Northern writing to ACAS requesting independent inquiry

[Killingworth]

Northern have just issued an update to stakeholders:

Dear Colleague,

In December we announced the latest efforts we are taking to resolve the RMT dispute and end the damage the RMT is causing to the economy of the North.

We formally wrote to ACAS requesting it uses its powers to establish an independent inquiry into the issues at the heart of RMT’s dispute with Northern.

The Department for Transport and Transport for the North have publicly confirmed that a second person, in addition to the driver, will be retained on Northern services. The independent inquiry would look at the future role of the second person that will be on Northern services, in addition to the driver, to help customers with accessibility, security, ticketing, information and any other help required.

The inquiry would also explore the feasibility of Driver Controlled Operation, in which the driver has full operational control of the train, including the train doors.

I wanted to take this opportunity to write to share more detail about why we have taken this step and how the independent inquiry would operate.

This Saturday, 19 January will be RMT’s 45th day of strike action since March 2017. Northern has held talks with RMT, both independently and with ACAS mediation, on several occasions without any significant progress being made.

We see no credible reason why an inquiry would not be welcomed. Stakeholders and customers want all parties to get the round the table to resolve this dispute, the inquiry would enable this to happen.

An independent inquiry
The inquiry would be led by an independent chairperson appointed by ACAS. They would be impartial and have no vested interest in the outcome of the inquiry.

The inquiry would look at the future role of the second person on the train across the Northern network and explore the feasibility of Driver Controlled Operation (DCO), in which the driver has full operational control of the train, including the train doors.

The chairperson would initially ask Northern and RMT to agree a Terms of Reference, which will set out the full scope of the inquiry. The chairperson would then investigate with appropriate stakeholders, who they believe are best placed, to give evidence on the topics within the scope of the inquiry. This could include customer groups, business groups, accessibility bodies and the rail industry. Following consideration of all evidence, the chairperson will write a report that sets out their findings and conclusions.

The inquiry does not have to be a lengthy process and we would expect industrial action to be suspended while it is underway.

Participation in an inquiry
ACAS needs the support of both Northern and RMT to agree to the impartial and independent inquiry, only with that will ACAS then carry one out. Northern is committed to it and will assess and act upon the recommendations of the inquiry. Unfortunately, RMT is not legally obliged to participate in the inquiry and if they don’t, then the inquiry cannot go ahead.

RMT have stated throughout the dispute that it is all about passenger safety and accessibility, so we would expect that they will want to ensure that their arguments and evidence are considered by this independent and impartial inquiry.

The RMT dispute means customers, businesses and the wider economy in the North have suffered the cost of 45 days of strikes, including every Saturday since the end of August. Customers, employers and colleagues are looking for both parties to resolve the dispute.

More than half (53%) of all rail journeys in the UK are made on driver-controlled trains, with the Department for Transport and Transport for the North publicly confirming that a second person – in addition to the driver – will be retained on Northern services.

RMT has also suggested that Northern will not take seriously the findings of an independent inquiry. This is not true. We are committed to acting upon the recommendations of an independent ACAS inquiry.

I trust that the above has been useful and that you feel an independent inquiry is a positive step in resolving the RMT dispute. If you would like to discuss this further please contact my Executive Assistant Kath Ratcliff, [email protected] who will be happy to arrange a meeting with me or one of my team.

Yours sincerely

David Brown
Managing Director

 

[Intermodal]

I fail to see any new information in this email at all.

 

[yorksrob]

Is the inquiry actually going to take place ?

I'm all for it if it helps to break the deadlock, but for the sake of evenhandedness, it should evaluate all options, including DCO, driver open - guard close and the status quo, specifically in terms of how they would affect the quality of service for passengers.

One thing it would be useful to get to the bottom of, would be exactly what proportion of delays and cancellations would be avoided were a second person not required to control the train.

Given that this statement confirms that DfT have committed to a second person on board, it would also be useful to get to the bottom of why it is so crucial that the status quo of the second person being the guard must change and evaluate any savings etc.

