ASLEF announce five days of strike action on LNER due to potential implementation of Minimum Service Law

[Ashfordian6]

Surely if the dispute is with TOCs then there is a way to do this without hurting passengers unduly? For example striking on Avanti and LNWR on different days so the operator’s revenue suffers but a service is still there for those who cannot avoid travel?

On this point, the dispute is not with the TOCs as they are just puppets and it is the Government that is stopping negotiation and offers being made. I'm sure if the TOCs were allowed to negotiate, many would no longer be in dispute and thus not affected by strikes.

 

[Starmill]

A plague on all their houses.

All actors are behaving badly and as usual it is the poor ordinary member of the public, who relies on a service, who gets screwed.

Anyone who thinks this improves after the election is deluded...even if, and it is a big if, there is a change of Government there is still no money and once a power (MSL) is taken it is rarely taken back.(and certainly in places like hospitals they are needed to reduce patient harm)

So your claim is that a Labour majority government would break its promise to an affiliated trade union to remove the law? In order to ensure a dispute with an affiliate union continues to drag on?

It seems some here chose to ignore that I specifically said I didn’t support the DFT or LNER in this…


The one day as originally announced was. LNER going down the minimum service legislation route, which hasn’t even been confirmed yet, suddenly prompted ASLEF to announce another 4 days of strike supposedly about pay. We’re not daft, it’s pretty obvious that the one day originally announced is about pay and the other four are about minimum service legislation. If they want to strike over minimum service legislation they should go through the correct process for it rather than conveniently pretending the extra strike days are about a different pre-existing dispute.


The fact that no other TOC is doing the same is irrelevant, ASLEF members at LNER aren’t employed by the other TOCs. ASLEF announced a one day strike in the pay dispute. Then all of a sudden that changes to five days. They’re claiming the extra four days are part of the pay dispute but you’ve just admitted yourself that it’s because of the legislation. If they want to strike over the fact that the law applies to them, have a ballot and follow the correct procedure rather than hiding behind another dispute.


Or more specifically the new one is objecting to the fact that the law applies to them!


It won’t last, people are already saying they’ll give up on the train and BA have already lowered many of their domestic air fares in reaction this week as well as allocating larger aircraft (A321s on flights that were booked A319s or A320s). No doubt EasyJet and Ryanair will be doing similar. National Express, Flixbus and Megabus will also be doing well out of this.
LNER will find passenger numbers considerably down in three months time, and in all likelihood many of those who gave up on LNER won’t return without a major incentive to do so after the issues are resolved.


I didn’t say that it didn’t permit different tactics against different employers.
Primary legislation takes precedence over anything else and ultimately LNER can choose to make their staff comply with that legislation whether ASLEF like it or not.

The DFT might not be directly able to do it but they can through LNER which we all know is effectively controlled by the DFT.
As for spunking away taxpayers money, if you’ve handled litigation against HMG for 10 years then you should be aware that the current government has a track record of it in all sectors, not just transport but also on immigration (Rwanda policy) and the pandemic (PPE scandal) and no doubt many other things that aren’t instantly coming to mind.

If this does end up in court which DFT/LNER could do, ASLEF are going to have a difficult time convincing a judge that the extra four days are legitimately about the pay dispute rather than opposition to the fact that primary legislation applies to and is being used against them.

If LNER are certain of this view I'm sure they'll already have applied for injunctive relief on the matter. Not long to go to find out.

 

[TUC]

It's not clear cut that a government's "mandate" is legitimate if it involves removing fundamental rights. Clearly it would be difficult to argue that a government elected (by - say - around 40% of the electorate) on a manifesto commitment to remove the voting rights of the other 60% of the electorate would have a *legitimate* mandate; that would be absurd; but it does illustrate that there are limits to the legitimacy of any "mandate". Or let's take a more realistic example. Would a government, elected on 40% of the votes, have legitimate mandate to completely abolish the right to strike if that was in their manifesto? A question to ponder.

Well, yes, that's the nature of a first past the post electoral system.

 

[island]

David Horne has got a lot to answer for here. This is a shameful way to lead a business. Not as much as the Prime Minister of course, but unfortunately they're not really replaceable outside of an election.

