involved.

What has he actually done? There was a guarantee of keeping jobs to the end of the franchise. Under TUPE these jobs would continue into the next franchises.

Has he guaranteed these jobs will continue to the end of the next franchises? No

Has he guaranteed that these jobs will continue passed the minimum period under TUPE? No

Has he guaranteed these jobs will continue on the same hours or terms and conditions? No

Has he guaranteed that pay won't be frozen? No

Has he even got the authority to guarantee any of these things beyond the length of this government? Debatable

Has he got a record of making promises then making u-turns at a later date? Definitely

Like many things said by the government there is absolutely no detail just an empty and vague promise.

 

[northwichcat]

I'm not sure it's as clear cut as that - from memory the key question is whether a "relevant transfer" has taken place and the situation you describe *might* give rise to a TUPE issue.

I'd suggest the bus industry isn't a particularly good comparator to the railway: the key difference being that it would be impossible to transfer a franchise without also transferring all the contracts (employment and otherwise) necessary to run the railway, since ultimately you will require the same trains to be driven on the same routes by the same staff.

I would imagine a bus route can just be tendered out to a rival bus company (with different busses and different drivers) much more easily.

For train drivers there's certainly little alternative to the new franchise holder taking on drivers from the old franchise(s), but that doesn't necessarily apply for all rail staff. I think the franchise agreements for current franchises refer to having to TUPE all staff across but if DfT didn't include that in the franchise agreement would it still be a legal requirement?

If losing a contract to a rival, alone, was grounds for TUPE to apply then (non-self employed) courier staff would be moved from courier to courier all the time!

 

[Overspeed110]

Graylings offer

That letter mentions DCO, so, typical of this joke of a government, they don't understand the situation.

So far as I know, Arriva aren't proposing DCO, which would mean a second safety critical person on every train,
They want DOO ,( on an unknown number of services, open to wild speculation but no one knows for sure) so meaning NO second safety critical person on those trains.

The RMT are trying to secure a second safety critical person on EVERY train, and in that they have my full backing. That is their job, to look after the interests of their members.

 

[northwichcat]

That letter mentions DCO, so, typical of this joke of a government, they don't understand the situation.

So far as I know, Arriva aren't proposing DCO, which would mean a second safety critical person on every train,
They want DOO ,( on an unknown number of services, open to wild speculation but no one knows for sure) so meaning NO second safety critical person on those trains.

The RMT are trying to secure a second safety critical person on EVERY train, and in that they have my full backing. That is their job, to look after the interests of their members.

I thought the RMT were arguing there's no such thing as DCO and having the driver doing doors and dispatch duties is DOO regardless of whether or not there's someone else on the train and what training they have.

Also let's be clear Arriva didn't propose DCO for Northern, it was DfT (under the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition) and it was signed off by Rail North (whose members are predominately Labour.) So it was agreed between the three biggest political parties in England.

 

[physics34]

That letter mentions DCO, so, typical of this joke of a government, they don't understand the situation.

So far as I know, Arriva aren't proposing DCO, which would mean a second safety critical person on every train,
They want DOO ,( on an unknown number of services, open to wild speculation but no one knows for sure) so meaning NO second safety critical person on those trains.

The RMT are trying to secure a second safety critical person on EVERY train, and in that they have my full backing. That is their job, to look after the interests of their members.

Its not necessarily that they dont understand the situation..its that are just spinning it for the media/public

 

[ComUtoR]

For train drivers there's certainly little alternative to the new franchise holder taking on drivers from the old franchise(s), but that doesn't necessarily apply for all rail staff.

It applies to all staff under the current employers contracts. TUPE exists in employment law to protect the existing employees.

I think the franchise agreements for current franchises refer to having to TUPE all staff across but if DfT didn't include that in the franchise agreement would it still be a legal requirement?

Absolutely. TUPE exists in employment law and not specific to the franchise agreement. However, any new contract can insist on terms that include retention of staff in a specific role or require employment of new staff or even a reduction of staff. TUPE transfers everyone over and then the new holder will then seek to abide by whatever conditions have been specified. TUPE protects both employer and employee. Employees cannot make sudden demands of the new employer or suddenly not turn up to work etc. and neither can the new owner dismiss the entire workforce.

If losing a contract to a rival, alone, was grounds for TUPE to apply then (non-self employed) courier staff would be moved from courier to courier all the time!

I used to be a Courier. I was directly employed by XXXX and when they switched from being directly employed to franchisee I was TUPEd over. When the franchisee changed hands I was still transferred over and retained on my existing terms and conditions.

Imagine taking over a business and then having no employees. Imagine a courier business and all the parcels dropped off the trunker and no sorters or drivers to drop anything.

I assume by 'contract' you meant it in terms of the business rather than client contracts. As we lost contracts all the time but that comes under a different set of laws. However, I was still employed by the delivery firm at all times.

 

[OxtedSignaller]

On some franchises your potentially looking at around 15 years guarantee on these jobs especially on SWR where the new franchise has only just begun. Whilst I am very very cautious about DOO on Southern the damage is done and there is no going back. I can’t see those employed being made enmasse redundant I can only imagine they’d look to remove the guarantee of a second person and maybe move staff into a mobile revenue protection role however I would still say that is a long way off and this would be a natural evolution perhaps when the 377 comes up for replacement which is still a long way off.

 

[Domh245]

On some franchises your potentially looking at around 15 years guarantee on these jobs especially on SWR where the new franchise has only just begun

No you aren't. The SWR Franchise officially ends in 2024, and the only ones outlasting it (as per the timetable before any franchise extensions, direct awards, etc) are East Anglia, Essex Thameside, West Midlands, and Northern. I don't see how you've managed to get "15 years guarantee" out of that.

