Arriva Rail North DOO

[CN75]

To All ARN Conductor, Conductor Instructor & Train Driver Members

Our Ref: BR2/0146
12th September 2018

Dear Colleague

ROLE OF THE GUARD & EXTENSION OF DOO – ARRIVA RAIL NORTH

Further to my letter dated the 7th September 2018 with regards to the union’s clear commitment to attending positive talks with ARN management in the hope of reaching a satisfactory resolution to this long running and very difficult dispute on DOO, I can now advise you that a meeting has taken place on Friday 7th September 2018 under the auspices of ACAS with your union’s Negotiating Team and ARN management. During these long drawn out discussions a Memorandum of Understanding between the RMT and ARN was formulated by ACAS.

The matter has been subject to recent consideration by the union’s National Executive Committee who notes the Memorandum of Understanding and has instructed our Negotiating Team to negotiate around the conventional or intermediate working arrangements and discuss the terms and conditions around these arrangements as the need arises.

The union’s Negotiating Team are due to recommence talks with ARN at ACAS on Friday 14th September 2018 and following conclusion of these talks, an update report will be placed back before the Executive Committee for further consideration. In the meantime, I must reiterate that the union’s policy for Guards to retain operational control of the doors and the RMT’s campaign to ensure a second safety critical member of staff remains on the ARN network remains unchanged.

Therefore, the three days of strike action due to take place on the 15th September, 22nd September and 29th September 2018 remains on until ARN provides the RMT with a document that reflects what is outlined above and retains the safety critical role of the guard. Once again, I commend you and your colleagues for the incredible unity and support you have shown throughout this difficult dispute and I urge you all to continue with this fantastic solidarity.

SUPPORT YOUR UNION – SUPPORT THE STRIKE ACTION
DEFEND THE SAFETY CRITICAL ROLE OF THE GUARD


Best wishes.

Mick Cash
General Secretary

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presumably Arriva do not feel willing to write the letter the RMT imagine since there was a strike yesterday. Talking at ACAS looks and sounds positive to passengers and staff in the dispute alike, but there is no negotiation actually possible which is anything short of win or lose.

 

[Robertj21a]

So, as expected by just about everybody, nobody has changed their position at all. I can see Mick Cash writing these notes well into next year.

 

[CN75]

No there has been no agreement. Southern implemented the changes as they said they would. There is now so little guarded operation that is looks like RMT have just not bothered to take action as the disruption would be minimal. RMT refuse to reach agreement as that would be conceding the principle of DOO. IIRC a Southern guard member did post on here a while ago they had not had a pay increase for 2 years as a result.

Only the most dogmatic staff at Southern would say the RMT have acted in their interests. The dispute cost 40 strike days, the RMT achieved absolutely nothing in return and lost members thousands of pounds. It now acts as though it all didn’t happen and remains in dispute with no intention of ever having a strike again, whilst not representing or recognising their own members and outcome and restarting normal industrial relations. Southern have clearly got entirely free reign to shape their on board staffing how they like with ASLEF, and presumably as many of the On Board Supervisors are new they have no interest in wasting money on RMT membership. The tactics were not a brave battle, they were a complete disaster. It shows clearly what the limitations are of having a national union strategy in an industry where every company and every dispute is separate.

It was also reported that the RMT recently quietly outright lost an employment tribunal over the Southern dispute. The judgement said that Southern did not downgrade guards by revising their job requirements to On Board Supervisors and that the dismissal and re-hiring process was satisfactory and legal.

 

[Robertj21a]

Only the most dogmatic staff at Southern would say the RMT have acted in their interests. The dispute cost 40 strike days, the RMT achieved absolutely nothing in return and lost members thousands of pounds. It now acts as though it all didn’t happen and remains in dispute with no intention of ever having a strike again, whilst not representing or recognising their own members and outcome and restarting normal industrial relations. Southern have clearly got entirely free reign to shape their on board staffing how they like with ASLEF, and presumably as many of the On Board Supervisors are new they have no interest in wasting money on RMT membership. The tactics were not a brave battle, they were a complete disaster. It shows clearly what the limitations are of having a national union strategy in an industry where every company and every dispute is separate.