Much if not all of this is being decided above David Horne, and he is just implementing what DfT/DOR tell him to.

Oh, and, as my own TU is, consider litigation.

On what grounds?

If LNER are certain of this view I'm sure they'll already have applied for injunctive relief on the matter. Not long to go to find out.

I agree.

 

[TUC]

So your claim is that a Labour majority government would break its promise to an affiliated trade union to remove the law? In order to ensure a dispute with an affiliate union continues to drag on?

Surely all that matters in terms of honouring the democratic process is governments of any type delivering what they promise in their manifesto?

 

[azOOOOOma]

Strange. I’ve always been told nationalised railways were a panacea of great reliability, low fares, high wages and excellent worker rights.

Here were have a nationalised rail company running on nationalised railways yet the consensus is that they’re offering quite the opposite of the sunlit uplands that so many claim would result from nationalisation.

Am I being over simplistic here or looking to Scotland or Wales, are things better there? It is a genuine question as this current system is all I’ve known given my age.

Laura x

 

[Class 800]

Guards (train managers) & ticket offices would have been dispensed with had it not been for the unions, their members & the public pushing back.

I can say that when the “Save our ticket offices” message went out I sat and filled in the consultation to London Travelwatch and Transport Focus for every single TOC, even the ones I didn’t use.

Took a while but I couldn’t be happier they scrapped those plans.

But I’ll use my voice - every consultation filled in for a TOC I don’t use, might cover for an elderly, disabled and vulnerable person out there who would be impacted by this but might not even have known.

And as a semi-regular traveler on GTR I curse DOO… the ASB especially on Thameslink can be appalling.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Yet 95%+ of drivers support ASLEF direction.
ASLEF may be irrelevant to you but not the people who it represents .

But with genuine respect, I’m not surprised - look at the privileges it allows members to achieve. Take 458/769, it somehow allows drivers to demand a cab refurbishment to a train and let them refuse to drive it if one isn’t arranged, etc., why wouldn’t members support something that lets them make demands as and when they feel like it? Of course they’re going to. But then there’s practical, ethical and moral questions to be raised there.

 

[43066]

I don't work for LNER so don't know what their specific employment contract says. But most standard employment contracts specifies your hours and where required work outside these hours, and entitlements to time in lieu if extra non core required.

So could be Work notice is not creating overtime, but directed hours for which receive time in lieu is the contractual method of reimbursement

Nobody can be compelled to come in on days off unless they’ve volunteered to work rest days, which nobody ever does on a strike day.

Typically for traincrew there are the following types of overtime:

A: Rest Day working
B: Overtime arranged in advance (you're spare on X day, theres a turn to cover that ends 20 minutes later than your shift, you agree in advance to work it, this is usually subject to parameters but if industrial relations are good this may be flexed by individual drivers)
C: Overtime arranged on the day (being asked on the day, when you finish will you do an extra shunt etc)
D: Overtime as a result of disruption (you simply arrive back to your depot late due to late running)

On an MSL strike day, a driver with a Work Notice could work B or more likely C in the absence of a overtime ban.

The MSLs (if implemented) will still be subject to the usual rostering agreements etc. and nobody is going to agree to do an extra shunt to help out on an MSL day. D is the only likely one.

The one day as originally announced was. LNER going down the minimum service legislation route, which hasn’t even been confirmed yet, suddenly prompted ASLEF to announce another 4 days of strike supposedly about pay.

And? LNER drivers are striking based on the existing mandate, as they’re perfectly permitted to do. There’s absolutely nothing to prevent them from changing tactics in response to the change of tactics by the employer; any suggestion that it’s somehow improper is factually incorrect.

We’re not daft, it’s pretty obvious that the one day originally announced is about pay and the other four are about minimum service legislation. If they want to strike over minimum service legislation they should go through the correct process for it rather than conveniently pretending the extra strike days are about a different pre-existing dispute.