Will passengers be represented on this board.

If these issues are addressed, it could be useful.

 

[LowLevel]

It won't. Anything less than full driver controlled operation with any second crew member reduced to an assistant at best is not acceptable to the DfT.

 

[Intermodal]

Is the inquiry actually going to take place ?

I very much doubt the RMT will agree to it any time soon. The outcome will not be in their favour.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Anything less than full driver controlled operation with any second crew member reduced to an assistant at best is not acceptable to the DfT.

Really? Then how come the Abellio Greater Anglia dispute was resolved to the satisfaction of Abellio, the RMT and ASLEF and the second person retains safety critical competence?

 

[Tetchytyke]

how come the Abellio Greater Anglia dispute was resolved to the satisfaction of Abellio, the RMT and ASLEF

We'll see about that!

 

[scrapy]

Really? Then how come the Abellio Greater Anglia dispute was resolved to the satisfaction of Abellio, the RMT and ASLEF and the second person retains safety critical competence?

There was no requirement for DOO on that franchise so agreement didn't have to meet with DFT requirements.

 

[Bantamzen]

At this point a smart union leadership would see potential for leverage, and offer to suspend action in order to pile the pressure on a failing government. Sadly I suspect their leadership will have visions of revolution and continue to stoke their fires, but at the same time giving the government something to throw back at them.

The RMT want to be careful, with DB getting twitchy about Arriva, any future sale could see the group split up or even end up back in the government's hands. And they will have a point to make, especially if dwindling public support starts to translate into dwindling passenger numbers. My former union rep spidy sense is sensing a glorious opportunity for the RMT, and a top table that will blissfully miss it and drive itself, and it's members into the ground.

 

[LOL The Irony]

The only way this is going to be solved is if the DfT steps in and tells Northern 2 options. These 2 options are; Agree to the rmt's demand's or go down the nuclear route. They aren't in a current position to do either.

 

[samuelmorris]

I am a little surprised if the DfT's intentions are any different in Northern's area of operation as anywhere else operating similar services. Are variations in what is being pushed for simply the result of 'what they can get away with' or is there something else I'm overlooking? The operation of 2-6 car multiple units on regional services should surely be fairly similar across the country. Clearly this must be an oversimplification.

 

[70014IronDuke]

I have read some of the postings on here, but really do not have an opinion on the current dispute between RMT - Northern [- DfT?] because I don't feel I've heard enough from all sides.

However, reading this message from the Northern boss, I have to say that if I were in the RMT camp, ther very first sentence would pretty much urinate me off.

"In December we announced the latest efforts we are taking to resolve the RMT dispute and end the damage the RMT is causing to the economy of the North."

That hardly appears to me to be the language of compromise. For a start, you can't, logicially, have a one-party dispute, it has to be a dispute between RMT and somebody. It then compounds this accusatory style by implying it is only RMT causing the "damage" to the north's economy.

It seems we have a new management theory in the wings here: Leadership by Blame and Shame

Had Mr Brown couched this with something like - "which from our point of view" ...... ok, but putting it up front like that?

Bloddy ell, it's enough to make me want to read Das Kapital.

 

[samuelmorris]

I have read some of the postings on here, but really do not have an opinion on the current dispute between RMT - Northern [- DfT?] because I don't feel I've heard enough from all sides.

However, reading this message from the Northern boss, I have to say that if I were in the RMT camp, ther very first sentence would pretty much urinate me off.

"In December we announced the latest efforts we are taking to resolve the RMT dispute and end the damage the RMT is causing to the economy of the North."

That hardly appears to me to be the language of compromise. For a start, you can't, logicially, have a one-party dispute, it has to be a dispute between RMT and somebody. It then compounds this accusatory style by implying it is only RMT causing the "damage" to the north's economy.

It seems we have a new management theory in the wings here: Leadership by Blame and Shame

Had Mr Brown couched this with something like - "which from our point of view" ...... ok, but putting it up front like that?

Bloddy ell, it's enough to make me want to read Das Kapital.