It was also reported that the RMT recently quietly outright lost an employment tribunal over the Southern dispute. The judgement said that Southern did not downgrade guards by revising their job requirements to On Board Supervisors and that the dismissal and re-hiring process was satisfactory and legal.

Well said, a good summary. Nice to be reminded of the facts associated with the dispute at Southern.

 

[Kite159]

In the meantime, I must reiterate that the union’s policy for Guards to retain operational control of the doors

So why did the agreement the RMT made for Greater Anglia/Merseyrail allow the operational control of the doors to be transferred to the driver?

Why is northern different?

Or is it the hypocrite Cash forgetting that?

 

[yorksrob]

No there has been no agreement. Southern implemented the changes as they said they would. There is now so little guarded operation that is looks like RMT have just not bothered to take action as the disruption would be minimal. RMT refuse to reach agreement as that would be conceding the principle of DOO. IIRC a Southern guard member did post on here a while ago they had not had a pay increase for 2 years as a result.

Whether one agrees to guards being in place or not, such an option wouldn't be possible up here due to the nature of the trains and the routes, therefore it is not in passengers interests on any level for there not to be an agreement.

 

[74A]

Whether one agrees to guards being in place or not, such an option wouldn't be possible up here due to the nature of the trains and the routes, therefore it is not in passengers interests on any level for there not to be an agreement.

I don't see why such an option is not possible. It seems to me exactly what Northern are going to do. Obviously it will be easier if there is an agreement but if not they will just implement their plans.

 

[northwichcat]

So why did the agreement the RMT made for Greater Anglia/Merseyrail allow the operational control of the doors to be transferred to the driver?

Why is northern different?

Or is it the hypocrite Cash forgetting that?

As mentioned in an earlier post it's believed a regional RMT rep is more hard line than Mick Cash. If the said rep is John Tilley than I'm not surprised, the local media don't want to give him the time anymore as he never answers questions properly and resorts to making up things like Abellio having a plan to introduce DOO in the Netherlands but wanting to 'test it' on Merseyrail first.

 

[yorksrob]

I don't see why such an option is not possible. It seems to me exactly what Northern are going to do.

Because it would entail a massively lengthy period of disruption, given that so few routes and trains are set up to operate without guards. The passenger business is already being strangled to death up here.

 

[OxtedSignaller]

So why did the agreement the RMT made for Greater Anglia/Merseyrail allow the operational control of the doors to be transferred to the driver?

Why is northern different?

Or is it the hypocrite Cash forgetting that?

Because it wasn't mandated in the franchise agreement for Greater Anglia or Merseyrail. Whereas Northern and Southern have legally binding agreements to introduce DCO.

Do not forget that GTR has offered the RMT recognition and collective bargaining rights, and talks on job security. They also offered to retain all T&Cs at the time of the dispute, and increase the unsociable hours premia to 20% as well as a £2000 lump sum to the affected Guards. All of this was turned down even when it was inevitable the changes were happening. As a result it was left to ASLEF to negotiate a deal with the company which is tied to their paydeal so as soon as that is completed the company can do whatever they wish to do.

 

[74A]

Because it would entail a massively lengthy period of disruption, given that so few routes and trains are set up to operate without guards. The passenger business is already being strangled to death up here.

Is would only be disruptive on strike days. On no strike days the staff would work as instructed. I suppose a guard could refuse to travel as an OBS on a DOO service but that would be a bit self defeating.

 

[yorksrob]

Is would only be disruptive on strike days. On no strike days the staff would work as instructed. I suppose a guard could refuse to travel as an OBS on a DOO service but that would be a bit self defeating.

That's no use if you need to travel on strike days.

 

[Tomnick]

What has been the arrangement on the 12-car Thameslinks that run DOO ?. Surely, there's only the driver to do everything (let alone also having any form of 'helper').