There’s no conspiracy here. Nobody on ASLEF’s side is suggesting that the change in tactics isn’t to do with the decision by the employer to use MSLs, to my knowledge. I’m not sure who “we” is, for these purposes. All that matters is whether their members agree with the change in approach or not. I have a sneaking suspicion most will be in favour…

Update from my place (not LNER): it’s being argued about at a senior level, and nobody quite seems to know how it will work. If I was a betting man, I’d bet against it at least this time around.

 

[Starmill]

Surely all that matters in terms of honouring the democratic process is governments of any type delivering what they promise in their manifesto?

I don't disagree with that but I'm dealing here with the question of what's most likely, rather than the question of what's most desirable. As with most things, there's principle and there's reality.

 

[Starmill]

Much if not all of this is being decided above David Horne, and he is just implementing what DfT/DOR tell him to.

For certain yes. My point was getting at the question of how he manages to serve under such conditions with good honour.

 

[12LDA28C]

But with genuine respect, I’m not surprised - look at the privileges it allows members to achieve. Take 458/769, it somehow allows drivers to demand a cab refurbishment to a train and let them refuse to drive it if one isn’t arranged, etc., why wouldn’t members support something that lets them make demands as and when they feel like it? Of course they’re going to. But then there’s practical, ethical and moral questions to be raised there.

Do you have evidence to back up your apparent claim that those 'demands' were unjustified? Do you think drivers really demanded a cab refurbishment just for the sake of it, or might you reasonably expect that any kind of cab conditions which might adversely affect a driver's comfort, safety or the ability to do their job would be, quite rightly, raised as an issue? If you're in possession of all the details of this Class 458 and 769 issue which you mention (and I'm sure you are, otherwise you really wouldn't be in a position to comment), I'd be interested to see them.

 

[Starmill]

Am I being over simplistic here or looking to Scotland or Wales, are things better there? It is a genuine question as this current system is all I’ve known given my age.

I think they are better, albeit only somewhat. Mainly I think it's because the governments there aren't taking an ideological drive to the running of the service, they're just trying to chart a course to what's better value for money in the long run. They're also benefiting from a better rate of public subsidy than in England, as pretty much all services do in Scotland and Wales.

But with genuine respect, I’m not surprised - look at the privileges it allows members to achieve. Take 458/769, it somehow allows drivers to demand a cab refurbishment to a train and let them refuse to drive it if one isn’t arranged, etc., why wouldn’t members support something that lets them make demands as and when they feel like it? Of course they’re going to. But then there’s practical, ethical and moral questions to be raised there.

I'm not sure it's true to say that they're able to demand a cab refurbishment. All employers have duties to make provisions for the safety of workers, and temperatures of work are obviously part of that in all cases, and definitely so in a safety-critical role. If you ask me the issue really was how long we kept building trains for which didn't come with cab air conditioning as standard. That's very poor but has been partly corrected now. The workers and trade unions can't demand refurbishments because of chips on the wall or stains on the floor.

 

[DanNCL]

And? LNER drivers are striking based on the existing mandate, as they’re perfectly permitted to do. There’s absolutely nothing to prevent them from changing tactics in response to the change of tactics by the employer; any suggestion that it’s somehow improper is factually incorrect.

The existing mandate is in a pay dispute. They are not in dispute over the use of minimum service legislation and therefore have no basis to suddenly strike because of it. You can try arguing it’s part of the pay dispute but you’ve said yourself that it’s because of the legislation. If it’s because of the legislation then it’s clearly not part of the pay dispute because the pay dispute has absolutely nothing to do with the legislation.

There’s no conspiracy here. Nobody on ASLEF’s side is suggesting that the change in tactics isn’t to do with the decision by the employer to use MSLs, to my knowledge. I’m not sure who “we” is, for these purposes. All that matters is whether their members agree with the change in approach or not. I have a sneaking suspicion most will be in favour…

If ASLEF are that confident that their members support it then they can do it the proper way and have a ballot. The fact they haven’t suggests either that they don’t think the membership does support it, or that they don’t think they have any legal basis to strike over the legislation.

 

[Train_manager]

If ASLEF are that confident that their members support it then they can do it the proper way and have a ballot. The fact they haven’t suggests either that they don’t think the membership does support it, or that they don’t think they have any legal basis to strike over the legislation.

