Network Rail industrial action suspended

[winks]

According to the Telegraph, the offer is not conditional on accepting the Modernising Maintenance Agenda. And that the RMT will be putting it to a referendum but neither endorsing this deal.

 

[alxndr]

As expected, essentially the same offer but with the date that the 4% pay rise kicks in shifted forward slightly so there's an extra 3 months of backpay. Depends on salary of course, but for me it'll be worth 19 hours overtime, which hardly seems worth it. The fact that they're putting such a small difference to a referendum sort of suggests to me that they're giving up on getting any major improvements, or maybe they're just getting sick of the complaints that the last one didn't go to a vote.

Links for the referendum should go out tomorrow with a closing date of midday on Monday 20th.

There's also a comment in the offer that they'd get the backpay out on the "first possible pay day following acceptance of this offer, ideally within this tax year" but considering the last paydate of this financial year is on the 17th for maintenance it won't be possible for a lot of those for whom it affects. Feels a bit disingenuous to phrase it that way.

 

[pc131313]

8 March 2023

RMT Press Office

Rail union, RMT will hold a referendum on a new and improved offer from Network Rail on pay and benefits.

The new offer involves extra money and is not conditional on accepting Network Rail’s modernising maintenance agenda which RMT does not endorse.

Network Rail's offer amounts to an uplift on salaries of between 14.4% for the lowest paid grades to 9.2% for the highest paid.

There is an additional 1.1% on basic earnings and increased backpay.

The offer also has a total uplift on basic earnings between 15.2% for the lowest paid grades to 10.3% for the highest paid grades.

The increased backpay will be implemented and paid as a lump sum.

The improved offer also involves pulling forward the pay anniversary to October 2022 from January 2023.

55% of RMT members in Network Rail earn less than £35,000 so they will be entitled to the 15.2% uplift over two years.

Other benefits of the deal include 75% discounted leisure travel – a long held demand of Network Rail members.

RMT members in Network Rail will now decide whether to accept the offer in a referendum starting on March 9th and concluding on March 20th at midday.

In the meantime, industrial action on Network Rail is suspended.

The RMT is not making a recommendation on how to vote during the referendum.

RMT General Secretary Mick Lynch said: “Network Rail have made a new and improved offer and now our members will decide whether to accept it.

“We will continue our campaign for a negotiated settlement on all aspects of the railway dispute.”

END

 

[Russel]

So can we expect some movement regarding the TOC dispute in the near future?

 

[Tw99]

The tone of that RMT release seems very positive, unlike others in the past. E.g. they're quoting the big percentages and ignoring the fact that they're over 2 years. Rather than saying it's a measly 5%, or whatever, this year

So presumably the "modernization" of maintenance will just happen anyway, at least to some extent?

 

[Sleepy]

Will RDG now make a more sensible offer to end TOCs dispute ?

 

[Bald Rick]

According to the Telegraph, the offer is not conditional on accepting the Modernising Maintenance Agenda. And that the RMT will be putting it to a referendum but neither endorsing this deal.

So presumably the "modernization" of maintenance will just happen anyway, at least to some extent?

The offer is not conditional on accepting Modernising Maintenance as that ship has sailed - it is happening anyway. So it‘s a straight choice between Modernising Maintenance with a pay rise, or Modernising Maintenance with no pay rise. Not forgetting that nearly half the people in the NR dispute do not work in maintenance.

 

[henke7]

As a RMT member currently working at Network Rail in the maintenance side of things, I’m deeply disappointed in this news. It was never about pay for me personally and for a lot of my colleagues, the worry was and still is about modernising maintenance. Now I accept any further industrial action will not affect the outcome of ‘MM’ and it is now in the ORR and legal teams hands. However the thought of us coming out of dispute with our toc members being left in the lurch infuriates me. It is completely unacceptable and in my opinion goes against a collective trade union’s principles.

 

[Bald Rick]

However the thought of us coming out of dispute with our toc members being left in the lurch infuriates me. It is completely unacceptable and in my opinion goes against a collective trade union’s principles.