It simply means that, when something goes wrong, there's no-one to assist the driver! The passengers will be pretty much left to their own devices whilst the driver carries out his duties which, in many cases, will mean that he's off the train or even away from the train altogether for extended periods of time. I'm pretty sure that will make them more inclined to start their own uncontrolled evacuation more quickly than they would otherwise! If something more serious happens, and the driver is incapacitated (it wouldn't take much - a collision with a fallen tree could do it), then they really are on their own and there'll be no-one to carry out emergency protection if it's needed, leaving everyone vulnerable.

At the risk of repeating things said earlier in the thread, you will probably find most passengers are in favour of a second member of staff on the train who issues tickets etc and sees to passengers welfare.

They are not so keen on that second member of staff spending all his time in the back cab opening and closing doors. They are even less happy when that second member of staff DOES emerge from the back cab only to find that door opening is delayed for a minute at each station as he fights his way back to the door controls.

There is absolutely no reason, on the vast majority of trains on the network today, that the Guard should be confined to the back cab or have to return to the back cab to carry out station duties.

 

[Starmill]

There is absolutely no reason, on the vast majority of trains on the network today, that the Guard should be confined to the back cab or have to return to the back cab to carry out station duties.

Why is it still widespread and commonplace then?

That's no use if you need to travel on strike days.

They could try not going on strike?

 

[yorksrob]

They could try not going on strike?

They could, but it doesn't look as though they're going to.

 

[Tomnick]

Why is it still widespread and commonplace then?

I don't know how widespread it is. It certainly isn't in my experience. If it is a problem on a regular basis, though (assuming that door controls are provided and able to be used throughout the train - if not, why not?), then why are those guards being allowed to get away with it and why does anyone suppose that they'll act any differently if/when their role no longer includes any operational duties?

 

[ComUtoR]

Ok if you are right then Northern can back down and go for DCO.

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/arriva-rail-north-doo.137291/page-154#post-3610321

This post highlight the franchise agreement where it states DCO

Why arnt they? Do you really think a business like Northern with all these problems they are having would nto back down if they could. I would.

That's a question you should ask Northern and the DfT.

 

[muz379]

And eventually, if northern dont back down and RMT refuse to concede any further ground, won’t those mess room lawyers etc simply opt to join what they consider a more moderate union or choose to go non union ? particularly if RMT continually decline to recognise grades like the OBS

I was talking about sundays in the working week in relation to the noise that some mess room lawyers like to make . When in reality if they spoke to their respective union reps and/or attended their rspective branches they would find out that it is actually the policy of their respective unions to have sundays inside the working week .

They can join whatever union they like or even not have a union but if the union which is recognised in relation to their grade agrees a change of T's & C's to bring sundays inside the working week they as a member of that grade will be bound by that as well .

How the heck can driver opening guard closing be a compromise. As people have said time and time again its not about who opens and closes the doors its about the second critical member of staff being on the train. Why would Northern accept driver opening guard closing? It would still breach the franchise agreement. Which is the crux of the issue and the fact RMT keep ignoring.

Without a change in the franchise agreement Northern cannot accept guard closing because the franchise agreement includes a requirement for the driver to be in sole operational control of the change . But the details of the franchise agreement can be and clerly in the view of the RMT should be changed .

The franchise agreement has been breached in other areas , and it is not uncommon for franchise agreements to be altered during the franchise because in reality what was promised on paper is not always possible on the ground . Why is it that is is not seen as an issue for a franchise agreement to be altered in a TOC's financial interests but not in the interests of something that their employees seemingly feel so strongly about ?

Why is it still widespread and commonplace then?

Operating doors from the rear cab or rear of the train is still commonplace at Northern because that is where the door control panels are on the majority of stock . Some stock does have panels at intermediate doors and if you are working 2 units it is also possible to do the doors from the middle . I am personally of the view that all stock should have intermediate door control panels which would assist in carrying out revenue duties and remaining visible in the train , and we had some stock come from another TOC recently with such panels which have been capped off and Northern staff been instructed not to use .

