Network Rail industrial action suspended

[43066]

Managing for Absence and Sickness, I think everyone would agree, that needs overhauling, its currently not fit for purpose, very simple to beat/flout the 'system'

Exactly.

I’m surprised by this. TOCs these days have fairly market standard “MFA” policies, similar to other private organisations I’ve worked in.

Is NR different?

 

[Bald Rick]

Is NR different?

oh yes. Lots of legacy processes from the old private maintenance companies.

 

[43066]

oh yes. Lots of legacy processes from the old private maintenance companies.

There’s no good argument I can see for something like that not being made market standard these days.

I’m also fed up of the myth being propagated on here that the railway is easy on sickness. Certainly on the TOC side, it isn’t any different to most employers these days.

 

[Towers]

Are the TOCs 'market standard', though? Six months off sick on full pay followed by another six on half pay, that's pretty generous!

 

[43066]

Are the TOCs 'market standard', though? Six months off sick on full pay followed by another six on half pay, that's pretty generous!

Is that generous? You may not think so if (God forbid) you get cancer and have to take six months off work to recover while still paying a mortgage, and then aren’t able to return straight away…

It’s certainly no more generous than that provided by other employers I’ve had in the past, paying equivalent type salaries to train drivers. I’m surprised they don’t provide private health insurance, frankly.

I mean “market standard” more in terms of the MFA approach, so that repeated absences/patterns of absence over a period of time will trigger progressive stages, ultimately leading to dismissal on capability grounds.

 

[ComUtoR]

Are the TOCs 'market standard', though? Six months off sick on full pay followed by another six on half pay, that's pretty generous!

Not forgetting the AAW(attendance at work) and Med Cap process

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Mar 2023 ==

I mean “market standard” more in terms of the MFA approach, so that repeated absences/patterns of absence over a period of time will trigger progressive stages, ultimately leading to dismissal on capability grounds.

Your post blinked a second faster than mine :/ But yes, the AAW process can be quite ruthless

 

[43066]

Not forgetting the AAW(attendance at work)

MFA = managed for attendance - same thing.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Mar 2023 ==

Your post blinked a second faster than mone :/ But yes, the AAW process can be quite ruthless

Got you, same page I think. You’ve got to be quick with my posts .

 

[eldomtom2]

This dispute over modernising maintenance is over.

And your evidence is...?

 

[WoollyMammoth]

A general tip for anyone… whilst 6 months full/ 6 months half has been considered as both generous and not generous, it might always be worth considering life insurance/ critical illness/ income protection. A very individual choice but an important one to consider, bearing in mind the earlier you start the lower your premiums.

Is that generous? You may not think so if (God forbid) you get cancer and have to take six months off work to recover while still paying a mortgage, and then aren’t able to return straight away…

It’s certainly no more generous than that provided by other employers I’ve had in the past, paying equivalent type salaries to train drivers. I’m surprised they don’t provide private health insurance, frankly.

I mean “market standard” more in terms of the MFA approach, so that repeated absences/patterns of absence over a period of time will trigger progressive stages, ultimately leading to dismissal on capability grounds.

 

[Facing Back]

Are the TOCs 'market standard', though? Six months off sick on full pay followed by another six on half pay, that's pretty generous!

Its pretty standard for professional roles. Indeed in many, if you have a chronic, severe or terminal condition then you can expect more - often backed through insurance provided as part of the package.

*edit: note to self: refresh before posting. I've been beaten to the punch by a couple of others...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Mar 2023 ==

oh yes. Lots of legacy processes from the old private maintenance companies.

Will this replace all of these with a single standard process across NR?

 

[Omnishambles]

Yes and the point is that modernisation has been started, NR are slowing down migration to ROCs and I think what's being raised is that there's a law of diminishing returns where you can only get so many "efficiencies" from operations.

Slowing down of that migration can partly be attributed to ever reducing renewals funding and rising Contractor costs also. If it was a straight up ‘that’s our plan, let’s crack on’ it would all be well underway by now with swathes of ETCS around the country as well

 

[Scott1]

Are the TOCs 'market standard', though? Six months off sick on full pay followed by another six on half pay, that's pretty generous!

Just to add to what others have said, i came I to the railway from retail, I worked for a large supermarket chain and then briefly for an energy company. My sick pay at both was 6 months full pay, then 6 months of SSP. Some jobs were far stinger (not just with sick pay) but they were the same ones puzzled at their high staff turn over, so it cuts both ways in terms of costs.

 

[Annetts key]

oh yes. Lots of legacy processes from the old private maintenance companies.