Aslef have had a ballot . A "proper" one.

They have a mandate from there members. It's very simple.

Oh FYI Aslef are due to reballot there membesrs again soon

Cos the Tory government required the mandate to be renewed every 6 months.

 

[Smidster]

The existing mandate is in a pay dispute. They are not in dispute over the use of minimum service legislation and therefore have no basis to suddenly strike because of it. You can try arguing it’s part of the pay dispute but you’ve said yourself that it’s because of the legislation. If it’s because of the legislation then it’s clearly not part of the pay dispute because the pay dispute has absolutely nothing to do with the legislation.


If ASLEF are that confident that their members support it then they can do it the proper way and have a ballot. The fact they haven’t suggests either that they don’t think the membership does support it, or that they don’t think they have any legal basis to strike over the legislation.

If I were LNER management it is certainly something I would be testing with my lawyers - The code of practice for IA is clear that a ballot should pertain to the issue at hand - "include a summary of the matter or matters in issue in the trade dispute to which the proposed industrial action relates;"...Therefore if ASLEF are calling this strike due to an MSL rather than pay (and if there is evidence that LNER is the only one with the additional action and the only one supposedly planning to use the legislation then they may well have a strong case for that) it feels they might be on shaky ground but I assume all sides are spending bucket loads on lawyers for those discussions.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Aslef have had a ballot !!! A "proper " one!!!

They have a mandate from there members. It's very simple. What don't you understand??

Do you need to use so many exclamation and question marks? It’s people losing their temper unnecessarily or wording things rudely that will get the thread shut and again we’ll be left without the ability to discuss the issue, which is unfortunate as I for one have plenty of questions

If I were LNER management it is certainly something I would be testing with my lawyers - The code of practice for IA is clear that a ballot should pertain to the issue at hand - "include a summary of the matter or matters in issue in the trade dispute to which the proposed industrial action relates;"...Therefore if ASLEF are calling this strike due to an MSL rather than pay (and if there is evidence that LNER is the only one with the additional action and the only one supposedly planning to use the legislation then they may well have a strong case for that) it feels they might be on shaky ground but I assume all sides are spending bucket loads on lawyers for those discussions.

What I want to know is - what is the point of passing a law meant to minimise the extent of ASLEF's action, if there is an enormous backlash when the law is then followed? Is it even legal to effectively punish a TOC for following the law? Is it legal to strike more intensively than MSLs set out? What are the repercussions?

 

[yorksrob]

Strange. I’ve always been told nationalised railways were a panacea of great reliability, low fares, high wages and excellent worker rights.

Here were have a nationalised rail company running on nationalised railways yet the consensus is that they’re offering quite the opposite of the sunlit uplands that so many claim would result from nationalisation.

Am I being over simplistic here or looking to Scotland or Wales, are things better there? It is a genuine question as this current system is all I’ve known given my age.

Laura x

I don't know your age, however even what we call the privatised period since the early 1990's has gone through several distinctive phases:

- Initial privatisation from the sell off in the 1990's and 2002 when privatisation was in full swing and TOC's had a lot more freedom to design and propose services.

- Creation of Network Rail, which led to more public control over infrastructure in 2002.

- 2014 Network Rail classed as a public body - more spending restrictions.

- post pandemic - generally poor government, different departments responsible for providing subsidy and receiving revenues.

My point is, you've probably actually known a number of systems, most of which won't be as bad as the current.

A nationalised system could be pretty bad (as it was under Dr Beeching) if the Governments of the day specify it to be.

Alternatively a nationalised system could be pretty good if the Government of the day specifies it to be (i.e. BR under the Bob Reid's in the 1990's)

A crap Government will screw over the railways if it chooses to, whether they're publicly or privately owned.

 

[43066]

The existing mandate is in a pay dispute. They are not in dispute over the use of minimum service legislation and therefore have no basis to suddenly strike because of it. You can try arguing it’s part of the pay dispute but you’ve said yourself that it’s because of the legislation. If it’s because of the legislation then it’s clearly not part of the pay dispute because the pay dispute has absolutely nothing to do with the legislation.

