RMT DOO Dispute on West Midlands Trains

[pt_mad]

If only we had something that covered the whole country, something like a nationalised railway where standard arrangements applied everywhere...........

[Yes, sorry, very tongue in cheek !]

That it was decided to keep the fully trained guard doing the door closure on the ECML and GWR with the new stock as well doesn't say that that way of working is old fashioned and not suitable. It seems ok for some routes but not others, rather than say a blanket policy of driver operation on the whole network as and when trains are ordered with no exception from the DFT. That may have been the only way to avoid mixed messages such as it's it's ok here but not there and keeping the fully qualified guard in Wales out of principal.

 

[Meerkat]

https://labour.org.uk/press/labour-...accessible-for-older-and-disabled-passengers/


Surely pledges like this will just contradict DOO related disputes further, not to mention the guard guarantee on TFW, and the intercity TOCs choosing the keep the guard closing the doors?

Surely an OBS can concentrate on accessibility better than a guard?

That it was decided to keep the fully trained guard doing the door closure on the ECML and GWR with the new stock as well doesn't say that that way of working is old fashioned and not suitable. It seems ok for some routes but not others, rather than say a blanket policy of driver operation on the whole network as and when trains are ordered with no exception from the DFT. That may have been the only way to avoid mixed messages such as it's it's ok here but not there and keeping the fully qualified guard in Wales out of principal.

We can’t really tell what TOCs (and DfT’s to an extent) preferences really are as we can’t know whether they genuinely prefer guard operation or want DOO/DCO but don’t want the industrial dispute.

 

[Jamesrob637]

I will be okay if I travel on WM/LNWR on a Monday in December, won't I? (Apart from the odd cancellation which can occur anywhere). This seems to echo Northern Fail last year - impact weekend leisure rather than Monday to Friday commuters

 

[Bletchleyite]

Surely an OBS can concentrate on accessibility better than a guard?

I think they are using the term "guard" to mean "second member of staff". The role they describe is that of an OBS, and I'd expect if they were added to, say, Thameslink, that's what they'd be rather than the trains being totally rejigged to provide guard door controls. Whether they operate the doors is secondary.

 

[Robertj21a]

I think they are using the term "guard" to mean "second member of staff". The role they describe is that of an OBS, and I'd expect if they were added to, say, Thameslink, that's what they'd be rather than the trains being totally rejigged to provide guard door controls. Whether they operate the doors is secondary.

Agreed. I see no good reason why the second member of staff shouldn't be used as an OBS, much as on Southern. If the concern really is for the travelling public, and general accessibility, then it suits the OBS role admirably. It would be nice to get away from the incessant doors.....doors....doors..... debate once and for all.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agreed. I see no good reason why the second member of staff shouldn't be used as an OBS, much as on Southern. If the concern really is for the travelling public, and general accessibility, then it suits the OBS role admirably. It would be nice to get away from the incessant doors.....doors....doors..... debate once and for all.

If Labour legislated to mandate the presence of a second member of staff on all trains[1] as seems to be proposed, the "doors" argument might well go away as at present it's a means of leverage to avoid easy abolition of OBS type roles.

[1] Definition of "train"? Not LU I guess...

 

[Starmill]

If Labour legislated to mandate the presence of a second member of staff on all trains[1] as seems to be proposed, the "doors" argument might well go away as at present it's a means of leverage to avoid easy abolition of OBS type roles.

[1] Definition of "train"? Not LU I guess...

It wouldn't be difficult to come up with a definition. They could simply say that a member of staff to assist customers must be provided onboard trains or at every station. London Underground already have better staffing from the point of view of being able to ask someone for help.

 

[43066]

Agreed. I see no good reason why the second member of staff shouldn't be used as an OBS, much as on Southern. If the concern really is for the travelling public, and general accessibility, then it suits the OBS role admirably. It would be nice to get away from the incessant doors.....doors....doors..... debate once and for all.

The key point here, though, is that no sane train driver who currently drives guarded services would willingly switch to DOO.

ASLEF/RMT have both sold this out in the past (hence GTR drivers, for example, having DOO in their contracts), but that is not the case on many other TOCs - Northern and EMR to cite two examples and ASLEF are resolute in not expanding DOO any further.

Therefore, although it might seem like a minor issue to the public at large, the question of who takes responsibility for “doors doors doors” will remain a key one for those doing the job, and attempting to force through OBS style DOO will inevitably continue to result in industrial action.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It wouldn't be difficult to come up with a definition. They could simply say that a member of staff to assist customers must be provided onboard trains or at every station. London Underground already have better staffing from the point of view of being able to ask someone for help.

