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

[mrcheek]

Which is something completely different.

not really, because the penalty is based on providing a minimum service, anything below that and they have to pay.
Likewise, if minimum service is not provided under these new laws, then presumably there will be a financial penalty

But the minimum service during strikes will be set way,way, way lower than that which the TOC is required to provide under normal circumstances

 

[sheff1]

But the minimum service during strikes will be set way,way, way lower than that which the TOC is required to provide under normal circumstances

The original question related to the current 'normal circumstances' which, on certain TPE & Northern routes, means a service provision way, way lower than the supposed normal circumstance service advertised in the timetable.

 

[387star]

Question: If a union were instructed to ensure X number of train crew (who were due to work under normal circumstances) report for duty on a strike day, and the train operator decided to utilise contingency train crew on top, could the impact of the strike result in very little difference to service?
In which case would industrial action have much bargaining power anymore?

For guards it would be far easier than drivers

If a driver would normally be striking and has to work this forced labour is surely unsafe and they could declare themselves unfit to work due to stress

 

[Carlisle]

If a driver would normally be striking and has to work this forced labour is surely unsafe and they could declare themselves unfit to work due to stress

For an answer, it’s maybe worth investigating if such tactics have been successful in the numerous other countries with similar laws already in place , given some of those french picket lines shown on the media over the years look pretty intimidating from a layperson’s perspective.

 

[Malcolmffc]

The RMT has brought this on themselves with their ridiculous attitude to DCO/DOO

 

[WatcherZero]

Question: If a union were instructed to ensure X number of train crew (who were due to work under normal circumstances) report for duty on a strike day, and the train operator decided to utilise contingency train crew on top, could the impact of the strike result in very little difference to service?
In which case would industrial action have much bargaining power anymore?

Its still a greater financial burden, your using Managers to do other jobs and still only operating a skeleton service. E.g. if the Union agrees 20% of services operating at a minimum and the company taps other resources that would allow 40% to operate on a strike day that's still 60% operating and 40% cancelled and its still paying a penalty and suffering revenue loss.

 

[Robertj21a]

For guards it would be far easier than drivers

If a driver would normally be striking and has to work this forced labour is surely unsafe and they could declare themselves unfit to work due to stress

Are you being serious ?

It appears that other countries simply allocate/agree which staff are working which rota (presumably much as usual but to a lower level). There will have been advance warning of the strike so I can't see why you seem to think it is 'forced labour' or any particular stress over and above normal.

 

[transmanche]

It's been reported over some news channels today that nurses over in northern Ireland are on strike over pay inconsistencies with those in Britain. Guessing the future legislation is only aimed towards railway staff?

It's also worth noting that Employment law is a devolved matter in NI, but reserved for Westminster in GB.

 

[JamesT]

If the minimum levels are in line with those I encountered in France both TPE & Northern would struggle to meet them on some routes if they continued with their current number of cancellations.

In such circumstances its would seem appropriate to replace "union" with "TOC" in the following - "If the Minimum Service Agreement is not honoured ........ injunctions or damages may be sought against the union in the normal way."

The description posted by @ainsworth74 seems to imply the Minimum Service Agreement is between the Union and the TOC. If the Union turn out enough staff to meet the levels agreed then they're sorted. It doesn't say anything about the TOC in turn failing to provide a service to their customers. I guess we'll have to see the draft legislation to find out more.

 

[Skie]

And what about instances where, as happened with the Merseyrail guards dispute, the guards strike but do provide enough members to cover this minimum service but drivers of a completely different union decide not to cross the picket line?

 

[Bletchleyite]

And what about instances where, as happened with the Merseyrail guards dispute, the guards strike but do provide enough members to cover this minimum service but drivers of a completely different union decide not to cross the picket line?

As sympathetic striking is not legal (i.e. does not receive legal protection), presumably that would be enforced?

 

[Eccles1983]

As sympathetic striking is not legal (i.e. does not receive legal protection), presumably that would be enforced?

Not true.

You do not have to cross any picket line at your workplace, regardless of union.

You are afforded the same protection.

 

[WatcherZero]

And what about instances where, as happened with the Merseyrail guards dispute, the guards strike but do provide enough members to cover this minimum service but drivers of a completely different union decide not to cross the picket line?

Then that other union would potentially be liable for damages, if someone refuses to cross a picket line then they are legally recognised as having joined the strike.

 

[Goldfish62]

Then that other union would potentially be liable for damages, if someone refuses to cross a picket line then they are legally recognised as having joined the strike.

The bottom line is that if any member of a union not involved in a dispute refuses to cross a picket line they are acting illegally and have no legal protection. Only non-union staff are protected. The fact is that TOCs have decided not to take action against such staff so far and I very much doubt will unless coerced into doing so by the DfT.

