Arriva Rail North DOO

[AlterEgo]

I suspect the drivers are protected from dismissal:

https://www.gov.uk/industrial-action-strikes/your-employment-rights-during-industrial-action

(See Industrial Action by Non-union members)

No, what it says is that those employees have the same rights not to be dismissed as ones in a union. That's not a right "never to be dismissed", the same page makes clear that those rights are caveated by:

You could be dismissed for taking part in industrial action if:

the union hasn’t held a properly organised ballot
the union hasn’t given the employer the correct notice for balloting members or taking action
the union hasn’t called its members to take action because they think the dispute is settled or action is called by someone who doesn’t have the authority to do so
it’s in support of workers taking action against another employer (otherwise known as ‘sympathy’ or ‘secondary’ action)
it’s in support of only employing union members (otherwise known as a ‘closed shop’)
it breaks any other parts of industrial action law

The wildcat strike, and unofficial action, is very sketchy and potentially illegal.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I suspect the drivers are protected from dismissal:

https://www.gov.uk/industrial-action-strikes/your-employment-rights-during-industrial-action

(See Industrial Action by Non-union members)

I wonder whether there is legal precedent on whether "non-union members" means "members of no union" or "members of unions other than the one with an official strike".

I would certainly read it as the former.

 

[AlterEgo]

I wonder whether there is legal precedent on whether "non-union members" means "members of no union" or "members of unions other than the one with an official strike".

I would certainly read it as the former.

I believe its intent would be the latter. It would be a bit strange to suggest otherwise, that if you're part of a totally separate union then the rights to engage in another union's dispute are different to a non-member.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I believe its intent would be the latter. It would be a bit strange to suggest otherwise, that if you're part of a totally separate union then the rights to engage in another union's dispute are different to a non-member.

No, I see logic in the former myself. By joining a union you effectively give your personal right of negotiation of your employment situation to that specific union's collective agreement, and it is essentially expected you will follow their instructions with regard to such things.

If you are not a member of a union, as I am not (IT isn't really unionised other than in the civil service), you negotiate and make decisions on your own for matters affecting you.

 

[pemma]

On the Barrow line today there's a single 4-car 156 shuttling back and forth with a driver and two guards (I guess one of them, who was wearing an RMT "no DOO" type badge promoting safety grounds, decided, unexpectedly to management, not to strike).

The longer train was welcome compared with a too-small 185 - I'd happily see these services all switch back to double 156s. But one thing the double-guarding highlighted was how much less hassle it was for that guard to do tickets, being able to spend the necessary time with each passenger without rushing.

If anything, given that the other guard was just doing doors and announcements, both jobs the driver does on DOO along with an automatic PIS, the whole thing was a massive advertisement for DOO with an "OBS" on board.

I imagine it's possible the guard who appeared to be a RMT member could be the only person working in a household so he thought striking was not in his family's best interests. Possibly being at work wearing a no-DOO badge on a strike day does more to raise awareness?

We used to get some second guards who took over revenue duties for the busy sections of the line at peak times but it seems there's less spare guards now so that's been dropped.

 

[nedchester]

I wonder whether there is legal precedent on whether "non-union members" means "members of no union" or "members of unions other than the one with an official strike".

I would certainly read it as the former.

But does the employer have any right to know whether someone is a member of another union or not at all?

However, it is widely acknowledged that if a driver got sacked then a very large can of worms would be opened.

 

[pemma]

I wonder whether there is legal precedent on whether "non-union members" means "members of no union" or "members of unions other than the one with an official strike".

I would certainly read it as the former.

Someone's shared the NUT advice for strike action on another forum, which implies that they think their members joining in when another union is on strike could lead to them being sacked.


Picket lines
It is possible that in some schools pickets may be mounted by support staff unions taking strike action. The NUT is not part of this action and is not calling upon its members to take any action - though as above we are strongly advising members to refuse any work normally done by colleagues who are striking. However pickets may ask you not to cross, as they are legally entitled to do. We understand that for many NUT members, refusing to cross a picket line is a strongly held principle. Where any NUT member refuses to cross a picket line, that member of staff will be in breach of contract and is likely to suffer deduction of a day’s pay. Many boroughs have issued advice that this would be the only penalty. However it is technically possible that they could face disciplinary action which could possibly even include dismissal.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But does the employer have any right to know whether someone is a member of another union or not at all?

Interesting question. However, a Court would arguably have the right to know that if it got there.

 

[pemma]

RMT rep has just been on Granada Reports. He said the union will be ONLY willing to be talk to the operators (Northern and Merseyrail) further once they promise to have two safety critical members of staff on all services and until then there won't be any deal. The Northern regional director (who was on afterwards) also implied RMT weren't willing to talk to them anymore when they said they couldn't guarantee they'll be a guard on every service they operate.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What, I wonder, does he mean by safety critical?

Does he mean "the train will be cancelled if they are not present"? If so that probably isn't much of a jump with Northern.

 

[Robertj21a]

RMT rep has just been on Granada Reports. He said the union will be ONLY willing to be talk to the operators (Northern and Merseyrail) further once they promise to have two safety critical members of staff on all services and until then there won't be any deal. The Northern regional director (who was on afterwards) also implied RMT weren't willing to talk to them anymore when they said they couldn't guarantee they'll be a guard on every service they operate.

They could have a long wait then. I can't see anyone, nowadays, *guaranteeing* two safety critical members of staff on *all* services.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They could have a long wait then. I can't see anyone, nowadays, *guaranteeing* two safety critical members of staff on *all* services.