Yeah, I did wonder if the approach could be "A member of staff must be provided on board who as a minimum has the role of assisting any passenger requiring assistance to board or alight the train including with their luggage at all stations the train serves. This role need not be provided if at all stations where the train calls platform staff are available for the whole period of service to carry out the same job function. This does not preclude those members of staff additionally having other on-board or station roles such as operating doors, ticket sales, passenger information, dispatch or catering, provided they are immediately available at every station the train calls at to provide their primary function without delay. In the event of neither being available, the train or station stop must, as applicable, be cancelled, with penalties payable accordingly."

 

[pt_mad]

Well it (Labour's pledge) says guard, but then supporters of DCO are able to claim it means an onboard supervisor or ticket checker examiner. Same kind of thing as when posters suggested anyone wishing to justify a certain method of operation could find safety related incidents to support their views.

 

[ainsworth74]

Thread locked because yet again we're having the same discussions that go absolutely nowhere. Ever. I would strongly encourage everyone to accept that however you feel about the topic there are a lot of people that disagree and that you will never persuade them to your point of view. All that is achieved is pages and pages and pages of circular arguments, bad feelings, and a waste of everyone's time because there is no point to the discussion. By this stage we all know how various different people feel, we all know how we as individuals feel about the topic and we all know (or at least should know) that there is nothing to be gained by going over the same ground again and again and again and again and again and again and again.

I haven't read a single original thought on one of these threads in years...

Anyway, that aside, if there's an update about this specific dispute (i.e. talks via ACAS, deal on the table, etc) please feel free to report this post and we'll look at posting an update or re-opening the thread.

If anyone is looking for travel advice (i.e. timetables, fares or similar) please feel free to post a new thread in an appropriate sub-forum.

 

[ainsworth74]

With thanks to someone from within WMT who has provided the following update on this dispute:

A meeting was held on Monday, but only a brief one. No deal was put forward and the RMT mentioned in their circular on Tuesday that "dark forces" prevented the company from proposing a deal. They specifically mention the DFT. There is another meeting planned in Liverpool on Thursday where they hope to be presented with said deal, to then put to their members with probable suspension of action whilst the ballot takes place. Their "acceptable" deal will see Driver open and Guard close doors.

 

[ainsworth74]

Some good news from the RMT (thanks to those that brought it to my attention):

Our Ref: BR2/0146

5th December 2019

STRIKE ACTION SUSPENDED
OFFER RECEIVED WITH RECOMMENDATION TO ACCEPT


Dear Colleague,

ROLE OF THE GUARD & INTRODUCTION OF DOO - WEST MIDLANDS TRAINS

I am writing in relation to the above matter, as you know, your negotiators have been in discussion with the company in an attempt to resolve this dispute. I have now received a report from your negotiating team who have recommended, to your NEC, that the proposal is accepted, a copy of which will be placed on the RMT website tomorrow and sent out with the referendum voting paper.

The National Executive Committee has considered this matter and the views of your representatives. The NEC has decided to suspend all industrial action to enable a referendum to take place. Therefore, you and your colleagues are instructed to work normally.

The referendum will be sent out tomorrow (Friday 6th December 2019) with a closing date of Thursday 19th December 2019, with the NEC strongly recommending acceptance of the proposal.

You and your colleagues have remained solid during this industrial action and have displayed clear solidarity throughout this dispute. There is no doubt that due to your determined and principled stance the union has been able to negotiate a deal that works for the company, the union and the travelling public. As you will see the offer guarantees a guard on the West Midlands network, ensures they are safety critical and means that accessibility and safety is not compromised.

Yours sincerely,

Mick Cash
General Secretary

This thread has been re-opened for further discussion of what has been agreed. It is not open for further discussion of whether or not DOO is a good or bad thing or any of the other variants of the DOO issue that have been done. To death. Any further such discussion is liable for deletion or having the thread re-locked.

 

[virgintrain1]

Hurrah! I just hope we don't see a repeat of SWR.

 

[Kite159]

It will be interesting to see what has been agreed to to what was originally offered.

(It will be interesting to see what happens on Saturday if some guards call in sick who have made alternative plans for the day)

 

[DarloRich]

Called off with a recommendation that RMT members accept the new deal offered.

Good.

 

[pompeyfan]

If a deal of driver open guard close does go through, it’ll only entrench their position on SWR. Good luck to all involved with the WMT deal.

 

[43066]

Good news.

As I understand it WMR are currently guard open/close. Any issues in terms of ASLEF and the drivers’ contracts with moving to driver open/guard close?

Somebody needs to parachute the negotiating team into SWR!

 

[Silverlinky]

ASLEF said they wouldn't even talk about changes until the RMT had agreed a deal and their position was clear.......thats the official line anyway. The company must be pretty confident that they can get this past ASLEF too.
It will of course come at a price as ASLEF are sure to negotiate a pay increase for Drivers off the back of this.....which pretty much blows the argument about it being to save money as it will actually cost more! All the guards are being retained on their existing salaries and the Drivers get a couple of grand extra each. Even two grand extra costs the company the best part of £2m a year.....600 or so drivers, pay, increased pension and NI etc.