 

[OxtedSignaller]

No you aren't. The SWR Franchise officially ends in 2024, and the only ones outlasting it (as per the timetable before any franchise extensions, direct awards, etc) are East Anglia, Essex Thameside, West Midlands, and Northern. I don't see how you've managed to get "15 years guarantee" out of that.

I was going based on guarantee lasting the entirety of the next franchise which I now realise is not the case.

 

[Robertj21a]

No you aren't. The SWR Franchise officially ends in 2024, and the only ones outlasting it (as per the timetable before any franchise extensions, direct awards, etc) are East Anglia, Essex Thameside, West Midlands, and Northern. I don't see how you've managed to get "15 years guarantee" out of that.

Even so, it's still one heck of a long time !

 

[northwichcat]

TUPE exists in employment law and not specific to the franchise agreement.

Hypothetically if TPE had in house trolley staff and First sold TPE to another company, the trolley staff would have to transfer under employment law. However, I don't think employment law would require a future franchise holder to take on the trolley staff if they had no need for trolley staff. I seem to recall it being said the customer service centre employees employed by the old Northern franchise were close to losing their jobs instead of automatically transferring to the outsourced Carillon centre used by the new franchise.

 

[ComUtoR]

Hypothetically if TPE had in house trolley staff and First sold TPE to another company, the trolley staff would have to transfer under employment law.

Correct.

However, I don't think employment law would require a future franchise holder to take on the trolley staff if they had no need for trolley staff.

Also correct, and that is the same case with the OBS grade. If the new franchise holder or even the existing one has no use for them; they can be got rid of.

I seem to recall it being said the customer service centre employees employed by the old Northern franchise were close to losing their jobs instead of automatically transferring to the outsourced Carillon centre used by the new franchise.

I'm not aware of the specifics. However, the new franchise could easily outsource the call center, that is within their rights. It becomes a matter of when they lose their jobs. TUPE ensures they transfer to the new employer. It's been a long time since I was involved in taking over a business and transferring employees over. For the more details specifics you will need a professional or at least some one more up to date with the technical details

 

[Bromley boy]

Hypothetically if TPE had in house trolley staff and First sold TPE to another company, the trolley staff would have to transfer under employment law. However, I don't think employment law would require a future franchise holder to take on the trolley staff if they had no need for trolley staff. I seem to recall it being said the customer service centre employees employed by the old Northern franchise were close to losing their jobs instead of automatically transferring to the outsourced Carillon centre used by the new franchise.

I think they would have to take on the trolley staff in this situation (assuming they were employees). The point of the TUPE regime is that it guarantees continuity of employment.

Of course the new owner would be free to dispense with the role and make the relevant staff redundant at a later date, if they chose to do so.

 

[Bromley boy]

For train drivers there's certainly little alternative to the new franchise holder taking on drivers from the old franchise(s), but that doesn't necessarily apply for all rail staff. I think the franchise agreements for current franchises refer to having to TUPE all staff across but if DfT didn't include that in the franchise agreement would it still be a legal requirement?

If losing a contract to a rival, alone, was grounds for TUPE to apply then (non-self employed) courier staff would be moved from courier to courier all the time!

Re the first point you are quite right, of course, that not all staff would necessarily qualify. I’d imagine part of the reason the DFT specify TUPE transfer is for clarity and certainty. TUPE can give rise to significant liabilities if it applies when the buyer of a business does not intend it to.

Re the bus industry, a quick google search has uncovered the following interesting article indicating that TUPE can apply to a “service provision change” - ie outsourcing.

It’s actually a very complex area and each case needs to be looked at in detail, on its own facts.

http://www.busandcoachbuyer.com/tupe-tupe/

Service provision change
There can also be TUPE transfer in cases where there has been what is known as a ‘service provision change’. Usually this occurs where an operator engages a contractor to carry out work on its behalf (out-sourcing), or where an operator brings the work back in to be completed by the operator’s own employees (in-sourcing).

Most operators understand that this is very important when contracting in and out services from the local authority and often such contracts are offered for tender on that basis. However, the same principles might apply when an operator sells a couple of vehicles to another operator. On the face of it a simple sale of assets will not engage TUPE, however, maybe in this case a driver or two goes over to the new operator at about the same time, and maybe the new operator starts operating services substantially similar to those previously operated by the first operator. In such circumstances, there might well be a TUPE issue.

 

[ComUtoR]

Re the bus industry, a quick google search has uncovered the following interesting article indicating that TUPE can apply to a “service provision change” - ie outsourcing.

It’s actually a very complex area and each case needs to be looked at in detail, on its own facts.

The employee can make a choice. When I was a courier and got TUPEd over I was given a choice to become an 'owner driver' and could then work under the new franchisee under that provision. I would still be employed but a change to my terms and conditions. I could have also stayed under the delivery company and keep my existing terms and work under the franchisee but with guaranteed employment. I assume that under the bus company example that the drivers made a decision to change employer. I was contracted to work the CR and BR postcodes and when that changed depots I again, had the choice to either stay under depot a or move to depot B with my route. There may have been a case where a driver is contracted to drive a set route or drive for a specified contract so where the contract moves, so does the driver.

As you say it can get very complex.

To keep tenuously on topic... I understand why the RMT are fighting for an agreement to either keep the grade or ensure they are safety critical. By doing so it can prevent any future redundancies. Without guarantees of long term agreements then its the Sword of Damocles hanging over your job. Also why a lot of us firmly believe that once the agreement is reached and the second man is not required it will be good night and good bye.