RMT settle dispute with Greater Anglia

[F Great Eastern]

Reports of a strike when these new trains are introduced based on who operates the doors.
http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/rail-gua...ion-on-some-greater-anglia-services-1-5108828

Rail guards are to be balloted on possible strike action over the question of who opens the doors on Greater Anglia’s InterCity and rural services.

Share article from on facebook Tweet article from Share article from on Google Pluspost article from on reddit email article from
Share
The dispute mirrors the dispute on the Southern Rail network over the last year – and the catalyst is the introduction of new Stadler trains on the Greater Anglia network which are due to start coming into service in 2019.

At present it is the job of the conductor/guard on the trains to ensure the doors are shut and locked before it leaves a station. New trains have the door controls in the driver’s cab and it is the job of the driver to make sure it is ready to leave.

The dispute does not affect suburban services from Essex into London – they are already driver-only operation.

The Rail, Maritime and Transport (RMT) union has warned that if it can reach an agreement with Greater Anglia over the future role of its conductor/guard members it will ballot them for industrial action.

Union general secretary Mick Cash said: “Greater Anglia have been given every opportunity to give a guarantee on the future role of the guard on their services. They have failed to do so.

“RMT will not sit back and wait for the company any longer and we have no option but to begin preparations for a ballot in order to protect safety and access on Greater Anglia services.

“The union remains available for further talks around the crucial issue of the guard guarantee.”

The company insists its conductor/guards have a future on the new trains.

Richard Dean, Greater Anglia Train Service Delivery Director said: “We have conductors on our Intercity service between Norwich and London Liverpool Street and on our rural routes across East Anglia.

“They are highly valued colleagues and we have no plans to remove them from our trains. In fact, we have a new conductors training course starting in August.

“We hold regular meetings with the unions which represent our colleagues. These meetings will continue as we remain available for talks to resolve this issue.”

Disputes over the operation of new trains are flaring up across the rail network as a new generation of trains with doors controlled from the driver’s cab are being introduced to services across the country.

 

[Z12XE]

Seems that next in line we have the RMT balloting action on Greater Anglia as they won't confirm the current status of their Guards will continue for the length of this franchise

Not unexpected really

https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-to-ballot-for-action-on-greater-anglia/

17 July 2017
RMT Press Office:

RMT to ballot for action on Greater Anglia over threat to guards.

RAIL UNION RMT confirmed today that it is to ballot guards and drivers affected by the potential extension of DOO for both strike action and action short of a strike after the company failed to give a guarantee on the role of the guard throughout the length of the franchise.

A meeting was held between Greater Anglia staff representatives, RMT’s Regional Organiser and National Executive Committee members at which this issue was discussed. At that meeting management failed to provide union reps with the assurances they had been seeking with respect to the role and responsibilities of the guards now and for the length of the franchise.

RMT’s NEC noted the views of the meeting and stated subsequently that the union remains open to proposals of drivers opening doors but that this should be solely within scenarios where Guards/Conductors still undertake and have full operational responsibility for the closure of the doors and dispatch of the train, with the facility to manually perform this procedure from each cab and saloon. To date, the company has not provided such a commitment or assurance.

RMT’s NEC has made it clear that it expects that where guards are currently working trains, for this to continue, with them retaining full safety-critical responsibilities, along with closing doors, dispatch and platform/train safety. Again, no commitment or assurance has yet been forthcoming from the company.

Taking the above into account, the NEC has therefore agreed to ballot all Conductors, Senior Conductors and affected train driver members (those Drivers whose duties presently entail non-DOO working) at Greater Anglia for strike action and industrial action short of a strike.

RMT General Secretary Mick Cash said:

“Greater Anglia have been given every opportunity to give a guarantee on the future role of the guard on their services. They have failed to do so.

“RMT will not sit back and wait for the company any longer and we have no option but to begin preparations for a ballot in order to protect safety and access on Greater Anglia services.

“The union remains available for further talks around the crucial issue of the guard guarantee.”

Ends

 

[hwl]

Has it has taken this long for the RMT to notice that Abellio has ordered a complete new set of rolling stock that is DOO capable...

 

[TEW]

Has it has taken this long for the RMT to notice that Abellio has ordered a complete new set of rolling stock that is DOO capable...