Strangely enough, a lot of them are based (with some tweaks) on the BR era managing sickness ideas. Although, at the time, the signallers may have already moved to Railtrack (can’t remember the dates when what remained of the former BR (outside Railtrack and the TOCs) introduced their managing sickness ideas).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Mar 2023 ==

I mean “market standard” more in terms of the MFA approach, so that repeated absences/patterns of absence over a period of time will trigger progressive stages, ultimately leading to dismissal on capability grounds.

Yep, NWR already has dismissed staff after getting to level 4 under the existing MFA procedures.

 

[LAX54]

I’m surprised by this. TOCs these days have fairly market standard “MFA” policies, similar to other private organisations I’ve worked in.

Is NR different?

TOC / FOC and NR all have their own 'sickness' arrangements, I remember about 4 or 5 years ago, maybe a bit more, a Signaller where I worked, said that if he has worked it out right, A certain signaller will call in sick, and the 'spare' signaller should be prepared to be called to cover, this was all laughed at, but on the day, the exact day, that person called in sick and was off for 2 days.....even the roster clerk was gobsmacked ! but it was all 'legit' and fell within MFA rules.

 

[bazzarati]

There’s no good argument I can see for something like that not being made market standard these days.

I’m also fed up of the myth being propagated on here that the railway is easy on sickness. Certainly on the TOC side, it isn’t any different to most employers these days.

There is. Operations staff cannot exactly work from home, nor can they buy annual leave like other employees. For some reason the offer by NR includes selling 10days A/L which is a poor example to set. The sickness policy changing should be strongly resisted. NR should stop making stupid recruitment decisions. Why should the work force be punished for management errors?

 

[LAX54]

There is. Operations staff cannot exactly work from home, nor can they buy annual leave like other employees. For some reason the offer by NR includes selling 10days A/L which is a poor example to set. The sickness policy changing should be strongly resisted. NR should stop making stupid recruitment decisions. Why should the work force be punished for management errors?

selling A/L has been wanted by staff in Ops for many years, and the sickness policy, does need chnaging, it's too easy to beat the current 'system'

 

[alxndr]

The sickness policy changing should be strongly resisted.

Unless I'm missing something the proposed policy has higher trigger thresholds than the old MFA one.

Old:

• 2 instances within 13 weeks
• 5 days within 13 weeks
• 5 instances within 52 weeks
• 10 days within 52 weeks

New:

• 3 instances within 13 weeks
• 7 days within 13 weeks
• 6 instances within 52 weeks
• 14 days within 52 weeks

 

[bazzarati]

selling A/L has been wanted by staff in Ops for many years, and the sickness policy, does need chnaging, it's too easy to beat the current 'system'

No, the only reason people in ops would ever sell A/L is because the company often refuses to grant it, so they're left with A/L they can never use. That's the reason some people get fed up and decide well I'll just call in sick then. That isn't playing the system. The company is not behaving reasonably if you ask for leave more than 3months in advance and the company won't cover it never mind 12 months in advance which the company is also known to refuse. It's ridiculous.

 

[Annetts key]

No, the only reason people in ops would ever sell A/L is because the company often refuses to grant it, so they're left with A/L they can never use. That's the reason some people get fed up and decide well I'll just call in sick then. That isn't playing the system. The company is not behaving reasonably if you ask for leave more than 3months in advance and the company won't cover it never mind 12 months in advance which the company is also known to refuse. It's ridiculous.

Annual leave is a contraction obligation. On the maintenance side, if they refuse to grant it after three applications (assuming you give reasonable notice), we put in a grievance. That normally sorts it. I would never sell leave.

Mind, our higher management respect the staff in that regard, even if we disagree on many other things.

 

[ainsworth74]

I think we might be getting a bit off-topic here into the weeds of sickness policies so I think unless there's anything substantive to add about the suspension of industrial action on Network Rail it might be time to draw this one to a close until the result comes out

 

[Kipperthecat]

And your evidence is...?

The offer is not based on RMT's acceptance of Modernising Maintenance which is a programme NOT endorsed by RMT. (From RMT letter dated 08/03/23)

And Eddie Dempsey said we maybe able to challenge modernising maintenance through company processes and through raising our safety concerns to the rail regulator.

In other words, it is within Network Rails gift to IMPOSE modernising maintenance and it would be nice if the RMT were on board , but it isn’t essential.

 

[Annetts key]

The offer is not based on RMT's acceptance of Modernising Maintenance which is a programme NOT endorsed by RMT. (From RMT letter dated 08/03/23)

And Eddie Dempsey said we maybe able to challenge modernising maintenance through company processes and through raising our safety concerns to the rail regulator.

