-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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!
SWR: RMT ballot over role of guards *48 hour strike 8th/9th November*
- Thread starter chris11256
- 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
BestWestern
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 6,736
Monty is the latter I believe, not the former.
Monty
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 2,352
Indeed, only done 11 years so what do I know?
But once again to reiterate, guards managers/trainers are NOT contingency guards. They have the exact same train working licence as I do, and would hold all the traction/route competencies of the train crew they manage. A contingency guard is normally a back office manager who has done a condensed guards course in a few days, is they who are restricted on traction/train lengths and routes.
Last edited:
Class 170101
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 7,933
Would that be in breach of the Human Rights Act and subject to legal challenge in the courts?
3141
Established Member
The other way round. An organisation or an individual might challenge the addition of a no-strike clause to contracts, and the courts would decide whether or not it conflicted with the Human Rights Act or any other legislation. If we've left the EU and the Human Rights Act no longer applies here that might affect the outcome.
I see a big difference between striking over an issue of pay or working practices which is in dispute in some way, and striking because the employer won't give an assurance that they will never propose a change to a system which is already widely in use. The resulting disruption to passengers seems likely to create support for restricting the right to strike.
The Human Rights Act 1998 and the EU are not really connected. The Human Rights Act enshrines the rights established in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in to UK Law. The European Court of Human Rights is the highest authority of matters relating to the ECHR.
What we are leaving is the European Union, the highest court being the European Court of Justice (ECJ). EU Law will no longer apply once we leave, and the ECJ will no longer have any jurisdiction over us. We will still be signatories to the ECHR, the Human Rights Act will still be enforce and the European Court of Human Rights will still have the ultimate say when it comes to Human Rights. The Conservative Party often talk about repealing the Human Rights Act, I believe it has been in their manifesto more than once, but it looks rather unlikely to happen right now.
mresh91
Member
- Joined
- 30 Aug 2013
- Messages
- 161
Yes. Occasionally see some of our station managers working the trains to refresh competency, and naturally they'll be rather limited in traction and routes as you noted.
Quickthorn
Member
- Joined
- 21 Dec 2012
- Messages
- 137
Andrewlong
Member
Totally agree on your point in second paragraph. Plus do rail workers want to be required to strike and lose pay on something which may not happen for years if not at all?
Monty
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 2,352
I suspect you are right, it's been over a week and no ballot paper which is highly unusual.
I suspect they're being held off until the official talks between SWR and RMT which if I remember will be on the 13th of this month. If the RMT like what they hear they'll step down, if not they'll fully mobalise.
I think I've said it before, but I'll say it again. I personally believe the RMT would go for driver release, guard close if the new trains have ASDO which count in carriages and also have CSDE, but only if they could get SWR to sign up to that formally.
theironroad
Established Member
Indeed, only done 11 years so what do I know?
But once again to reiterate, guards managers/trainers are NOT contingency guards. They have the exact same train working licence as I do, and would hold all the traction/route competencies of the train crew they manage. A contingency guard is normally a back office manager who has done a condensed guards course in a few days, is they who are restricted on traction/train lengths and routes.
Well some driver managers who are qualified drivers don't even sign the routes for the drivers they mange which is a separate absurdity.
I wouldn't expect contingency guards to sign all routes or traction, and may be limited to one route to reduce route learning and knowledge retention.
Maybe your manager friend would like to explain why they are limited in the train lengths they are allowed to operate, if indeed this is company policy.
If someone is legally allowed to operate a 5 car 444 as a contingency guard, then why can they not operate a 10 car 444? If this is a ruling then to be honest it falls into question the whole competency management of contingency guards.
It isn't. There are a number of occupations where there is no right to strike, indeed it is unlawful to do so. These include the police, armed forces, prison officers and others where they technically could but could be seen to be in breach of their professional codes of conduct if they did, such as nurses and doctors (because it could be seen as counting as an omission of care if any harm was caused by the action, it's why the doctor's strike didn't really get very far).
And in France that bastion of workers rights transport staff cannot go on all out strike. There must be a minimum service running which means if you have to travel you will be able to.
Yes, whatever the publics views on strikes (I suspect they're fairly evenly mixed) most probably now realise how vulnerable most of our railways are to major disruption if and when the unions decide to get seriously upset about something.
Last edited:
Eccles1983
On Moderation
- Joined
- 4 Sep 2016
- Messages
- 841
Exactly; the suggestion made was to extend the no-strike clause in contracts to cover the rail industry under the same terms.
There is no restriction on the length of trains worked by Contingency Guards, so they are expected to work 12 coach 450 and 10 coach 444 formations when required.
However, with the exception of Operations Trainers and Guards Managers, most Contingency Guards do only sign one traction and one route.
However, with the exception of Operations Trainers and Guards Managers, most Contingency Guards do only sign one traction and one route.
SpacePhoenix
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 5,492
For them are both the 450s and 444s classed as the same traction? For guards (and drivers) in general do the 707s also get classed as the same as 450s and 444s?
They don't - there's definitely a misunderstanding somewhere.
Contrary to what was written above, there's no practical difference in Train Working Licence. A manager who is a contingency guard on SW has the same rule book knowledge as their full time counterparts. The only difference is the grade on the TWL - it says "contingency" in the front, and the yellow cab pass is a separate pass.
They only sign a limited route or traction to make route and traction knowledge refreshing manageable.