Yet other threads are full of people moaning that the RMT are taking action too soon. In particular Merseyrail and Northern, which are in a similar place as Greater Anglia, with the new stock ordered but still some way from delivery.

 

[Wivenswold]

"The dispute mirrors the dispute on the Southern". If only newspapers could mirror the facts rather than stirring up concern.

I suspect the union (for whom I have much time) are reminding GA that they need to be involved in the change process.

 

[pemma]

Has it has taken this long for the RMT to notice that Abellio has ordered a complete new set of rolling stock that is DOO capable...

If the RMT are going to strike every time an order for DOO capable stock is ordered then they will strike every time a franchise orders new trains. DfT require all new stock to be DOO capable even if the franchise holder plans to have guards on all services - look at TPE where the RMT claimed they prevented DOO but in fact First never planned to use the DOO equipment which will be fitted to the new trains.

 

[Wombat]

The Rail, Maritime and Transport (RMT) union has warned that if it can reach an agreement with Greater Anglia over the future role of its conductor/guard members it will ballot them for industrial action.

Well that seems a little over the top.

 

[TEW]

Considering that GA already operated services as DOO, ordering stock DOO capable isn't surprising.

Glorious Leader Cash of the RMT strikes again, probably wants everything to remain as it is, stuck in the time warp he seems to live in

On another thread you were whining that the RMT would call a strike over just a change to driver door opening. Yet here, and elsewhere, the RMT have shown a willingness to compromise, they have shown they will accept driver door opening. If you actually read the press release you would know that of course, and you would know that the ballot is not just because Greater Anglia have ordered new trains, but because they have refused to give guarantees on the future of the guard. Realistically there is only one reason they would refuse to give that guarantee, and that's because they want to get rid of them.

 

[BestWestern]

If the RMT are going to strike every time an order for DOO capable stock is ordered then they will strike every time a franchise orders new trains. DfT require all new stock to be DOO capable even if the franchise holder plans to have guards on all services - look at TPE where the RMT claimed they prevented DOO but in fact First never planned to use the DOO equipment which will be fitted to the new trains.

The dispute is over the failure of the TOC to provide clear assurances about the future role of the Guard, not the specification of the rolling stock.

 

[2HAP]

All this arguing over who operates the doors. I can remember a time when it was the passengers who did that, and without asking for any renumeration for doing so.

 

[LowLevel]

They surely know as a high level theory at least what they intend to do. Consequently the problem goes away if they say 'Yes, we are retaining guards in their current form' or ' No, we have other plans which we intend to consult on in due course for amended duties/No duties etc.

The refusal to say anything can only be taken as the latter but without any good faith attached, because if it was the former there would be no need to be coy about it.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

In how many industries can you send an ultimatum to your employer to demand no changes to your job for 5 years or more, or else?
The more the dispute spreads, the more reluctant the employers/DfT will be to make concessions.

 

[BestWestern]

In how many industries can you send an ultimatum to your employer to demand no changes to your job for 5 years or more, or else?
The more the dispute spreads, the more reluctant the employers/DfT will be to make concessions.

This is rather different. There is a known, published mandate to remove Guards across the network. There are various concerns from both crew unions about this. The question being asked is very simple; are you going to take a hatchet to your Guards or not. It is not an unreasonable enquiry, nor should it be difficult to answer if indeed the answer is 'No'.

 

[BestWestern]

They surely know as a high level theory at least what they intend to do. Consequently the problem goes away if they say 'Yes, we are retaining guards in their current form' or ' No, we have other plans which we intend to consult on in due course for amended duties/No duties etc.

The refusal to say anything can only be taken as the latter but without any good faith attached, because if it was the former there would be no need to be coy about it.

Precisely. Why some repeatedly like to pretend they lack the basic common sense to grasp this is beyond me.

 

[cjmillsnun]

In how many industries can you send an ultimatum to your employer to demand no changes to your job for 5 years or more, or else?
The more the dispute spreads, the more reluctant the employers/DfT will be to make concessions.

How is it an ultimatum? In all union recognised industries, unions should be consulted regarding changes to terms of employment. There has been nothing and a question asked has been fobbed off. It doesn't make for good industrial relations.

Greater Anglia will be well aware of their plans, and a simple answer of "at this time, we have no plans to change things" or "we are looking at changes and we will talk to you about them in the near future" would avoid the immediate problem.