But to remain in dispute because of a different dispute in another company is, of course, illegal.

 

[henke7]

But to remain in dispute because of a different dispute in another company is, of course, illegal.

Another reason why I support nationalisation.

I understand laws can’t be broken etc but union leadership towing the we’re all in it together messages is absolute nonsense. I’m just venting my frustrations at fellow union members being left behind.

 

[Bald Rick]

Another reason why I support nationalisation.

Nationalisation does not mean a common employer. Network Rail, Southeastern, TfW, Scotrail, LNER, and Northern are all nationalised, but employees of one can’t strike in support of a dispute at another, no more than employees of the Post Office can strike in support of a dispute at Virgin Atlantic.

 

[henke7]

Nationalisation does not mean a common employer. Network Rail, Southeastern, TfW, Scotrail, LNER, and Northern are all nationalised, but employees of one can’t strike in support of a dispute at another, no more than employees of the Post Office can strike in support of a dispute at Virgin Atlantic.

British Rail was a state owned enterprise, this was the model I was referring to.

No need for the condescending example.

 

[Russel]

British Rail was a state owned enterprise, this was the model I was referring to.

No need for the condescending example.

I think you need to remove the rose tinted specs in regards to BR...

 

[henke7]

I think you need to remove the rose tinted specs in regards to BR...

Thats a discussion for a different thread.

 

[eldomtom2]

Why is "modernising maintenance" outside the jurisdiction of any potential contract between NR and the RMT?

 

[Annetts key]

Why is "modernising maintenance" outside the jurisdiction of any potential contract between NR and the RMT?

Because it overrides existing agreements made between Network Rail and the RMT. These existing agreements exist after negotiated settlements.

Network Rail is considering that consultation is all that is needed to bring in modernising maintenance. The RMT have attempted negotiation, but with some exceptions, Network Rail are trying to implement most of it and ignoring the input from the RMT (or indeed other unions).

What is "modernising maintenance"? That’s actually rather hard to answer in a short summary. It’s a radical change to how maintenance is done on the railways.

Here’s some bullet points:

• A 50% reduction of scheduled maintenance tasks (including maintenance on safety critical systems and infrastructure),
• A reduction of the maintenance staff carrying out infrastructure maintenance work, including reducing the number of staff available to attend failures. S&T (signal & Telecoms engineering staff) faulting “teams” will in most cases drop from three staff to just two. So when they attend a failure where three staff are needed, they will have to wait for assistance. If there are no staff available locally, that may mean staff having to travel for between one and two hours away to assist.
• To cope with less staff, they want staff to have more skills and competencies, with extra responsibilities (with no increase in pay beyond any general pay increase),
• The above includes engineering staff carrying out work outside their own engineering disciplines, so for example they want various staff such as signalling engineering staff (S&T) and the staff that maintain the OHL equipment to be trained in the use of chain saws and be trained to cut down full size trees. Worse, they want welders (who carry out weld repair to the rails for points) to carry out an “assurance check’ instead of having S&T staff carry out a proper full facing point lock test (an important safety test, designed to ensure that the facing point lock is set up correctly, to prevent derailments over points),
• They also want increased flexibility from the remaining staff, including the ability to change the start and or the finish time of a shift with a minimum of 48 hours notice (no limit on how many times this can be done), and for staff on some contracts, redefine how many night turns is defined as a week of nights, which means staff could be working even more nights than the current limits in the T&Cs (for staff joining since 2011, or who have taken promotion since 2014, that’s already up to 39 weeks of nights).
• At the moment, staff work as teams, that is a team will be made up of team members, and normally work as a group. This has plenty of advantages, the team leader will get to know the capabilities and skills of the team members. Rosters are therefore created and negotiated on for the teams. Instead, in future, there will be no teams with regular team members. Every member of staff will be rostered individually. To manage this, Network Rail are already advertising for administration staff (roster clerks) and extra managers to manage these clerks. The union thinks this will be a nightmare, as it’s already hard work negotiating rosters for teams as it is.

That’s the short version with just some examples.