The ball, in any case, is in the Government's court, not Northern's. By making such a guarantee they would be in breach of their franchise agreement.

 

[Lemmy99uk]

What, I wonder, does he mean by safety critical?

Does he mean "the train will be cancelled if they are not present"? If so that probably isn't much of a jump with Northern.

That is a HUGE jump for Northern.

Northern have to negotiate a deal that would allow a train to run without a second person on board in certain circumstances. Those circumstances are what they need to discuss with the RMT.

There is no compromise on that and therefore, any second person on board CANNOT be integral to the operation of the train and therefore cannot be defined as 'safety critical'.

Any agreement to a second safety critical person on board negates the whole rationale behind the proposals.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Any agreement to a second safety critical person on board negates the whole rationale behind the proposals.

True. Probably also breaches their franchise agreement as per my other post.

 

[pemma]

To be fair to the RMT the Manchester based rep who just appeared on the national news made a much more sensible argument than the Liverpool based one who appeared on Granada Reports.

 

[lineclear]

But one thing the double-guarding highlighted was how much less hassle it was for that guard to do tickets, being able to spend the necessary time with each passenger without rushing.

Rushing will still occur when said member of staff has to go to the doors to check for any disabled passengers who may require to board.

 

[Robertj21a]

The ball, in any case, is in the Government's court, not Northern's. By making such a guarantee they would be in breach of their franchise agreement.

Agreed, but that means that the RMT representative was making public statements that were intended to deliberately distort the facts.

 

[pemma]

Does he mean "the train will be cancelled if they are not present"? If so that probably isn't much of a jump with Northern.

On that point possibly Northern can get DfT to agree to a change if they say they don't think they'll be able to meet accessibility requirements if the train runs without them.

 

[Moonshot]

You would have to wonder what the RMTs position would be IF a safety critical 2nd member of staff was agreed to on all trains , but conditional on accepting a 5 year pay freeze.

 

[noddingdonkey]

It's an established precedent of elections and referenda that if you don't bother to vote, you don't count.
So, in the 2015 election 35% of those who voted, voted Tory but only 25% of those eligible to vote actually voted Tory . If you did a really large opinion poll only one quarter of the people polled would say they had voted Tory yet we have a Tory government with a sizeable majority.
That's the way it works.

The Trade Unions Act 2015 changed things. 40% of the electorate is required to vote "Yes" for a strike ballot in "important public services", which includes transport.

It will be noted that despite this new precedent it apparently requires a greater amount of support for a one day Guard's strike than to leave the EU :roll::roll:

 

[mrbluelips]

As a passenger I would say that Northern impressed me with the pre-planning they made. Plenty of services ran and it was great to see information about timetables being published in advance.

I would say that it wasn't the disaster day that the Unions were hoping for.

 

[Nevillehill]

As a passenger I would say that Northern impressed me with the pre-planning they made. Plenty of services ran and it was great to see information about timetables being published in advance.

I would say that it wasn't the disaster day that the Unions were hoping for.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/175682

 

[Bletchleyite]

I thought it was OK as well. FWIW, the relatively lightly loaded double 156s on lower frequencies made it all feel a bit 1990s, pre the North Western Trains service increases of 1998.

 

[Andyh82]

The ball, in any case, is in the Government's court, not Northern's. By making such a guarantee they would be in breach of their franchise agreement.

Why is this seemingly the elephant in the room that cannot be mentioned.

The lady from Northern who was interviewed on the news at various items yesterday was answering questions like a politician because she is obviously not allowed to mention the franchise agreement.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Why is this seemingly the elephant in the room that cannot be mentioned.

The lady from Northern who was interviewed on the news at various items yesterday was answering questions like a politician because she is obviously not allowed to mention the franchise agreement.

That does not stop the media making that point, though, should they feel it was making the public at large aware of that particular fact.

 

[Andyh82]

The popular media won't go into it so deep, they just report the most simply understood view, which seems to be that all guards are being axed and trains will run driver only. The union pushes that sort of angle to gain support and the operator just skirts around the issue because it isn't allowed to say one thing or the other.

One programme even interviewed a wheelchair user who was concerned that he wouldn't be able to travel by train anymore as he travels from an unstaffed station with no platform staff and also going forward no guard.

 

[455driver]

That does not stop the media making that point, though, should they feel it was making the public at large aware of that particular fact.

Why would the media 'make the point?
The media are anti Union so wont give them any column inches redardless, that point has been made several times and is one of the reasons the RMT dont put out any decent press releases, the media wouldnt print them even when though the RMT tried to pay for them too, such are the joys of a 'free' press, they can print, or refuse to print, anything they want to.

 

[JamesTT]

You would have to wonder what the RMTs position would be IF a safety critical 2nd member of staff was agreed to on all trains , but conditional on accepting a 5 year pay freeze.

Perhaps inflation based payrise would be accepted so no more or less than a RPI increase. That would be a pay freeze in real terms. Alternatively an increase of 0.5 the RPI which would effectively be a real terms pay cut but not as bad as having a pay freeze

 

[WatcherZero]

For the safety conscious can I point out part of this guys defence argument in court on the final day was that he had never read the handbook.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Why would the media 'make the point?
The media are anti Union so wont give them any column inches regardless, that point has been made several times and is one of the reasons the RMT don't put out any decent press releases.

I can understand your view above about RMT press releases, but if you want me to believe that what you say about the media being the reason for the usual standard of the majority of recent RMT press releases, with their usual rhetoric about "basket cases", and the like, then you miss the point that the RMT want to put such arcane rubbish in their press releases as it suits their leadership to take such an out of date media methodology as proof of their left-wing credentials.