 

[Robertj21a]

This is rather different. There is a known, published mandate to remove Guards across the network. There are various concerns from both crew unions about this. The question being asked is very simple; are you going to take a hatchet to your Guards or not. It is not an unreasonable enquiry, nor should it be difficult to answer if indeed the answer is 'No'.

I would have thought that any employer would want to protect themselves against any changes that might become necessary in future years. Surely, all the management can realistically say is that they '.....have no current plans to remove guards, but must still reserve the right to do so at some point in the future'.

 

[Darandio]

It is all going to look very confusing for the average passenger though, especially one that ends up being inconvenienced.

“Greater Anglia have been given every opportunity to give a guarantee on the future role of the guard on their services. They have failed to do so."

“They are highly valued colleagues and we have no plans to remove them from our trains. In fact, we have a new conductors training course starting in August."

Now, regardless of what those who have a greater knowledge of the situation and roles think, the average passenger looking at that may well think that they have given a guarantee and are wondering what the hell they are planning to strike for.

 

[IanXC]

They surely know as a high level theory at least what they intend to do. Consequently the problem goes away if they say 'Yes, we are retaining guards in their current form' or ' No, we have other plans which we intend to consult on in due course for amended duties/No duties etc.

The refusal to say anything can only be taken as the latter but without any good faith attached, because if it was the former there would be no need to be coy about it.

Absolutely. Its hard to conclude that a lack of clarity is an effort to do anything other than muddy the issue.

 

[Bookd]

If GA (or South West for that matter) were to announce their intention of introducing DOO or sacking guards there might be a case for action; as neither have done so this is not the case. Demanding that the company commit now to not have a change of policy at some point in the future and using that as an excuse for strike action now shows no regard for passengers who rely on the railway and ultimately pay the wages.
It seems that the RMT would love to engineer a nation wide strike just to prove that they can do it, and if it were not this issue they would seek another one.

 

[The Ham]

Absolutely. Its hard to conclude that a lack of clarity is an effort to do anything other than muddy the issue.

Maybe, but everyone knows where the RMT stands, why issue a statement saying that they are going to issue a Ballot now when they only need to issue a statement saying that they will Ballot for industrial action if there is any action taken to further introduce DOO.

If the TOC's make statements saying we have no plans to change and the RMT strikes because there are no "guarantees" then how is that going to look with the public?

I wood suggest that it either look very bad, potential bad enough that the they think " you know what if there's going to be strikes anyway let's just get rid of then all anyway", or "why should they be aloud to strike over something that isn't even happening, let's pressurises the MP's to ban strikes".

You could even get RMT members who think "why are we voting on something that hasn't been announced, just on the chance that it did happen". That could lead to them thinking that they don't want to be part of the RMT or that they will vote against strikes because they are being threated too early. Either way it cite weeken the RMT's hand. Either through the RMT becoming smaller and so their strikes have less impact our through people voting down strikes because they think that they are being called too early.

Yes strikes are a useful tool and I'm not suggesting that strikes should be banned, rather those that's are able to call ballots sir be careful not to do so too many times otherwise it could result in things but going their way

 

[LowLevel]

Because leaving it until they announce their plans rather late in the day, if they exist, means any opportunity to take action is somewhat limited? I suspect there's a plan somewhere within the RMT to try and wreck the cost benefit analysis for the changes by making them far more expensive through more action than budgeted. That bastion of industrial relations strategy the RSSB suggested 10 days of action is a reasonable budget for DOO - GTR are currently running at 4 times that with a full customer relations disaster to boot and ASLEF look set to make it even heavier.

GA's response is very specific about having no plans to remove conductors from trains. I'd imagine there's a reason for that. A conductor may be, but doesn't have to be, a guard, so it's basically the same as saying nothing.

I maintain that they could say that they have no plans, or that they have plans to discuss at some stage, and they are coyly choosing to say neither.

 

[pompeyfan]

Is it me or is the GA statement actually even more coy than many realise? GA have said they have no plans to remove their guard colleagues from trains? That gives them a window to demote them to OBS's should they have the desire to do so at some point.

 

[deltic]

as everyone in the industry knows from DfT, RMT, TOCs, TfL that the aim is to move to a situation where trains can operate with just a driver even if in some circumstances a 2nd person is rosetted to that train. It is a matter of time/wills/money until it happens. The same applies to ticket offices which except for major stations will eventually all go.