 

[Robertj21a]

There's a lot of scaremongering on here over what is just a simple measure to help passengers. It appears to work quite well abroad so I can't see why it shouldn't in the UK too.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

There's a lot of scaremongering on here over what is just a simple measure to help passengers. It appears to work quite well abroad so I can't see why it shouldn't in the UK too.

Don't be spoiling this thread by talking sense like that! You seem to be forgetting that, according to some on here, the railway is run for the benefit of staff, not passengers....

 

[option]

There's a lot of scaremongering on here over what is just a simple measure to help passengers. It appears to work quite well abroad so I can't see why it shouldn't in the UK too.

So this legislation is a copy&paste of the same legislation somewhere else, eg Germany?

 

[Robertj21a]

So this legislation is a copy&paste of the same legislation somewhere else, eg Germany?

I haven't seen the fine detail, have you ?

The broad approach followed by some other countries seems to work, and that suggests there is good reason to think that it should also work here. Are you saying it can't ?

 

[irish_rail]

There's a lot of scaremongering on here over what is just a simple measure to help passengers. It appears to work quite well abroad so I can't see why it shouldn't in the UK too.

It might help passengers but what about staff?? Nothing stopping Tocs coming in with swathing pay cuts and we will have no choice but to accept it. Work to rule will become the norm, so you'll see mass cancellations anyway, so probably not all great for passengers after all...

 

[sprunt]

Not true.

You do not have to cross any picket line at your workplace, regardless of union.

You are afforded the same protection.

The bottom line is that if any member of a union not involved in a dispute refuses to cross a picket line they are acting illegally and have no legal protection. Only non-union staff are protected. The fact is that TOCs have decided not to take action against such staff so far and I very much doubt will unless coerced into doing so by the DfT.

Can anyone provide a citation as to which of these two contrary assertions is correct?

 

[mpthomson]

Not true.

You do not have to cross any picket line at your workplace, regardless of union.

You are afforded the same protection.

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.

 

[mpthomson]

Can anyone provide a citation as to which of these two contrary assertions is correct?

Goldfish 62’s interpretation is correct.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Can anyone provide a citation as to which of these two contrary assertions is correct?

Unless NI law is different from English law:
https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/picketing-and-picket-lines

suggests that you have to make an effort to cross but are protected if you could not (e.g. due to intimidation I guess). Staying at home however wouldn't be acceptable, and you would need in making reasonable effort to tell your employer you couldn't and they might make other arrangements.

 

[sprunt]

Unless NI law is different from English law:
https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/picketing-and-picket-lines

Thanks. One possible difference that stands out to me is that this appears to suggest that third parties can't join picket lines, but I get the impression that this is fairly common on mainland disputes.

suggests that you have to make an effort to cross but are protected if you could not (e.g. due to intimidation I guess). Staying at home however wouldn't be acceptable, and you would need in making reasonable effort to tell your employer you couldn't and they might make other arrangements.

This section seems to apply to members of the union who've chosen not to join the strike though - it's a bit vague to be honest.

 

[Robertj21a]

It might help passengers but what about staff?? Nothing stopping Tocs coming in with swathing pay cuts and we will have no choice but to accept it. Work to rule will become the norm, so you'll see mass cancellations anyway, so probably not all great for passengers after all...

I thought that was why the rail staff were, usually, members of a Trade Union ?. Any sensible Trade Union will want to act responsibly and advise their members on what action they should take (if any).

 

[Raul_Duke]

I thought that was why the rail staff were, usually, members of a Trade Union ?. Any sensible Trade Union will want to act responsibly and advise their members on what action they should take (if any).

Are you being provocative or do you genuinely not get it?

 

[Val3ntine]

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.

But some drivers are in the RMT union, so even if the dispute is something not even closely related to drivers, in essence drivers are on strike as well if they are in the union. Companies usually can’t prove which union drivers belong to or if any.

 

[Robertj21a]

Are you being provocative or do you genuinely not get it?

It's not a question of being provocative. This proposal is good, and overdue, for all those who pay to travel on the railways. It works in other countries, so there's no reason why it can't work here. The law will, presumably, require that TOCs, Unions, and staff ensure that proper arrangements are put in place, much as with any other change in working practices. I'm not at all sure why there's so much scaremongering.

 

[Carlisle]

Nothing stopping Tocs coming in with swathing pay cuts and we will have no choice but to accept it. .

I don’t think uk law permits such a practice without employee consent, although perhaps it’s different for companies in administration or similar circumstances if that’s what your thinking of .

 

[transmanche]

Unless NI law is different from English law

I'll repeat what I said in post #218:

It's also worth noting that Employment law is a devolved matter in NI, but reserved for Westminster in GB.

Some aspects of Employment law in NI differ greatly from that in GB, so I would not recommend using sources based on NI Employment law.