ASLEF Strike LNER & Northern 1st March

[6Gman]

What on earth is wrong with the management at LNER? Both sides stick fully to agreements equals one happy ship. No need for this.

Having sat on both sides of the table, I endorse this view!

Just plain common sense.

 

[Confused52]

F

With which existing agreements have LNER and Northern failed to adhere?

I suspect it is the ones which give the union final say on the acceptability of rosters; thereby giving the union effective control of running the railway. No doubt the DfT want to stir up that little hornet's nest.

 

[DanNCL]

On the Northern ballot paper “failure to adhere to existing agreements” did appear alongside the pay dispute

It was on the ballot paper. So all legit

However the press release from ASLEF specifically states that this is a separate dispute. So surely it’s irrelevant if it was included on the pay ballot, with ASLEF themselves saying it’s a separate dispute it should therefore have its own ballot.

Noting what you’ve mentioned about the pay ballot papers, if ASLEF had said it was part of the pay dispute then it would have been unquestionably legitimate. But by saying its a separate dispute they’ve easily opened the door to LNER and/or Northern applying for an injunction.

 

[dk1]

Having sat on both sides of the table, I endorse this view!

Just plain common sense.

Thanks. Sounds like there is something behind this (DfT maybe or a very rouge senior manager/managers) as I just cannot get my head around why the self destruct button would get pressed in this way. Something very toxic about it all.

 

[NEDdrv]

However the press release from ASLEF specifically states that this is a separate dispute. So surely it’s irrelevant if it was included on the pay ballot, with ASLEF themselves saying it’s a separate dispute it should therefore have its own ballot.

Noting what you’ve mentioned about the pay ballot papers, if ASLEF had said it was part of the pay dispute then it would have been unquestionably legitimate. But by saying its a separate dispute they’ve easily opened the door to LNER and/or Northern applying for an injunction.

Don’t worry about it pretty sure ASLEF will have made sure this is ok by running it by our solicitors.

 

[Snow1964]

and continued failure to adhere to the agreed bargaining machinery

What does that actually mean in plain English ?
Sort of feels ASLEF are doing mumbo jumbo speak, rather than clear definitive english.

Anyone know what bargaining machinery actually is, it sounds like automated AI tool, but is probably just some old manual process.

By definition, can't do bargaining without a two way communication, and not clear if ASLEF stuck 100% to agreed method either. They chose not to say if they had also broken the agreement.

 

[43066]

As always on these threads, rather than accepting that the dispute might be perfectly legitimate, and based on a valid grievance, certain posters just want to cast aspersions about ASLEF, suggest the action is unlawful etc.

 

[sheff1]

What does that actually mean in plain English ?
Sort of feels ASLEF are doing mumbo jumbo speak, rather than clear definitive english.

Anyone know what bargaining machinery actually is,

It means exactly what it says - the machinery for bargaining.

 

[DanNCL]

As always on these threads, rather than accepting that the dispute might be perfectly legitimate, and based on a valid grievance, certain posters just want to cast aspersions about ASLEF, suggest the action is unlawful etc.

A dispute can be about a valid matter and still be illegal. It doesn’t matter how valid a matter is, there’s still a process to follow and for as long as ASLEF are claiming this is separate from the pay dispute there’s no ballot to show a mandate.

If ASLEF had made this part of the pay dispute, that ballot paper did cover non-adherence to agreements and therefore in that case there wouldn’t be any uncertainty over the legality.

 

[winks]

So what’s happening at the other 11 train companies which are still in dispute, were they not re-balloted too ?

 

[800001]

So what’s happening at the other 11 train companies which are still in dispute, were they not re-balloted too ?

This isn’t about the pay dispute as mentioned in the replies above, this is a separate dispute

 

[NEDdrv]

So what’s happening at the other 11 train companies which are still in dispute, were they not re-balloted too ?