 

[Facing Back]

Because it overrides existing agreements made between Network Rail and the RMT. These existing agreements exist after negotiated settlements.

Network Rail is considering that consultation is all that is needed to bring in modernising maintenance. The RMT have attempted negotiation, but with some exceptions, Network Rail are trying to implement most of it and ignoring the input from the RMT (or indeed other unions).

What is "modernising maintenance"? That’s actually rather hard to answer in a short summary. It’s a radical change to how maintenance is done on the railways.

Here’s some bullet points:

• A 50% reduction of scheduled maintenance tasks (including maintenance on safety critical systems and infrastructure),
• A reduction of the maintenance staff carrying out infrastructure maintenance work, including reducing the number of staff available to attend failures. S&T (signal & Telecoms engineering staff) faulting “teams” will in most cases drop from three staff to just two. So when they attend a failure where three staff are needed, they will have to wait for assistance. If there are no staff available locally, that may mean staff having to travel for between one and two hours away to assist.
• To cope with less staff, they want staff to have more skills and competencies, with extra responsibilities (with no increase in pay beyond any general pay increase),
• The above includes engineering staff carrying out work outside their own engineering disciplines, so for example they want various staff such as signalling engineering staff (S&T) and the staff that maintain the OHL equipment to be trained in the use of chain saws and be trained to cut down full size trees. Worse, they want welders (who carry out weld repair to the rails for points) to carry out an “assurance check’ instead of having S&T staff carry out a proper full facing point lock test (an important safety test, designed to ensure that the facing point lock is set up correctly, to prevent derailments over points),
• They also want increased flexibility from the remaining staff, including the ability to change the start and or the finish time of a shift with a minimum of 48 hours notice (no limit on how many times this can be done), and for staff on some contracts, redefine how many night turns is defined as a week of nights, which means staff could be working even more nights than the current limits in the T&Cs (for staff joining since 2011, or who have taken promotion since 2014, that’s already up to 39 weeks of nights).
• At the moment, staff work as teams, that is a team will be made up of team members, and normally work as a group. This has plenty of advantages, the team leader will get to know the capabilities and skills of the team members. Rosters are therefore created and negotiated on for the teams. Instead, in future, there will be no teams with regular team members. Every member of staff will be rostered individually. To manage this, Network Rail are already advertising for administration staff (roster clerks) and extra managers to manage these clerks. The union thinks this will be a nightmare, as it’s already hard work negotiating rosters for teams as it is.

That’s the short version with just some examples.

Wasn’t most/all of this not explicitly stated in the NR offer? Apologies, it’s been a while since a read it and I don’t have a copy.

 

[CFRAIL]

Meanwhile,

On the TOC side of the dispute...

RDG have offered a meeting providing strikes next week are called off, RMT have decided to keep the action in place

RMT update on train operating companies dispute

RMT update on train operating companies dispute

www.rmt.org.uk

 

[jack31439]

Meanwhile,

On the TOC side of the dispute...

RDG have offered a meeting providing strikes next week are called off, RMT have decided to keep the action in place

RMT update on train operating companies dispute

RMT update on train operating companies dispute

www.rmt.org.uk

Frustrating for sure, but also understandable after we have called off a round of strikes previously for no offer or further steps to be made.

I would have hoped however that the RMT would have taken this up to latch on to the positivity with Network Rail's dispute.

 

[winks]

Can someone post the detailed pay offer by RDG. Im aware of the 5% plus 4% award for 2 years but anything re the minimum floor uplift etc ? Plus I believe annual leave is increasing but has virtually been ignored…

 

[Bald Rick]

British Rail was a state owned enterprise, this was the model I was referring to.

No need for the condescending example.

Sorry it wasn’t meant to be condescending. It was deliberately ‘unusual’ to help other readers (who may not be au fait with TU legislation) understand the principle that members of staff in one company can not (legally) strike in support of a dispute in another company.

My other point is that it is not nationalisation per se that would ‘enable’ wider action; it’s the merging of companies into a larger entity.