As for Saturday...too late to alter the timetable that's already been put forward, so it will be the planned emergency timetable,,,,which should run effectively at least this Saturday!

 

[Carlisle]

Called off with a recommendation that RMT members accept the new deal offered.

Is a union often likely to put forward a deal without a recommendation to accept it?
Surely in those circumstances they just wouldn’t offer one in the first place .

 

[Carlisle]

It will of course come at a price as ASLEF are sure to negotiate a pay increase for Drivers off the back of this.....which pretty much blows the argument about it being to save money as it will actually cost more! All the guards are being retained on their existing salaries and the Drivers get a couple of grand extra each. Even two grand extra costs the company the best part of £2m a year.....600 or so drivers, pay, increased pension and NI etc.
!

Totally agree, If a TOC doesn’t want full driver door control like SWR propose, then guard open/close, is the best value for money, Driver release alone just increases costs without any worthwhile gains in staff productivity or flexibility

 

[43066]

Totally agree, If a TOC doesn’t want full driver door control like SWR propose, then guard open/close, is the best value for money, Driver release alone just increases costs without any worthwhile increase in staff productivity or flexibility, totally

I suppose it means guards can complete ticketing transactions etc. while a train is arriving into a station, without having to break off in order to check the train is correctly accommodated and open the doors.

On regularly stopping services this must add up to quite a time saving, and therefore more revenue will be generated.

 

[WatcherZero]

Good news.

As I understand it WMR are currently guard open/close. Any issues in terms of ASLEF and the drivers’ contracts with moving to driver open/guard close?

Somebody needs to parachute the negotiating team into SWR!

Reportedly that was the deal proposed by SWR and agreed by the union negotiating team but union upper management vetoed it! Also doubting whether the union would accept the same deal at Northern.

 

[ainsworth74]

We've not even moved on one page and I'm quite concerned we're about to go around the same arguments again. I'd beg everyone to tread carefully.

 

[Carlisle]

without having to break off in order to check the train is correctly accommodated and open the doors.
.

Not all TOCs insist on that procedure (open local door & step out before releasing) ,besides currently available Technology will soon render that process (where still used) largely redundant anyway

 

[TEW]

Reportedly that was the deal proposed by SWR and agreed by the union negotiating team but union upper management vetoed it! Also doubting whether the union would accept the same deal at Northern.

Nope, driver open and guard close was agreed in principle between SWR and the RMT, but never put in writing. SWRs latest offer was the driver having full control of the doors and was not accepted by the RMT at any level.

 

[43066]

Not all TOCs insist on that procedure anyway,besides currently available Technology will soon render that process largely redundant anyway

In the TL core I agree, but is there any plan to role balises out to the WMR network? Is their rolling stock compatible?

Noting the moderator’s comment above, and not wanting to get into the wider DOO debate, I reckon this is a good compromise all round for the WMR network.

Guards remain safety critical and guaranteed to be on the train, yet there is a definite commercial/operational advantage in terms of the time they will save by not having to release the doors.

 

[Carlisle]

If a deal of driver open guard close does go through, it’ll only entrench their position on SWR. .

Doubt it’ll make much difference as I believe WMT had ( presumably with full DFT knowledge ) already offered a form of driver open guard close (10 bell dispatch) on their new stock prior to the start of the SWR strike anyway. but as you say the whole DFT inconsistency on these matters hasn’t helped & suggests introducing DCO into UK regions with no history of that style of operations has for the time being been filed under the too difficult category .

 

[Bletchleyite]

ASLEF said they wouldn't even talk about changes until the RMT had agreed a deal and their position was clear.......thats the official line anyway. The company must be pretty confident that they can get this past ASLEF too.
It will of course come at a price as ASLEF are sure to negotiate a pay increase for Drivers off the back of this.....which pretty much blows the argument about it being to save money as it will actually cost more! All the guards are being retained on their existing salaries and the Drivers get a couple of grand extra each. Even two grand extra costs the company the best part of £2m a year.....600 or so drivers, pay, increased pension and NI etc.

It will save 10-15 seconds per stop, though - witness how much quicker you get a door release on the Southern services (which already use this method of operation) than the LNR ones. That actually could save money in delay payments, though probably not £2m a year!

It might also allow less revenue to, er, "escape".

As for Saturday...too late to alter the timetable that's already been put forward, so it will be the planned emergency timetable,,,,which should run effectively at least this Saturday!

Might be the most reliable they've been in months. If so, they know what they have to do...

 

[Silverlinky]

A word of caution......are we all assuming that the guard will spend more time in the train checking tickets without thinking about what the door controls will look like?

What if the only door controls are in the cabs? A guard would then have to make his/her way to the rear/intermediate cab to carry out the dispatch. Back to the 321 days before intermediate door controls. The 730 spec did not include intermediate door panels.....they are of course already there on 350's though.

Lets see what the "deal" looks like on paper first.