In other words, it is within Network Rails gift to IMPOSE modernising maintenance and it would be nice if the RMT were on board , but it isn’t essential.

The RMT said this in an email to members: (as it comes from an email, I cannot provide a link)

Acceptance of the offer is not an acceptance of Modernising Maintenance. However, for the avoidance of any doubt, acceptance of the offer will mean a settlement of all aspects of the dispute and that no further strike action can be taken, including in respect of Modernising Maintenance. We are currently and will continue to scrutinise and challenge Modernising Maintenance through the company processes and by raising our safety concerns directly with the company and the safety regulator.

However, as far as the company (Network Rail) appear to be concerned, they are proceeding with their idea on what their process is. And are ignoring some of the processes, principles and procedures in the agreed barging agreements and other agreements with the unions.

And to be honest, even though Network Rail admitted that not all their plans have a safety case yet, I’m not really expecting the ORR to stop modernising maintenance. Some changes may be made, but it’s likely that Network Rail will do just enough to satisfy any objections by the ORR.

Anyway, it’s up to the RMT membership now. If they don’t vote for the Network Rail offer, that’s when it will get interesting.

 

[CE142]

So if I am reading that right if you had four days off every 14 weeks you still wouldn't trigger the new MFA System?
It's their system, so you can play by their rules...

 

[CAF397]

Most MFA procedures I've worked with are a rolling period of time, so 4 instances within 14 weeks would still have 3 instances within 13 weeks. Unsure what the NR process is.

 

[JoeyB]

The RMT said this in an email to members: (as it comes from an email, I cannot provide a link)

However, as far as the company (Network Rail) appear to be concerned, they are proceeding with their idea on what their process is. And are ignoring some of the processes, principles and procedures in the agreed barging agreements and other agreements with the unions.

And to be honest, even though Network Rail admitted that not all their plans have a safety case yet, I’m not really expecting the ORR to stop modernising maintenance. Some changes may be made, but it’s likely that Network Rail will do just enough to satisfy any objections by the ORR.

Anyway, it’s up to the RMT membership now. If they don’t vote for the Network Rail offer, that’s when it will get interesting.

The offer in December also wasn't contingent on the RMT accepting Modernising Maintenance. However, the NEC appeared to get cross about the RDG proposal to TOCs that included DOO (which was revealed on the same day) and reacted to that badly by trying to convince Network Rail employees that it was a terrible offered and would be accepting MM, therefore telling them to reject.

The extra money offered now will only compensate for the money lost over Christmas (although not in full for most).

So I believe now what I believed then - the Christmas action should have been suspended and the offer accepted or at least given a proper and honest airing. I know people who rejected purely because they were told to reject rather than really understanding the detail (that those on lower incomes would get a higher % and that they weren't rubber stamping MM)

By acting as they did, I think the RMT gained some distrust amongst their ranks and also allowed the media to peddle a narrative of 'ruining Christmas ' (which of wasn't true for most as the trains have always stopped early on Christmas Eve, although I have no doubt that it did impact some), which ultimately meant some drop in public support.

I do hope this is accepted. If nothing else so that staff can go back to working together without some of the negative feeling and nastiness that some are displaying to each other.

 

[2192]

I want to travel on 0910 Derby to Sheffield on Saturday 18th March, and back same day 4pm ish, using a Derbyshire Wayfarer (Old folks price). Are any trains likely to be running?

 

[eldomtom2]

The RMT said this in an email to members: (as it comes from an email, I cannot provide a link)

However, as far as the company (Network Rail) appear to be concerned, they are proceeding with their idea on what their process is. And are ignoring some of the processes, principles and procedures in the agreed barging agreements and other agreements with the unions.

And to be honest, even though Network Rail admitted that not all their plans have a safety case yet, I’m not really expecting the ORR to stop modernising maintenance. Some changes may be made, but it’s likely that Network Rail will do just enough to satisfy any objections by the ORR.

Anyway, it’s up to the RMT membership now. If they don’t vote for the Network Rail offer, that’s when it will get interesting.

So, in other words, the RMT theoretically could continue the current dispute until they get language in the contract about modernising maintenance, but are choosing not to do so?

 

[bazzarati]

I think we might be getting a bit off-topic here into the weeds of sickness policies so I think unless there's anything substantive to add about the suspension of industrial action on Network Rail it might be time to draw this one to a close until the result comes out

Part of the terrible offer involves changes to sickness policy though... it's hardly irrelevant chatter.

