New law will enshrine ‘right’ of commuters to minimum service during strikes, says Grant Shapps

[387star]

Depends what min service is

If it's bare bones then perhaps no-one will notice a change anyway

Drivers rarely strike. Struggling to think.of a strike before southern rail.

Can't see pay being cut a freeze more likely. I can only see wages going up in the short term if Sundays come into the 4 day week and other companies being competitive.

On the underground there tend to be more full scale closures not sure if that's rmt

France is in chaos at the moment Not sure what rules they have

 

[Eccles1983]

Not correct. It applies only if you are connected to the dispute that the picket is involved in. For the sake of example if an ASLEF driver refused to cross a RMT picket line relating to guards pay/conditions then the company could argue that he’s in breach of contract as drivers are not in dispute. Whether they would or not is a different matter.

You are protected as long as the ballot was legal.

It's funnily called protected action. You can be disciplined, but not dismissed. That's the protected part of it. The discipline is a loss of pay for the day you didn't work. Trust me, I know this from personal experience.

 

[duffield]

...
It works in other countries, so there's no reason why it can't work here.
...

The fact that it's the law in other countries doesn't necessarily mean that it actually works in those countries, has been used, or even has any effect in practice.
I haven't so far seen any hard evidence either way. All I've found so far is that apparently the MSO (minimum service obligation) has been invoked on one occasion in relation to a rail strike in Portugal, but I can't find any information as to what the outcome was. Nearly all Google results relate to the current UK proposals.

I think we'd all be interested to see if anyone else can come up with some specific examples of its use and the outcome, that would inform the debate somewhat.

 

[Economist]

I wonder how it would apply to signallers, if at all? The signaller Box A has to come in for the "minimum service" but the signaller at Box B five miles up the line doesn't?

 

[mrcheek]

I wonder how it would apply to signallers, if at all? The signaller Box A has to come in for the "minimum service" but the signaller at Box B five miles up the line doesn't?

I assume the actual effect would be that boxes would need to be manned from, say, 7am to 7pm, but would be allowed to close after that. something along those lines anyway

 

[Goldfish62]

Goldfish 62’s interpretation is correct.

Thank you.

This is backed up by legal opinion which I was party to when involved in a multi-union dispute with my employer a few years ago. Our union, Unite, was on strike. Members of another union which chose, to the members' disgust, not to ballot them, had to cross the picket line. The company made more than clear that they would be disciplined for unauthorised absence if they did not and our union lawyer confirmed that the company could do this.

 

[Eccles1983]

Thank you.

This is backed up by legal opinion which I was party to when involved in a multi-union dispute with my employer a few years ago. Our union, Unite, was on strike. Members of another union which chose, to the members' disgust, not to ballot them, had to cross the picket line. The company made more than clear that they would be disciplined for unauthorised absence if they did not and our union lawyer confirmed that the company could do this.

Well your union lawyer and the aslef one wants to get together.

As it's published in every aslef diary that the action is protected if you refuse to cross a picket.

You can be disciplined. But that cannot take the form of dismissal.

So you are protected. I've done it.

 

[Eccles1983]

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

Specifically the part about non union staff taking action.

 

[Ashley Hill]

Itis possible that a minimum service could be maintained by managers working trains. There have been occasions where managers have been drafted in from another TOC to work trains.
The whole idea of the RMT fighting for guards to operate the doors is so that whatever the traction a guard must be provided. Otherwise a glorified ATE like those proposed by Southern would be provided with basic safety critical duties. With Southern they can be dispensed with during disruption,but when they are there Southern will argue a safety critical person has been provided. The whole point of this is that if the driver is incapacitated after an incident who should be responsible for passenger safety. All well and good when pootling around suburbia,but a whole different kettle of fish should you be dashing around at 125 mph!
Yes I agree that the RMT jump to strike action too quickly. There are far better means of dispute such as work to rule etc. Minimum service would allow TOCs to advertise such a service whereas an overtime ban etc would cause more chaos.
Many posts argue strikes are unfare. How many commuters belong to a union? Whether you are NALGO,T&GW, UCW or NUT should all else fail it is a fundamental right to strike but only as a last resort.

 

[JamesT]

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

Specifically the part about non union staff taking action.

Sure, but these are union staff, just not the union that's on the picket line.

 

[Carlisle]

Itis possible that a minimum service could be maintained by managers working trains. There have been occasions where managers have been drafted in from another TOC to work trains.
.

That’s unlikely otherwise the DFT could
simply amend existing franchise agreements almost straight a away to ensure enough suitably qualified managers were always available & agree to cover costs accordingly, rather than go through all the hurdles of changing the law so the union must work with the TOC to provide an skeleton service during strikes

 

[Carlisle]

Sure, but these are union staff, just not the union that's on the picket line.

Agreed, so it appears theoretically anyway a TOC could ask an employee not on strike but refussing to cross a picket line,for proof they’re genuinely non union, but aren’t likley to do so as explained in post #224

 

[Eccles1983]

Sure, but these are union staff, just not the union that's on the picket line.

Irrelevant.

Non union staff with regards to the law is anyone not associated to to union that carried out the legal ballot.