In the event of any action, the reduced timetable would require full length trains on all routes. They would be expected to work them. Until ASDO, the previous plan put different units on some routes, e.g. to reduce UDS incidents by running 8-450s on the PDL stoppers. That's just sensible management. With the advent of ASDO and the ongoing rolling stock shuffle, that's now passed.
By way of conclusion, the SW contingency programme is probably one of the best in the industry and has been going for years now. Other TOCs duly make their way to Waterloo to ask for help whenever the ballots come out on their own patches...
And I'm confident SW could run a comprehensive service with only the usual suspects bustituted.
Yes - Desiro's (444's & 450's) are classed as the same traction.
However, 707's are classed as a 'different traction', (and trained as such), for both drivers and guards as there are significant differences in operating these units when compared to operating a 444 or 450.
Goldfish62
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 10,030
It covers the right to protest.
It doesn't, it covers the right of assembly and association and covers the existence of trade unions, ie protest, not strike action which isn't mentioned.
Last edited:
Eccles1983
On Moderation
- Joined
- 4 Sep 2016
- Messages
- 841
Case law show that article 11 has been used to prevent the blanket banning of strikes.
It's not mentioned in the article, but is inherent to the application of article 11.
It's also covered by the ILO which is a UN body.
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=21328&LangID=E
https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/obs...-right-to-collective-bargaining-and-to-strike
In the UK!
The Netherlands has TUs for the armed forces. The police can and do strike in countries such as France and Italy which is one of the reasons why there are multiple police forces, some paramilitary (eg Spanish Guardia Civile, Italian Carabinerie).
In the UK there were serious proposals a few years ago for the Police Federation to take legal action over the current ban as a violation of Human Rights.
Oh Lord, where do I begin to address the numerous errors in this posting?
The Human Rights Act is UK legislation which implements the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR, which was de facto written by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe a former UK Attorney General appointed by Winston Churchill) into UK law.
The UK was an initial signatory of the ECHR (which is absolutely nothing to do with the EU). The ECHR is overseen by the European Court of Human Rights based in Strasbourg (which despite rants by the Daily Mail and Express has absolutely nothing to do with the EU).
If the Human Rights Act is repealed the Tories have stated that it will be replaced with a British Bill of Rights. If UK remains in the ECHR that will have limited tending to zero effect in practice. Indeed, there is a legal argument that to do so may actually lead to an increase in cases going to Strasbourg, because the ECHR protects the right to a remedy (Article 13). If we remove the remedies available under the Human Rights Act then more cases may end up being admitted to the court in Strasbourg.
If UK leaves the ECHR, something only the Tory rightwing have mooted and moderate Tories have vowed to oppose, things might be different. However in Scotland, the First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, has already indicated that the Scottish parliament would refuse to consent to any change to the devolved application of the ECHR which is already protected in the Scotland Act 1998. In Northern Ireland, change to the human rights structure becomes even more problematic as the ECHR plays a foundational role in the peace process. To remove the ECHR framework would be in direct breach of a legally binding international agreement that the UK entered into with Ireland. In Wales, the Welsh Assembly have already forged ahead with legislation which actually increases the protection of human rights by incorporating a duty to have due regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. See any issues???
Oh, if UK does leave the ECHR that leaves us in the company of the "enlightened" regime (ie effective dictatorship) of Belarus. All of the rest of Europe (47 states) are members.
Last edited:
3141
Established Member
Thank you, Wolfie. Were my "numerous errors" throughout my post, or had I managed to confine them to the first half of it?
Last edited:
Neither of the articles you link to cover strike action as a basic human right, because it isn't. The first is the opinion of an independent expert who sits on a UN body rather than a statement of fact ie he thinks it should be.
The second is concerned specifically with the Turkish government's attempts to ban all public sector strikes, and states that this is against the ECHR directives. That isn't what is being discussed in this instance, which is the idea that essential rail infrastructure staff, should be limited in the extent of the industrial action they are able to take.
I've previously listed employment groups who are legally not allowed to strike. The POA tries it at prisons but immediately gets an injunction against them requested by the MoJ, normally in a matter of a few hrs, in the High Court so back to work they go. There's no issue with the legality of this or the fact that police officers and serving military personnel can't strike.
I'm not saying that I agree with banning rail staff from striking, just making the point that it isn't a basic human right.
HarleyDavidson
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Aug 2014
- Messages
- 2,529
Mustn't disrupt the old public school chums walking all over the workforce now must we.
BestWestern
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 6,736
The idea that a unilateral strike ban is a necessity on the railway is little more than a politicial ploy to crush the unions. Our railway network is enormously fragmented with dozens of separate unrelated companies employing the staff, and indeed the staff themselves being represented by several different unions. Compared to the general strikes of old, where everything stopped, any action that takes place today is localised and relatively minor. The same level of disruption is frequently caused every weekend by engineering work, which is relieved by planned use of alternative transport.
What this is really all about of course, is the Southern situation. The government and GTR were most annoyed that the staff resisted their vindictive bullying and the accompanying smear campaign, and are now seeking a means of achieving their cutting and destaffing agenda by blunt force.
What this is really all about of course, is the Southern situation. The government and GTR were most annoyed that the staff resisted their vindictive bullying and the accompanying smear campaign, and are now seeking a means of achieving their cutting and destaffing agenda by blunt force.
- Status