The language from the RMT is unfortunately equally inflammatory in most of their announcements., so that's probably intentional, though I agree, unhelpful.

 

[johntea]

I found this poster at Leeds which is rather badly made as it obviously refers to the back end of 2018 but almost predicts 2019 at the same time!

 

[70014IronDuke]

The language from the RMT is unfortunately equally inflammatory in most of their announcements., so that's probably intentional, though I agree, unhelpful.

That's a shame, but there were always some bolshie union bosses. It doesn't help to be bolshie back.

I remember having a conversation with a shop foreman at Derby C&W works in the staff canteen many years ago. (In fact, I can date it to December 1971. There were some very decent men at that works: we had some good conversations.) I forget his name, but I think he came from Ambergate or Belper or some such. And he said something on the lines of: "Management will always try to screw you in the end." I - cocky youth that I was - was arguing against him. Sadly, reading about this dispute, I'm beginning to think he could be right.

 

[LowLevel]

That's a shame, but there were always some bolshie union bosses. It doesn't help to be bolshie back.

I remember having a conversation with a shop foreman at Derby C&W works in the staff canteen many years ago. (In fact, I can date it to December 1971. There were some very decent men at that works: we had some good conversations.) I forget his name, but I think he came from Ambergate or Belper or some such. And he said something on the lines of: "Management will always try to screw you in the end." I - cocky youth that I was - was arguing against him. Sadly, reading about this dispute, I'm beginning to think he could be right.

The one thing I've never worked out.... Agreements are made. Someone decides they're economically sound and agreeable. Yet without fail there are always requests for productivity improvements. Why?

 

[OxtedSignaller]

To be fair I think the RMT's sticking point is that they do not believe that Northern will stick to the agreement and it won't last. The best way forward would be for the DfT/TfN to place a clause in the contract where by every train run without a second person incurs a fine similar to the Strathclyde Manning Agreement on Scotrail. Same should be done on Southern next franchise because the RMT know full well ASLEF will happily negotiate the clauses they put in for some extra silver next pay deal especially once they get used to DCO. On Southern I know the OBS still take in a healthy amount of revenue, and ticketless travel and passenger survey targets only get more stringent and GTR even admitted they need a second person on board to realistically meet these due to the nature of the routes which will be very similar to Northern. It's not a straight forward point to point network such as the Bedpan route.

 

[Bantamzen]

To be fair I think the RMT's sticking point is that they do not believe that Northern will stick to the agreement and it won't last. The best way forward would be for the DfT/TfN to place a clause in the contract where by every train run without a second person incurs a fine similar to the Strathclyde Manning Agreement on Scotrail. Same should be done on Southern next franchise because the RMT know full well ASLEF will happily negotiate the clauses they put in for some extra silver next pay deal especially once they get used to DCO. On Southern I know the OBS still take in a healthy amount of revenue, and ticketless travel and passenger survey targets only get more stringent and GTR even admitted they need a second person on board to realistically meet these due to the nature of the routes which will be very similar to Northern. It's not a straight forward point to point network such as the Bedpan route.

But hasn't this already been established, as per the text taken from the OP's quote:

The Department for Transport and Transport for the North have publicly confirmed that a second person, in addition to the driver, will be retained on Northern services. The independent inquiry would look at the future role of the second person that will be on Northern services, in addition to the driver, to help customers with accessibility, security, ticketing, information and any other help required.

So surely that covers anything that the RMT might be concerned about in this respect, does it not? If the RMT are still suspicious that at some point in the future this position might change, be it from the franchise holder or DfT & they refuse to budge then frankly this dispute will have no end because no such guarantee could ever be made in the long run. I'm of the opinion that Arriva & DfT have moved enough to at least prompt RMT into making some small concession by at least suspending action, pending this proposed inquiry. If they do not, then I suspect like myself many passengers who have previously supported the action will lose all patience. It won't make a jot of difference to RMT if I do of course, but whether they like it or not public support in this matter is key. Lose it altogether, and you lose a lot of ground. And once its gone, it almost never comes back. I know, I've seen in happen with my own union in my time as a union rep in my own workplace.