 

[hwl]

Is it me or is the GA statement actually even more coy than many realise? GA have said they have no plans to remove their guard colleagues from trains? That gives them a window to demote them to OBS's should they have the desire to do so at some point.

It isn't just you...

 

[DarloRich]

Is it me or is the GA statement actually even more coy than many realise? GA have said they have no plans to remove their guard colleagues from trains? That gives them a window to demote them to OBS's should they have the desire to do so at some point.

of course it is - at least to those of us of a suspicious and cynical bent. Many here lack that stand point and take what they are told, uncritically, at face value.

Time will tell who is correct.

 

[BestWestern]

If GA (or South West for that matter) were to announce their intention of introducing DOO or sacking guards there might be a case for action; as neither have done so this is not the case. Demanding that the company commit now to not have a change of policy at some point in the future and using that as an excuse for strike action now shows no regard for passengers who rely on the railway and ultimately pay the wages.
It seems that the RMT would love to engineer a nation wide strike just to prove that they can do it, and if it were not this issue they would seek another one.

Complete nonsense. The tedious view that the RMT just want a punch up is plainly silly, the reason for industrial action against DOO is very clear.

 

[jon0844]

If some countries are building trains that can drive themselves (albeit with a plan to retain a driver) then I wonder what upset there will be when we start having trains built that have the option to run driverless? It might not be factory fitted, but if a retrofit solution exists then I expect unions will demand assurances from the outset.

That could be fun, as I expect in 10 or 15 years most, if not all, trains built new will have such technology as an option.

 

[BestWestern]

If some countries are building trains that can drive themselves (albeit with a plan to retain a driver) then I wonder what upset there will be when we start having trains built that have the option to run driverless? It might not be factory fitted, but if a retrofit solution exists then I expect unions will demand assurances from the outset.

That could be fun, as I expect in 10 or 15 years most, if not all, trains built new will have such technology as an option.

The trains themselves might do, but there is absolutely no way that we'll have the signalling to deal with that in 10 years time.

 

[SPADTrap]

The tedious view that the RMT just want a punch up is plainly silly, the reason for industrial action against DOO is very clear.

It is just tabloid rhetoric recycled by the brain washed, IMO.

 

[The Ham]

Because leaving it until they announce their plans rather late in the day, if they exist, means any opportunity to take action is somewhat limited? I suspect there's a plan somewhere within the RMT to try and wreck the cost benefit analysis for the changes by making them far more expensive through more action than budgeted. That bastion of industrial relations strategy the RSSB suggested 10 days of action is a reasonable budget for DOO - GTR are currently running at 4 times that with a full customer relations disaster to boot and ASLEF look set to make it even heavier.

GA's response is very specific about having no plans to remove conductors from trains. I'd imagine there's a reason for that. A conductor may be, but doesn't have to be, a guard, so it's basically the same as saying nothing.

I maintain that they could say that they have no plans, or that they have plans to discuss at some stage, and they are coyly choosing to say neither.

Right, so if you take your logic that once it is announced is too late in the day to it's full extent; then the RMT should stop striking on Southern as it is too late!

The point I was making is that the RMT could have worded their statement better, clearly stating their view on safety. Highlighting that will continue to resist DOO and that all trains should have two train staff and that they will ballot as soon as there is any proposal to extend the use of DOO.

That would mean that they have chance to make their point but don't get people's back up.

One question I have been asked, which I don't know the answer to, "if having two staff is good so that if one is incapacitated then clearly the driver having the ability to release the doors quickly and safely in the case of the guard being incapacitated (or busy dealing with an emergency which means that they can't get to the door controls easily) is a good thing is it not?"

I can see the logic in that, a Guard is busy with a passenger who is very unwell the driver stops the train and releases the doors to allow medical staff to assist. Alternatively there is a fire in a carriage meaning that a lot of people move to the carriage that the guard is in, as the guard investigates they then get blocked (or at least partly blocked) from accessing the door controls, but the driver could release the doors as soon as the train stops to let people off the burning train as fast as possible.

As such there could be logic that having DOO equipment is a safety benefit and the resistance of the spread of the fitting of equipment (but not the regular use thereof) is potentially putting passengers and staff at greater risk than not having it.