 

[weeklycommuter]

Yes, Island Line seems to sometimes do the opposite - during the main strikes last year, they were running a normal ish service (not hard for them). During the later strikes in the year and earlier this year, SWR ran a fairly normal service while Island Line were on strike.

ASLEF are in dispute with the Island Line but not with SWR on the mainland. RMT are in dispute with SWR on the mainland but not with the Island Line (the RMT only got 11 yes votes from their 31 Island Line members in the May 2022 ballot for industrial action). SWR runs Island Line signalling so the Island Line is only affected by Network Rail strikes when Network Rail on the mainland is unable to supply power to the Island Line

Inability to provide sufficient power due to Mainland strike action means no Island Line service on Saturday night

South Western Railway is in the process of arranging rail replacement services for Saturday night

onthewight.com

 

[fgwrich]

ASLEF are in dispute with the Island Line but not with SWR on the mainland. RMT are in dispute with SWR on the mainland but not with the Island Line (the RMT only got 11 yes votes from their 31 Island Line members in the May 2022 ballot for industrial action). SWR runs Island Line signalling so the Island Line is only affected by Network Rail strikes when Network Rail on the mainland is unable to supply power to the Island Line

Inability to provide sufficient power due to Mainland strike action means no Island Line service on Saturday night

South Western Railway is in the process of arranging rail replacement services for Saturday night

onthewight.com

As complicated as I thought then, cheers for the explanation!

 

[Exscrew]

Sorry it wasn’t meant to be condescending. It was deliberately ‘unusual’ to help other readers (who may not be au fait with TU legislation) understand the principle that members of staff in one company can not (legally) strike in support of a dispute in another company.

My other point is that it is not nationalisation per se that would ‘enable’ wider action; it’s the merging of companies into a larger entity.

Or a change in the law back to a bygone era where we could display solidarity for each other
I.e the triple alliance with num and nus

 

[Annetts key]

As we have an open topic, here’s a reply from a while ago that I wrote, but could not post, as the topic I was replying to got locked before I could post it.

Settle something for me. I often hear the line “all maintenance will be done on nights, there will be no S&T/Pway etc fault teams etc (I don’t know enough about what their “teams” are or consist of)

How much truth is behind this? A lot of signallers are truly against this, for obvious reason. I can’t see how it can be feasible. A lot of failures in certain areas lasting all day could probably pay for a fault team for a year! It sounds like an assumption, or mixed messaging.

First, let’s get one thing clear, not all lines are busy during the day. A non-passenger line may actually be more busy during the night compared to during the day. Lines/junctions that are especially busy at night are those used by stock going to and from train maintenance depots for example. So you can forget doing much maintenance at night on those lines and junctions, unless arrangements are made to have the stock accommodated elsewhere or other suitable arrangements.

Second, infrastructure failures occur throughout the 24 hours of the day. So some staff have to be on duty during the day. In the case of S&T (signalling maintenance staff), that means 24 hour, 7 day a week cover. This is the limiting factor that the company (Network Rail) is taking into account for S&T and certain other departments that also require 24/7 cover.

Traditionally, infrastructure staff, e.g. S&T, are made of of teams. Currently all S&T teams have to be a minimum of three people (one team leader, one technician and one operative). You can have more people on the team. But according to Network Rail’s own organisation charts, there must be three.

Each team is treated as a separate-sub unit, so each team will have a roster. Normally each team member will follow the same team roster. Unless a team member leaves the post (promotion, retirement, or any other reason), the same members of staff stay in the team. Hence they work together as a team. With all the advantages of being a team.

P.Way maintenance teams are bigger, but the same principles are supposed to apply (in practice it’s a bit more complex).

Now to the changes. First a bit of recent history. Some years ago, the ORR informed Network Rail that improvements were needed in relation to the safety of staff working on or near the line. Network Rail’s answer was to increase the amount of work done when the line was closed to traffic (T3s or lineblocks). But there have been various incidents, including injuries and deaths. The ORR as a result issued an improvement notice on Network Rail.