As for guards remaining in the back cab routinely . This has also been gone over time and time again . I dont know how widespread it is because I rarely travel on the train when not working . But if it is a specific and identifiable issue then it should be and can be addressed using already established procedures . I personally only remain in the back cab and dont patrol my train in 2 situations , the first being overcrowding making it impossible to patrol the train . Secondly if I am doing something which supersedes revenue duties for example organizing for a fitter to meet the train for a door fault , liaising with control during times of disruption even then that is normally only for part of a journey . If staff are identified to be just going from door controls to back cab with no good reason then this should be addressed by local management . And I dont know anyone within the union who could argue with that . Its part of the job description to patrol the train when possible for revenue/safety and security and customer service .

 

[Robertj21a]

It simply means that, when something goes wrong, there's no-one to assist the driver! The passengers will be pretty much left to their own devices whilst the driver carries out his duties which, in many cases, will mean that he's off the train or even away from the train altogether for extended periods of time. I'm pretty sure that will make them more inclined to start their own uncontrolled evacuation more quickly than they would otherwise! If something more serious happens, and the driver is incapacitated (it wouldn't take much - a collision with a fallen tree could do it), then they really are on their own and there'll be no-one to carry out emergency protection if it's needed, leaving everyone vulnerable.

.

I understand that and, like everything, you have to balance your resources vs the perceived threats. I simply don't recall the very frequent 12-car Thameslink trains having serious problems with DOO for what must now be 20-30 years !. When did they go DOO ?

 

[Tomnick]

I understand that and, like everything, you have to balance your resources vs the perceived threats. I simply don't recall the very frequent 12-car Thameslink trains having serious problems with DOO for what must now be 20-30 years !. When did they go DOO ?

You do indeed. Maybe the increased risk is low, but I object to those who claim that there's no safety implications at all or even that DOO is somehow safer. Anyway, if the DfT's and the TOCs' promises to maintain staffing levels are to be believed, that increased risk will come with little or no saving in return. If the second member of staff is there anyway, why shouldn't they be safety critical and help to mitigate some of the risks?

 

[ComUtoR]

I understand that and, like everything, you have to balance your resources vs the perceived threats. I simply don't recall the very frequent 12-car Thameslink trains having serious problems with DOO for what must now be 20-30 years !. When did they go DOO ?

What do you mean by 'serious problem' ?

Multiple passenger egresses,
Millions in delay minutes,
Assaults, rapes, muggings, thefts,
Millions in lost revenue,
Trap and drags,
SSDR (stop short and door releases)
Operational incidents.

Have 12 cars been running around on Thameslink for 20-30 yrs ? in high frequency or are you using the current FLU units as a comparison ?

 

[woodmally]

You do indeed. Maybe the increased risk is low, but I object to those who claim that there's no safety implications at all or even that DOO is somehow safer. Anyway, if the DfT's and the TOCs' promises to maintain staffing levels are to be believed, that increased risk will come with little or no saving in return. If the second member of staff is there anyway, why shouldn't they be safety critical and help to mitigate some of the risks?

Yet I dont see a second member of staff on say the tube nor is there any argument by the RMT to introduce one. Secondly I dont see a second member of staff on the bullet train in Japan opening and closing the doors manually and that travels in excess of 320 kmh!

 

[a_c_skinner]

I am intrigued as to how many events occasioning serious harm have happened since DOO was introduced on BedPan services AND which would have been prevented by a guard. I'm intrigued by actual events, not the hypotheticals that are easy to list.

 

[ComUtoR]

I am intrigued as to how many events occasioning serious harm have happened since DOO was introduced on BedPan services AND which would have been prevented by a guard. I'm intrigued by actual events, not the hypotheticals that are easy to list.

You're not the only one. The problem is that they never traced the data and never recorded which incident was DOO/Guard etc. There is also a No fault blame with RAIB reports so you wouldn't ever get an official conclusion.

What we can do is look at incidents from both perspectives and reason out if it was preventable or not. We also, of course, need to consider that Guards also have incidents too.

What I can say with absolute certainty is that when I drive with a Guard; my workload is so dramatically diminished that it makes a huge impact to my day. Fatigue issues are a serious concern for DOO Drivers. I can also state with certainty that many of the operational incidents etc that I have been involved with could have been resolved much faster and more efficiently with a Guard.

I would have to reread it but did the Lewisham report mention that services that didn't evac had a Guard who provided important information and kept passengers reassured ?