 

[Annetts key]

The offer in December also wasn't contingent on the RMT accepting Modernising Maintenance. However, the NEC appeared to get cross about the RDG proposal to TOCs that included DOO (which was revealed on the same day) and reacted to that badly by trying to convince Network Rail employees that it was a terrible offered and would be accepting MM, therefore telling them to reject.

The extra money offered now will only compensate for the money lost over Christmas (although not in full for most).

So I believe now what I believed then - the Christmas action should have been suspended and the offer accepted or at least given a proper and honest airing. I know people who rejected purely because they were told to reject rather than really understanding the detail (that those on lower incomes would get a higher % and that they weren't rubber stamping MM)

By acting as they did, I think the RMT gained some distrust amongst their ranks and also allowed the media to peddle a narrative of 'ruining Christmas ' (which of wasn't true for most as the trains have always stopped early on Christmas Eve, although I have no doubt that it did impact some), which ultimately meant some drop in public support.

I do hope this is accepted. If nothing else so that staff can go back to working together without some of the negative feeling and nastiness that some are displaying to each other.

Do you choose to believe the union or the company? If you don’t want to believe the union and prefer to believe the company, that’s up to you.

It was the company that effectively linked the pay rise to MM. They said last year, that as there was no new money, it would be the savings from MM and any other possible savings identified by the unions that would fund any pay rise.

The RMT normally prefers normal discussions on pay rises to be separate to any discussions on organisational issues or any discussions to any changes to T&Cs.

It took months and months of meetings before the company would put in writing what they wanted. If MM was not controversial, why was this? If MM does not mean big changes, why the almost constant stream of emails from the company to its employees? Why did Andrew Haines go round visiting depots trying to sell MM?

There have been lots of organisational changes over the last ten years, tens of consultations each year, and the unions and the company have managed to mostly come to agreed positions without getting into a dispute.

I glad to say that those members who interact with RMT representatives, quickly find out that, yes, the union does try its best to look after the members best interests. That’s the whole point of the union.

The objectives of the employer are rather different. They often use the phrase “business needs”. That is, they are there to run the business.

Until the latest pay offer, the company in their communications with the RMT were very clear, they want the industrial action to end. So it was a requirement that the RMT accept and agree to MM. In this referendum, the members are choosing to accept both the pay offer and to discontinue all industrial action. Or to reject the pay offer and allow the RMT to continue to try to get improvements to the pay offer and or get changes to MM.

So, in other words, the RMT theoretically could continue the current dispute until they get language in the contract about modernising maintenance, but are choosing not to do so?

Not exactly, no. If members accept the pay offer, there cannot be any further industrial action under the current ballot mandate. That does not mean acceptance of MM. The RMT have repeatedly tabled “fail to agree” in the relevant consultation meetings with the company. And asked for the “avoidance of dispute” procedures (part of the agreements between the company and the RMT) to be invoked. But the company have, so far (as far as I know) not arranged an avoidance of dispute meeting.

And parts of MM have not been through the safety validation stage yet as I understand it.

So, in summary, the RMT is still against MM, and will continue to try to get changes to it using any and all tools available to it. However, if members accept the pay offer, under the current mandate, there cannot be any further industrial action.

 

[bazzarati]

Annual leave is a contraction obligation. On the maintenance side, if they refuse to grant it after three applications (assuming you give reasonable notice), we put in a grievance. That normally sorts it. I would never sell leave.

Mind, our higher management respect the staff in that regard, even if we disagree on many other things.

I wouldn't sell A/L either. There will be grievances going in when the company again demands that people not be allowed to carry leave over into another year after it constantly refuses to grant it for this year. Nor is it just A/L that's the problem, I have development days of all kinds scheduled weeks in advance cancelled "for operational reasons," including just last week at short notice. Indeed it's likely to be further exacerbated as the company now insists on bringing in 60Hr rosters which are unanimously opposed by staff, but the company still thinks it can bully us into changing it.

Ops as a grade (like maintenance) should be one of the most important to NR and are slowly working out how little they are valued by the company. We are treated worse than administrative staff who can work from home, buy additional annual leave etc etc and without any of the stress and pressures involved in keeping trains running safely and efficiently. In addition anyone that's had any dealings with HR can tell you they are terrible at their jobs and simply delay requests until people give up on following through with them. That's called progress in NR which is a failed company. The management and administrative structure at this company is so flabby, it's time it bore it's share of the cuts. Why are Ops grades apparently trading productivity savings for payrises? Because we are one of the only productive grades! Get rid of the useless layers of management that only ever grow and add nothing.