So now Network Rail has effectively banned unassisted lookout protection. The preferred method of working on a line is now to only do so when it is closed to traffic. Hence why the company want to have most of its staff working nights and weekends.

It should be noted that there are still safety related incidents inside T3s. And many lineblock irregularities have also occurred where staff working were not actually protected from being hit by a train.

Infrastructure staff (maintenance and CAPEX/Works Delivery) already have T&Cs that are very flexible, plus anyone joining the railway or taking promotion will be on a 39/39/65. This is referring to T&Cs that permit up to 39 weeks of nights (Monday to Thursday), 39 weekends (any of: Friday nights, Saturdays or Sundays) and 65 weekend turns (again, Friday nights, Saturdays or Sundays). There are slightly lower limits for staff already employed.

Now to the changes. Because of the team structure, this according to the company limits their flexibility. So they are abolishing it. Now each person will have an individual roster. To cope with these extra rosters, they are intending on employing roster clerks (currently there are no roster clerks on the maintenance and CAPEX/Works Delivery side). Plus extra managers to manage these roster clerks. As I understand it, they currently are advertising for all these posts. It looks like they will be mostly people employed from outside the industry.

Meanwhile, as there will no longer be any fixed team sizing, most S&T “teams” will be reduced in size to only two people. And they will no longer work together as a fixed formation team.

This means that if the work requires more than two people, unless the company have planned for extra staff to work together, that work cannot be done.

For a S&T “team” that is forming the fault cover, this means that if a failure occurs that needs more than two people, someone will have to find extra staff from somewhere. In practice, if there are no other staff on duty from their own depot, this is likely to mean that another two person “team” from another depot will have to travel from their area to join up. That could mean one or more hours of travel in order to join up.

It also means that for some work, other department staff will be expected to help out. For example, if there is a re-railing job, the company are expecting the two S&T staff to help the (reduced number of P.Way staff) to unclip the rail(s), help move the rails, and reclip the rails. This in addition to all the S&T work that is required (check the diagrams, label and disconnect the affected equipment, such as track circuit leads, bonding etc.), drill any new holes needed in the rails, redo the bonding, reconnect any track circuit leads, fully test the track circuit or/and any other affected equipment, all in time so that the job and be completed before the line is reopened to traffic.

The reduction in the number of posts is not limited to just S&T. It affects many other departments, including P.Way.

 

[Oxfordblues]

Let us hope that Mick Lynch doesn't emulate his hero Arthur Scargill and prolong this unnecessary and damaging dispute. I well remember the destructive and divisive 1984-85 miners' strike.

 

[scrapy]

Frustrating for sure, but also understandable after we have called off a round of strikes previously for no offer or further steps to be made.

I would have hoped however that the RMT would have taken this up to latch on to the positivity with Network Rail's dispute.

RMT are happy to meet the RDG ass soon as tommorow and should talks progress and a reasonable offer be made, I'm sure strikes would be called off.

The RDG seem to want strikes to be called off but haven't offered anything and also earlier this week told the RMT that the final deal they offered in January was still final. So why would the RMT call off strikes?

 

[Bald Rick]

Let us hope that Mick Lynch doesn't emulate his hero Arthur Scargill and prolong this unnecessary and damaging dispute. I well remember the destructive and divisive 1984-85 miners' strike.

This strike has already been prolonged unnecessarily. Although to be fair that’s mostly not been Mick’s doing.

 

[scrapy]

Let us hope that Mick Lynch doesn't emulate his hero Arthur Scargill and prolong this unnecessary and damaging dispute. I well remember the destructive and divisive 1984-85 miners' strike.

How is the dispute unnecessary? How else do you propose the RMT try and get their members pay to rise to anything near the cost of living increase, or try and keep their members jobs and terms and conditions that maintain a reasonable work life balance?

 

[Msq71423]

The RDG seem to want strikes to be called off but haven't offered anything and also earlier this week told the RMT that the final deal they offered in January was still final. So why would the RMT call off strikes?

The email received from RMT tonight says there is a potential improved offer on pay and conditions for the tocs. Clearly January's offer wasn't final!