It’s both: it’s strike in relation to the ongoing dispute, based on the existing mandate, and a response to a change of tactics in that same dispute, by an employer who is now consulting on imposing MSLs. I’m honestly not sure what’s so difficult to accept about that.

If ASLEF are that confident that their members support it then they can do it the proper way and have a ballot. The fact they haven’t suggests either that they don’t think the membership does support it, or that they don’t think they have any legal basis to strike over the legislation.

In relation to the first statement, you’re suggesting ASLEF don’t have a legal basis for the action taken?! We will no doubt see an injunction sought in short order, then.

The second statement is straying into the realms of fantasy; ASLEF are required to reballot every six months and consistently get 90%+. Or are you suggesting that 90% of LNER drivers have been in favour of striking for the last two years, but suddenly won’t be in favour of changing tactics when MSLs are brought in!? If they aren’t, we will find out when they lose the mandate for action at the next ballot!

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Five days though. When it comes to a typical strike, one or two days on, one or two days off, etc. that's not necessarily the end of the world. True, I'll never support it, similarly others will never criticise it, fair enough. Different opinions vary and those won't change. But at least you can travel the next day, or in poor circumstances, the day after.

But surely, surely five days in a row can't realistically be seen as acceptable.

And if the government are prepared to introduce laws such as Minimum Service Levels when it got to a point where hardly any strike day service ran, is there the possibility of them reacting to five days in a row by introducing a similar law, that says there needs to be at least a day's gap between strikes, or something?

 

[greatkingrat]

Five days though. When it comes to a typical strike, one or two days on, one or two days off, etc. I'll never support it, others will never criticise it, fair enough. Different opinions vary and those won't change. But at least you can travel the next day, or in poor circumstances, the day after.

But surely, surely five days in a row can't realistically be seen as acceptable.

And if the government are prepared to introduce laws such as Minimum Service Levels when it got to a point where hardly any strike day service ran, is there the possibility of them reacting to five days in a row by introducing a similar law, that says there needs to be at least a day's gap between strikes, or something?

But the whole point is that if LNER are using the Minimum Service Levels law, then there will be some service on all of those five days.

 

[Bantamzen]

It’s both: it’s strike in relation to the ongoing dispute, based on the existing mandate, and a response to a change of tactics in that same dispute, by an employer who is now consulting on imposing MSLs. I’m honestly not sure what’s so difficult to accept about that.

I noted that ASLEF in their official press release on the additional strike action did not mention the MSL. And probably for good reason, because although it is a reaction to increasing levels of industrial disputes, is also now in law. So if ASLEF were to formally state the extra action was in response to it, they could find themselves in tricky waters, with the government potentially able to argue that they had stepped outside of their members original mandate.

However regardless of the technical details, this will be the first test of the new law. I hope that ASLEF have done their homework on this, because it's outcome could set precedent.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

But the whole point is that if LNER are using the Minimum Service Levels law, then there will be some service on all of those five days.

Do we know what Minimum Service Level is for each TOC? Is there a link?

 

[43066]

What I want to know is - what is the point of passing a law meant to minimise the extent of ASLEF's action, if there is an enormous backlash when the law is then followed? Is it even legal to effectively punish a TOC for following the law? Is it legal to strike more intensively than MSLs set out? What are the repercussions?

Essentially the law removes employees’ usual protection from dismissal for striking where a work notice has been issued, and the protection unions enjoy from being sued by employers if they don’t take reasonable steps to encourage members subject to work notices to attend work.

Subject to the above there’s absolutely nothing to prevent unions calling whatever action they wish in the usual way.

Five days though. When it comes to a typical strike, one or two days on, one or two days off, etc. I'll never support it, others will never criticise it, fair enough. Different opinions vary and those won't change. But at least you can travel the next day, or in poor circumstances, the day after.

But surely, surely five days in a row can't realistically be seen as acceptable.

Well, yes, it isn’t likely to be effective in terms of ending dispute, and it is likely to entrench disputes and result in more disruption for the travelling public over a longer period.