 

[OxtedSignaller]

I think most people are missing the point however... Northern like Southern are talking about operating DCO where a second safety trained employee is present on board the services not fully blown DOO.

DOO is completely different and most DOO routes such as Thameslink and Southern Brighton-Victoria for example are serving high density settlements with the majority of stations having staffed platforms who dispatch the train (or on TLK North are present supervising and assiting on the platform), and are available to assist the driver.

 

[Carlisle]

I was talking about sundays in the working week in relation to the noise that some mess room lawyers like to make . When in reality if they spoke to their respective union reps and/or attended their rspective branches they would find out that it is actually the policy of their respective unions to have sundays inside the working week .
.

Ok, I was confusing it with the SWR strike debate showing around 53 members had left the union since the last ballot.
I wonder if the RMT would be happy for northern to mirror the agreements the likes of SWT signed ages ago bringing their Sunday’s into the working week (in which case the TOCs are probably more at fault for not acting sooner) or is the longstanding deadlock really because the union now want something far more generous.

 

[XDM]

I understand that and, like everything, you have to balance your resources vs the perceived threats. I simply don't recall the very frequent 12-car Thameslink trains having serious problems with DOO for what must now be 20-30 years !. When did they go DOO ?

Bedpan DOO began in 1982. It has been a very safe.
Equally to the point DOO began on London's Victoria line more than HALF A CENTURY ago.

Wonderfully safe since then.

Three quarters of the platforms are SELF despatch, despite 1000+ people per train & usually rammed.
The driver looks at 30 doors, not the four of a northern train.
Oh - and for 40 years the platform monitors were black & whit, tiny & 1960's technology & quality.

Exactly the alleged issues that our regular DOO critic trumpets.

What is the fuss about - union power plain and simple. 50 years safe DOO operation.

 

[Tomnick]

Yet I dont see a second member of staff on say the tube nor is there any argument by the RMT to introduce one. Secondly I dont see a second member of staff on the bullet train in Japan opening and closing the doors manually and that travels in excess of 320 kmh!

I think you may be mistaken regarding Japan’s trains, but I am open to correction.

London Underground is a very different operation to Northern - surely you can see that? You’re never far from a station, let alone civilisation generally, and most of those stations are well staffed. Rather different than trundling between Settle and Carlisle on a dark winter’s evening.

I think most people are missing the point however... Northern like Southern are talking about operating DCO where a second safety trained employee is present on board the services not fully blown DOO.

DOO is completely different and most DOO routes such as Thameslink and Southern Brighton-Victoria for example are serving high density settlements with the majority of stations having staffed platforms who dispatch the train (or on TLK North are present supervising and assiting on the platform), and are available to assist the driver.

“Safety trained” is very different to having proper route knowledge with no risk of one not being present when you need them most, though. If there is a genuine commitment to having a second member of staff present, then why not have them involved in the operation of the train to mitigate some of the risks that are present?

 

[OxtedSignaller]

I think you may be mistaken regarding Japan’s trains, but I am open to correction.

London Underground is a very different operation to Northern - surely you can see that? You’re never far from a station, let alone civilisation generally, and most of those stations are well staffed. Rather different than trundling between Settle and Carlisle on a dark winter’s evening.


“Safety trained” is very different to having proper route knowledge with no risk of one not being present when you need them most, though. If there is a genuine commitment to having a second member of staff present, then why not have them involved in the operation of the train to mitigate some of the risks that are present?

Because it is all based off evidence from the RSSB which showed DCO trains are no less safe then traditionally operated trains with Driver and Guard. It showed most of the second persons benefit is from being able to make a GSMR REC which OBS are trained to make alongside their other safety training. In the vast majority of situations when train protection is required, you will find even when there is a Conductor with route knowledge the Driver is the one who protects the train.

 

[ComUtoR]

Because it is all based off evidence from the RSSB which showed DCO trains are no less safe then traditionally operated trains with Driver and Guard.

Also a big part was that the train moving forward as DOO was no less safe than leaving passengers on a platform or squeezing them onto the next service.