See post#26

A dispute can be about a valid matter and still be illegal. It doesn’t matter how valid a matter is, there’s still a process to follow and for as long as ASLEF are claiming this is separate from the pay dispute there’s no ballot to show a mandate.

If ASLEF had made this part of the pay dispute, that ballot paper did cover non-adherence to agreements and therefore in that case there wouldn’t be any uncertainty over the legality.

Believe it was also part of LNER ballot returned end of November

 

[DanNCL]

Believe it was also part of LNER ballot returned end of November

I don’t dispute it was mentioned on the ballot, but if that was mentioned on a ballot on the pay dispute and ASLEF are insisting that this is not part of the pay dispute, then surely that means that the ballot in question is irrelevant? As the ballot, though mentioning the same issue, was a ballot in a dispute that the union themselves say is separate?

As I said earlier ASLEF have potentially dug themselves a hole as if they’d instead said it was part of the pay dispute there’d be no uncertainty over the legality as it was on the pay dispute ballot.

 

[Nick82]

I too can't see how it can be held under pay dispute mandate, if they are separate.

It's not, it's a separate issue as stated in ASLEFs press release

So unless there was another ballot, then presumably will be illegal action, so employees are at risk of employer sanctions and negative contributions to their employment record.

There would of been another ballot and given 2 plus weeks notice it's all done by the book.
Let's not forget the conduct of higher management at these companies are the reason to why ASLEF is in this position. Industry relations are low with no improvement if not getting worse on a daily basis.
Unions will be well aware of legal ramifications and effects on it's members so action like this will not be taking lightly

 

[Confused52]

I don’t dispute it was mentioned on the ballot, but if that was mentioned on a ballot on the pay dispute and ASLEF are insisting that this is not part of the pay dispute, then surely that means that the ballot in question is irrelevant? As the ballot, though mentioning the same issue, was a ballot in a dispute that the union themselves say is separate?

As I said earlier ASLEF have potentially dug themselves a hole as if they’d instead said it was part of the pay dispute there’d be no uncertainty over the legality as it was on the pay dispute ballot.

There is no uncertainty anyway. The ballot paper mentioned agreements which were no doubt about Terms and Conditions. The action proposed is about non-adherence to those agreements which form part of the T&Cs but it isn't about pay per se. It was clearly properly balloted and legal. Your concerns don't seem to hold water as far as I can see.

Strangely, I would say that this dispute, aimed only at OLR TOCs, is pushing toward the more serious question of whether the TOCs or the Unions control the railway and whether the present arrangements represent an existential threat

 

[Nick82]

I don’t dispute it was mentioned on the ballot, but if that was mentioned on a ballot on the pay dispute and ASLEF are insisting that this is not part of the pay dispute, then surely that means that the ballot in question is irrelevant? As the ballot, though mentioning the same issue, was a ballot in a dispute that the union themselves say is separate?

As I said earlier ASLEF have potentially dug themselves a hole as if they’d instead said it was part of the pay dispute there’d be no uncertainty over the legality as it was on the pay dispute ballot.

As far as I'm aware you can't add other disputes to an ongoing dispute given they are separate issues.
You have a ballot and strike action for pay just like when you have talks you'll have pay talks then productivity talks. Separate issues.

This is about the company in question going against and not adhering too agreements where both sides sat around a label to discuss and later agreed to...both knowing fully what ramifications they may be if that agreement is broken.

This is why we have unions, in order to prevent companies abusing and taking advantage of an employees rights. If a company expects the employer to follow its rules and procedures in the work place then the employer should expect the company to follow agreements set in place leading by example.

Strangely, I would say that this dispute, aimed only at OLR TOCs, is pushing toward the more serious question of whether the TOCs or the Unions control the railway and whether the present arrangements represent an existential threat.

Seems to me the tories are hell bent on pushing through reforms steam rolling not only the company but the employees also. Dragging industries down for there so called better good to say well when we were in power we achieved this, this and this.
What's clear to see unless hell freezes over then come the next election to tories will not be in power. Trying to hold on but loosing their grip not only on their power but the true severity of people's lives.