 

[DarloRich]

it isnt about having a second person in the train but about having a second safety trained and competent person on the train.

Surely you know this.

 

[gazzaa2]

At this point a smart union leadership would see potential for leverage, and offer to suspend action in order to pile the pressure on a failing government..

That'd mean having to work Saturdays again though.

 

[Bantamzen]

it isnt about having a second person in the train but about having a second safety trained and competent person on the train.

Surely you know this.

Yes I do, and that is what the proposed inquiry is to look at isn't it? If the RMT isn't willing to at least cooperate with this then the dispute will run & run, because this government isn't going to allow Arriva to capitulate to them. That you can be certain of. A defeat to a major union right now would be a massive blow to the government.

So the best option is surely to at least take part, give their input to try and get the best for their members. Not doing so helps nobody but the top table's egos. I have seen this with my union, it became so engrossed with it's battle with the government it lost what little public support there was, and then eventually that of it's members and even reps like me. I actually resigned my position as one because I felt the disconnect between members / reps & the leadership was too great. This is what the RMT risks right now if it doesn't at least make an effort.

The days of "Everybody out!" & "We shall not be moved" are long gone, rightly or wrongly.

That'd mean having to work Saturdays again though.

Yes it would, and it would also mean that businesses falling on their behinds because fewer & fewer people are hitting the high streets due to it being more difficult getting there in the first place might see a bit of a recovery at a time when they really, really need it.

 

[DarloRich]

@Bantamzen the statement makes no reference to having 2 safety trained people on board. Little point attending a review that wont review all options!

Personally I suspect this suggested review is a standard management tactic designed to make the union look bad to the poorly informed. They suggest something that prima facie looks like a generous offer to remedy the situation and that if agreed to supports their view. If rejected by the union ( as they hope and expect becuase it doesnt actually answer the central point) can be played as the union refusing a mature and sensible idea thus turning people against the staff on strike.

It is all part of the game. However loads of people will fall for it!

If there is a real desire to mediate put all options on the table unconditionally and have all sides agree to be bound by the results.

 

[Bantamzen]

@Bantamzen the statement makes no reference to having 2 safety trained people on board. Little point attending a review that wont review all options!

Personally I suspect this suggested review is a standard management tactic designed to make the union look bad to the poorly informed. They suggest something that prima facie looks like a generous offer to remedy the situation and that if agreed to supports their view. If rejected by the union ( as they hope and expect becuase it doesnt actually answer the central point) can be played as the union refusing a mature and sensible idea thus turning people against the staff on strike.

It is all part of the game. However loads of people will fall for it!

If there is a real desire to mediate put all options on the table unconditionally and have all sides agree to be bound by the results.

Sorry but I disagree about the scope of the inquiry, it specifically states that one of the aims is to explore the feasibility of DCO, which I read to mean that this could include arguments that it is not suitable and the 2nd member of crew ought to retain full despatch duties. Whether or not either side has any trust in the other, this is at least a small move in the right direction to trying to come to a resolution. The RMT could take the stance that they don't believe it will be binding, and they can easily put that their members, but at the very least they should try. Again, not doing so fails their members.

 

[HH]

If there is a real desire to mediate put all options on the table unconditionally and have all sides agree to be bound by the results.

It's a bit like Brexit, really. No-one is interested in compromise any more - "my deal or no deal".

Must be something they put in the water...

 

[DarloRich]

Sorry but I disagree about the scope of the inquiry, it specifically states that one of the aims is to explore the feasibility of DCO, which I read to mean that this could include arguments that it is not suitable and the 2nd member of crew ought to retain full despatch duties. Whether or not either side has any trust in the other, this is at least a small move in the right direction to trying to come to a resolution. The RMT could take the stance that they don't believe it will be binding, and they can easily put that their members, but at the very least they should try. Again, not doing so fails their members.