The government were warned of all this when they passed it!

 

[yorksrob]

I noted that ASLEF in their official press release on the additional strike action did not mention the MSL. And probably for good reason, because although it is a reaction to increasing levels of industrial disputes, is also now in law. So if ASLEF were to formally state the extra action was in response to it, they could find themselves in tricky waters, with the government potentially able to argue that they had stepped outside of their members original mandate.

However regardless of the technical details, this will be the first test of the new law. I hope that ASLEF have done their homework on this, because it's outcome could set precedent.

So long as a strike is itself implemented within the law, is there anything to stop them actually striking against a law ?

I suspect not.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Essentially the law removes employees’ usual protection from dismissal for striking where a work notice has been issued, and the protection unions enjoy from being sued by employers if they don’t take reasonable steps to encourage members subject to work notices to attend work.

Subject to the above there’s absolutely nothing to prevent unions calling whatever action they wish in the usual way.

Thank you very much for the explanation A swings and roundabout situation then, as while the MSLs mitigate the effects of the strike, in order to counteract this the strikes are being lengthened. Not sure if that's more or less helpful to either side, to be honest...

 

[ainsworth74]

But surely, surely five days in a row can't realistically be seen as acceptable.

Acceptable to who? It's a legitimate tactic in an industrial dispute to strike for as many days as their members can afford. ASLEF could call a strike from now until an agreement is reached and that would be perfectly legitimate.

Do we know what Minimum Service Level is for each TOC?

40% of the timetabled service as contained in the National Rail Timetable. It is for the TOC to determine what 40% of services run though with some broad guidance.

38. Are there any requirements on which services a train operators should choose when calculating the 40%?

The Regulations do not specify which services should or should not run during a strike period and the operator therefore has a discretion as to which services to run.

Operators are best placed to make decisions on which train services should run and how passengers are best served on a strike day. However, the aim of the minimum service level policy is to enable passengers to make important journeys such as to access work, healthcare and education and also to protect the wider economy (such as retail and the night-time economy) from disproportionate impacts of strike action.

Operators may feel it is appropriate to run more services on certain routes than others, or no services at all on some routes, but it is hoped that operators would bear these aims in mind when considering which timetabled services to select.

When deciding which services to run, operators may prioritise time of day (i.e. running services during peak hours), by frequency or by geography.

Operators should also consider any other obligations that they are required to comply with (e.g. contractual obligations or safety and accessibility requirements) when selecting which services will run to form part of the 40%.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/658081efed3c34000d3bfaf9/strikes-minimum-service-levels-passenger-railway-services-regulations-2023-guidance-on-the-regulations.pdf

For Network Rail they have to make specified routes available between 0600 and 2200 (though that doesn't apply to this action as Network Rail staff are not on strike).

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Acceptable to who? It's a legitimate tactic in an industrial dispute to strike for as many days as their members can afford. ASLEF could call a strike from now until an agreement is reached and that would be perfectly legitimate.

Well yes, I was thinking from more of a moral/ethical standpoint rather than a legal one, but I suppose more fool me for thinking that would have any weighting.

 

[Bantamzen]

So long as a strike is itself implemented within the law, is there anything to stop them actually striking against a law ?

I suspect not.

Its the original mandate of the vote that is key. If the vote did not include mention of the law, and the union then uses the use of the law without a new vote it could cause issues.

 

[Iskra]

Five days though. When it comes to a typical strike, one or two days on, one or two days off, etc. that's not necessarily the end of the world. True, I'll never support it, similarly others will never criticise it, fair enough. Different opinions vary and those won't change. But at least you can travel the next day, or in poor circumstances, the day after.

But surely, surely five days in a row can't realistically be seen as acceptable.

And if the government are prepared to introduce laws such as Minimum Service Levels when it got to a point where hardly any strike day service ran, is there the possibility of them reacting to five days in a row by introducing a similar law, that says there needs to be at least a day's gap between strikes, or something?

It’s not really the end of the world though, since they are going to use minimum service legislation anyway so there should be some service and there are alternative operators or routes over pretty much the entire ECML.