 

[Somewhere]

What does that actually mean in plain English ?
Sort of feels ASLEF are doing mumbo jumbo speak, rather than clear definitive english.

Anyone know what bargaining machinery actually is, it sounds like automated AI tool, but is probably just some old manual process.

By definition, can't do bargaining without a two way communication, and not clear if ASLEF stuck 100% to agreed method either. They chose not to say if they had also broken the agreement.

Plain English

It means that there are agreements about working practices in place. Those agreements can be altered with the agreement of both parties. Management have imposed changes without following the agreed process.
If staff had decided to change their process without managements' consent, there would be disciplinaries.
If management decided to change their process without the union's consent, there is an industrial dispute

 

[NI 271]

As always on these threads, rather than accepting that the dispute might be perfectly legitimate, and based on a valid grievance, certain posters just want to cast aspersions about ASLEF, suggest the action is unlawful etc.

"I have precisely zero involvement in this, however I haven't been sent specific details of this internal matter so it *must* therefore be illegal".

I'm lost for words at the entitlement levels where some trainspotters very clearly think rail staff need to run the minutiae of their industrial relations by them before announcing action or it's somehow unacceptable. Mind-boggling, and toe-curling. If the unions had been set up a fortnight ago solely by people with zero prior experience or understanding of the law around industrial action, such a suggestion might make sense. But...

 

[MontyP]

As always on these threads, rather than accepting that the dispute might be perfectly legitimate, and based on a valid grievance, certain posters just want to cast aspersions about ASLEF, suggest the action is unlawful etc.

The dispute might be legitimate but the travelling public may view the response from the unions (i.e. strike action) to be disproportionate. It appears to a non-railway professional that the unions like nothing better than flexing their muscles and calling a strike. This has been going on so long now that it also appears that the workers like it as well.

 

[whoosh]

I suspect it is the ones which give the union final say on the acceptability of rosters; thereby giving the union effective control of running the railway. No doubt the DfT want to stir up that little hornet's nest.

The union do not have "effective control of running the railway".

The union will draw up a base roster, to make it as palatable as possible, but it has to be agreed by Management. [Therefore, the Management have effective control of running the railway!]

If Management make a roster, (which they did for Guards at my last TOC) they don't care how palatable it is, only "that it's legal" (meets parameters). For example, the management could create a roster where the weeks in the first half of it are all over the 35 hour week average, and the second half all under. Anyone starting at the top will work more hours but not get any extra money as the average is across the whole roster, which could be many weeks - 70 or 80 sometimes.
Go half way through that roster and it's time for the next timetable, and a new roster.

Very late night Saturdays followed by very early Mondays would be another thing the union would try to avoid.
If the management made a roster, they would just say "it fits".

This job does contain wildly unsociable hours at times, as well as the fact that "Spare turns" (where you will be allocated a running turn that needs covering) have varying amounts of movement with regards start/finish times with sometimes only a couple of days notice.

Making that as palatable as possible isn't unreasonable.

The dispute might be legitimate but the travelling public may view the response from the unions (i.e. strike action) to be disproportionate. It appears to a non-railway professional that the unions like nothing better than flexing their muscles and calling a strike. This has been going on so long now that it also appears that the workers like it as well.

That's what the Government wants.

That's why all the TOCs were told not to have pay talks with the union for the whole of 2021; it's why Terms & Conditions were introduced to make a fairly poor pay offer even worse to the employees, but the public won't get it - all they hear is £60k to £65k.
It's why there has been a settlement with the RMT, but the same offer would likely settlement the ASLEF dispute, but it's an offer that deliberately hasn't been made. Yet.

Not until a 40% Minimum Service Level happens.

They want more strikes to happen to implement it.

 

[dk1]

So what’s happening at the other 11 train companies which are still in dispute, were they not re-balloted too ?