I disagree with your assessment and think you are showing a little bit of naivety. However that is the point. The terms of any discussion need to be clearly agreed beforehand. If all options are on the table say so dont try and come up with a form of words that looks genuine and open but isnt. If we are to have an independent investigation (and I think that is a really good idea actually) let's have a proper investigation

Personally I am not bothered who presses the buttons to open or close doors. I am bothered about having 2 safety trained and competent people on board when the brown stuff interacts with the fan.

 

[DarloRich]

It's a bit like Brexit, really. No-one is interested in compromise any more - "my deal or no deal".

Must be something they put in the water...

It is exactly the same tactic May is using with Corbyn over Brexit meetings. She can make the offer knowing he wont come and then use that to paint him badly.

 

[Bantamzen]

I disagree with your assessment and think you are showing a little bit of naivety. However that is the point. The terms of any discussion need to be clearly agreed beforehand. If all options are on the table say so dont try and come up with a form of words that looks genuine and open but isnt. If we are to have an independent investigation (and I think that is a really good idea actually) let's have a proper investigation

Personally I am not bothered who presses the buttons to open or close doors. I am bothered about having 2 safety trained and competent people on board when the brown stuff interacts with the fan.

Well again I disagree, I think this is by far the best opportunity to resolve the issue & keep 2 safety trained members of crew onboard. If you think this is naïve then fair enough, but frankly at this point in the dispute with all three parties entrenched in their own positions for their own reasons, it really needs a reset & put all ideas back into the game & come up with something that all can hopefully accept.

But make no mistake, this is not just a dispute between union & employer anymore. For both the RMT & government it has become ideological, the government could quite easily have turned to Arriva & written off the issue if they so wanted. That they haven't, and that the RMT have dug in deeply shows quite clearly this has gone beyond a T&Cs dispute. That's not naivety, its history repeating itself. Like I said, I have seen a similar situation arise with my own union & eventually we lost badly. And that has cost our members badly too, leaving the union weaker and less able to protect its members going forward.

Any union rep worth their salt will tell you that in today's working environment, there is only so far you can push, and only so far the members will support your position. So if an opportunity comes along to try to change the situation and allow you a chance to negotiate a better deal, you take it. The RMT will not be bound to the conclusion of any inquiry, and they will be able to put the recommendations back to their membership. All that is being asked of them is to this & suspend the strike & give it a go. Its not a back down, and if things don't go to their liking they can return to the strikes. But after 45 of them and little movement from DfT & Arriva, it would be incredibly naïve to believe that another 45 is going to cause the two to back down to RMT's demands.

 

[JetStream]

I've spoken to a few Northern staff, independently of each other, and they seem to think that the RMT are planning (or at least should plan) for a full week worth of strikes in a month, rather than just the Saturday's.

 

[Smidster]

I've spoken to a few Northern staff, independently of each other, and they seem to think that the RMT are planning (or at least should plan) for a full week worth of strikes in a month, rather than just the Saturday's.

If I were the RMT I would certainly be looking at changing my tactics - They have been striking on Saturdays for pretty much 6 months now and the impact, in terms of final solution to the dispute, has been minimal at best (and in reality absolutely nothing has changed)

We will find out the plans for February either today or tomorrow - My bet is they just carry on with Saturdays and nothing else changes.

 

[yorksrob]

@Bantamzen the statement makes no reference to having 2 safety trained people on board. Little point attending a review that wont review all options!

Personally I suspect this suggested review is a standard management tactic designed to make the union look bad to the poorly informed. They suggest something that prima facie looks like a generous offer to remedy the situation and that if agreed to supports their view. If rejected by the union ( as they hope and expect becuase it doesnt actually answer the central point) can be played as the union refusing a mature and sensible idea thus turning people against the staff on strike.

It is all part of the game. However loads of people will fall for it!

If there is a real desire to mediate put all options on the table unconditionally and have all sides agree to be bound by the results.

I'm inclined to agree. If all options really were being evaluated, I can't help thinking that this would be stated explicitly in the announcement.