 

[Ashley Hill]

It is known that when First Scotrail were on strike that Traincrew managers from other First TOCs were drafted in to work trains. This still goes on with First/MTR (SWR).
When I passed out as a guard in 1988 from entering the classroom to working my first train was three months. Is it right for a random manager to look at a route map,watch a DVD,get issued a DMU fault guide and get sent out to work trains in an unfamiliar part of the country?

 

[JamesT]

Irrelevant.

Non union staff with regards to the law is anyone not associated to to union that carried out the legal ballot.

Do you have a reference for that interpretation? Reading pages 6 and 7 of https://assets.publishing.service.g...6/10-922-industrial-action-employee-guide.pdf it seems to make the distinction between a member of a union that has not called for industrial action and someone who is not a member of a union at all. The former is deemed to be engaging in unofficial industrial action and loses the usual protections against dismissal etc.

Presumably this is also the basis of the legal advice @Goldfish62 had too.

 

[Eccles1983]

Do you have a reference for that interpretation? Reading pages 6 and 7 of https://assets.publishing.service.g...6/10-922-industrial-action-employee-guide.pdf it seems to make the distinction between a member of a union that has not called for industrial action and someone who is not a member of a union at all. The former is deemed to be engaging in unofficial industrial action and loses the usual protections against dismissal etc.

Presumably this is also the basis of the legal advice @Goldfish62 had too.

The goverment link I put up.

As long as the "other" non striking union does not produce anything to entice it's workers to strike it is all legal.

It's been tried and tested, I can certify that from personal experience.

This had the backing of the regional organiser and the solicitors of ASLEF. See many many many real life examples of this in northern and west midlands trains.

 

[pt_mad]

But what about members of the union who are going on strike, but who are drafted to work under the potential minimum service spec? Are they permitted to choose not to cross a picket line made-up of their own union member collegues? Or would that be banned under the new law? And, if it was, would the union be penalised or the employee?

 

[DI1964]

But what about members of the union who are going on strike, but who are drafted to work under the potential minimum service spec? Are they permitted to choose not to cross a picket line made-up of their own union member collegues? Or would that be banned under the new law? And, if it was, would the union be penalised or the employee?

If it was me in the above situation there's no way I would cross any picket line. End of.
I don't care what the company or "Government" do.

 

[sefton]

If it was me in the above situation there's no way I would cross any picket line. End of.
I don't care what the company or "Government" do.

So as a result the minimum service standard isn't met and the government fines and bankrupts the union - ah well, never mind.

 

[O L Leigh]

I think we need to wait and see a bit more detail before getting too bound up in the details just yet. We don’t know what these Minimum Service Agreements will be and precisely how the penalty system will operate, let alone how close the final legislation might be to these outlined proposals, so it’s difficult to speculate on what will or won’t happen in this or that scenario.

My own feeling is that seeking injunctions and penalties “in the normal way” means that the DfT would take the union to court as they do at present. All this legislation is likely to do is to tip the table in the Government’s favour by making it easier for them to show that action is illegal.

 

[Carlisle]

I don't care what the company or "Government" do.

Presume you’ve not had to actively search for a job in decades
Let’s hope your company always believe your as indispensable as you clearly think you are

As others said previously, it wouldn’t be too difficult finding a large number of new recruits willing to drive trains for roughly half the current wage, if the will was there to set up the necessary training infrastructure. It’s not something I personally want to see, but attitudes like the above might bring those prospects much closer

 

[bb21]

I think we need to wait and see a bit more detail before getting too bound up in the details just yet. We don’t know what these Minimum Service Agreements will be and precisely how the penalty system will operate, let alone how close the final legislation might be to these outlined proposals, so it’s difficult to speculate on what will or won’t happen in this or that scenario.

Fully agreed. Speculation about what it may or may not allow and what format it will take is just pointless at the moment. If/when this happens, there will still be I suspect quite a lot of refinements and fine-tuning required to reach what I think may be the intended objectives. Until then there will be lots of ifs and buts.

Frankly given the intelligence of the current bunch in charge, I wouldn't hold my breath. It will take lots of additional effort to make it work.

 

[Robertj21a]

Fully agreed. Speculation about what it may or may not allow and what format it will take is just pointless at the moment. If/when this happens, there will still be I suspect quite a lot of refinements and fine-tuning required to reach what I think may be the intended objectives. Until then there will be lots of ifs and buts.

Frankly given the intelligence of the current bunch in charge, I wouldn't hold my breath. It will take lots of additional effort to make it work.

Could I suggest that we all keep politics and personal views on the intelligence of other people off this thread. Invariably, it ends up with just more arguments and the thread gets locked.

 

[bb21]

Could I suggest that we all keep politics and personal views on the intelligence of other people off this thread. Invariably, it ends up with just more arguments and the thread gets locked.

Shall I lock it?

 

[Meole]

Yes, pointless unless detail emerges.

 

[bb21]

I do get the feeling we are at a point where not much can be discussed constructively because it is anyone's guess how things are proposed to be implemented, indeed if anyone had a clue what they wanted to achieve, as opposed to hearsay, headline-grabbing political soundbites, or media ecstasy, so I will reopen this when more details emerge.