You seem to be getting confused with what’s going on independently.

 

[winks]

Indeed I have. But it wasn’t helped by two press releases and one being not very clear !

 

[skyhigh]

Northern have previously challenged an ASLEF ballot through legal action resulting in a re-ballot which is why they are out of step with most other TOCs.

If Northern feel the action/ballot is illegal I'm sure they will follow through as they have done previously.

Minimum 40% on these days or take the companies to power of attorney!

Missing, of course, the fact that these TOCs are both effectively nationalised. If even the Operator of Last Resort won't use the MSL then that speaks volumes. Not even sure what "power of attorney" is meant to mean but if the DfT isn't happy with the Operator of Last Resort, what are they going to do? Change to the Operator of Very Last Resort?

 

[ainsworth74]

If Northern feel the action/ballot is illegal I'm sure they will follow through as they have done previously.

Quite. This talk of the action being potentially illegal is very strange. Northern and LNER will no doubt consider any issues but seeing as ASLEF have already been burned once recently I'd be stunned if they'd not made sure to get it right.

 

[800001]

Quite. This talk of the action being potentially illegal is very strange. Northern and LNER will no doubt consider any issues but seeing as ASLEF have already been burned once recently I'd be stunned if they'd not made sure to get it right.

I agree, I can imagine both sides will have some very strong legal eyes looking over every single detail

 

[43066]

The dispute might be legitimate but the travelling public may view the response from the unions (i.e. strike action) to be disproportionate.

Ultimately the union can only respond based on the wishes of its members, made known via the relevant democratic (and extremely onerous) processes. Since the union’s membership are the people directly affected by the agreements in dispute, I don’t really see how anyone else outside of the membership, without knowledge of the issues in dispute, has standing to criticise their decision to take action as disproportionate.

It appears to a non-railway professional that the unions like nothing better than flexing their muscles and calling a strike. This has been going on so long now that it also appears that the workers like it as well.

Certainly not the case, from the point of view of an insider (you rapidly realise, upon joining the industry, how much of the nonsense about railway unions we read in the media is just that!). There hasn’t been much strike action on the railway for years, then there has been a great deal of strike action in the last couple of years in various sectors including the railway - why might that be?

The general public might also take the view that a competently managed organisation providing an essential transport service should negotiate sensibly with its workforce to resolve disputes, thereby preventing strike action from arising in the first place. They might also ask why the current government is hellbent on preventing that negotiation process from taking place.

Nobody I know likes going on strike. What we all want is for the unions to be allowed to negotiate with the employers in the usual way, and for the dispute to be resolved. The government is preventing that from happening, currently, which is to the detriment of railway workers and the travelling public, alike.

 

[Bald Rick]

What is the point of announcing a three day overtime / rest day ban at LNER, when they have been on an overtime / rest day ban since 2022?

 

[Nick82]

What is the point of announcing a three day overtime / rest day ban at LNER, whne they have been on an overtime / rest day ban since 2022?

It's mainly aimed at Northern as Northern have currently a RDW Agreement up until April 2024.
As for LNER although there is no official RDW Agreement some are still working RDs against the union and working over contractual hours. The aim I'd assume is to reiterate the point

 

[dk1]

It's mainly aimed at Northern as Northern have currently a RDW Agreement up until April 2024.
As for LNER although there is no official RDW Agreement some are still working RDs against the union and working over contractual hours. The aim I'd assume is to reiterate the point

Yes I suppose the 225 fleet will stand down during any action as not as easy to diagram when there is no good will.

 

[Bantamzen]

The general public might also take the view that a competently managed organisation providing an essential transport service should negotiate sensibly with its workforce to resolve disputes, thereby preventing strike action from arising in the first place. They might also ask why the current government is hellbent on preventing that negotiation process from taking place.

Quite frankly I think what most of the travelling public want is for all sides to stop this contest, and for them to be locked in a room until a solution is found.