RMT Industrial Action - EMR

[43055]

Just to inconvenience EMR passengers even more the RMT are now going to strike on the London routes over safety of 12 car class 360 units. Personally I don't get it as other TOC's run trains without staff on portion of the train.

Does anyone know what the revised timetable would look like as I am intending to travel down to London next Sunday.

Train Managers to strike on East Midlands Railway - rmt

RMT Press Office:

Train Managers to strike on East Midlands Railway over safety

RAIL UNION RMT said that Train Managers on East Midlands Railway will be striking on Sundays in August and September as they escalate industrial action in their ongoing dispute over safety on Class 360 trains.

East Midlands Railway has imposed new working arrangements on the multi-unit 12 carriage Class 360 Trains that the union believes are unsafe with only one Train Manager working on them.

The industrial action will take place as follows:

The National Executive Committee has considered this matter and believes that we have no other alternative than to escalate the dispute and call strike action in the form of not working 12 car trains alone and strike action cross a number Sundays. Therefore, East Midlands Railway Train Managers are instructed to not book on for any shifts that commence between:

• 0001 hours and 2359 hours on Sunday 8th August 2021
• 0001 hours and 2359 hours on Sunday 15th August 2021
• 0001 hours and 2359 hours on Sunday 22nd August 2021
• 0001 hours and 2359 hours on Sunday 29th August 2021
• 0001 hours and 2359 hours on Sunday 5th September 2021
• 0001 hours and 2359 hours on Sunday 12th September 2021
• 0001 hours and 2359 hours on Sunday 19th September 2021
• 0001 hours and 2359 hours on Sunday 26th September 2021

Furthermore, you and your colleagues are instructed to take part in the following strike action in the form of:

• Not to work 12 car trains alone from 0001 Hours on Saturday 7th August 2021 until further notice.

Please Note: The above industrial strike action, is suspended during the Sunday strike action dates above, but will commence again immediately at 0001 hours on the Monday, following the Sunday strike action, and will be suspended again at 2359 on each Saturday, on the eve of the Sunday action.

RMT General Secretary, Mick Lynch, said:

“This dispute is about safety.

“East Midlands Railway has introduced new working arrangements for Class 360 trains without any formal agreement with RMT, the union that represents Train Managers working the service.

“RMT believes that the Class 360 method of working that the company has imposed is not safe and that a second safety critical person, preferably a Train Manager, should be in each portion of the multi-unit trains.

“The union remains available for talks.”

 

[whoosh]

There was a dispute years ago along similar lines with Meridians running in multiple (8,9, and 10 cars). This was resolved with a Train Manager in each portion.

I think maybe the RMT feel it will erode their position (and current agreements) on Meridians and future Hitachi trains if they sit back over twelve car 360s.

I believe 12 car 360s were run on Greater Anglia with only one Guard (possibly Driver Only in places). Great Northern did have 12 car 365s (and 321s as well once upon a time) until recently with just a Driver, both of which have no gangways between units.
Although they are different companies with different negotiated arrangements, it does weaken RMT's case (a bit like how 12 car Thameslink DOO on the Brighton Mainline weakened their case in the Southern dispute over the role of the Guard).


I can't see them doing well out of it either way - in fact I was very surprised that 360s were chosen for the Corby service and not DOO in-cab-CCTV-ready 379s - although by chance they happen to have not been finished with by Greater Anglia yet.

 

[GALLANTON]

I'm guessing this is to do with the Class 360s not having inter-unit gangways? And if so, is there anywhere else on the network where 12 car sets operate without inter-unit gangways and one guard/train manager?

 

[43096]

I'm guessing this is to do with the Class 360s not having inter-unit gangways? And if so, is there anywhere else on the network where 12 car sets operate without inter-unit gangways and one guard/train manager?

Didn't the 360s run on the GE in 12-car formation in such a way; indeed may have been with NO guard. Likewise, 365s on the Great Northern and 465s on South Eastern have run as 12-car, I believe.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

I'm guessing this is to do with the Class 360s not having inter-unit gangways? And if so, is there anywhere else on the network where 12 car sets operate without inter-unit gangways and one guard/train manager?

The very same 360s ran as DOO in 12 car formation on Greater Anglia and the 321s still do. Where they run off DOO limits only 1 guard is provided on a 12 car.

Southerns class 171 work as multiple block ended units on the Uckfield line (eg 4+4+2) with only one guard, there again these replaced Class 205s which weren’t even gangwayed within units.

 

[Robertj21a]

About time we increased DOO.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

About time we increased DOO.

Indeed if 12 EMUs can run to Bedford multiple times an hour what’s the issue with extending DOO to Corby. Would make a lot of sense operationally as on board staff could then be left to look after the passengers in much the same way as OBS staff on Southern.

 

[GALLANTON]

Sounds like the RMT are just trying to make a nuisance of themselves. If 12 trains can run on other routes either DOO or with 1 guard then why is it suddenly an issue?

 

[Kite159]

Sounds like the RMT are just trying to make a nuisance of themselves. If 12 trains can run on other routes either DOO or with 1 guard then why is it suddenly an issue?

Especially as trains run in multiple without gangways meaning one part has no member of staff within that unit.

Ie SWR with 455+456+456 combos
Southern with triple 171s
Even in GA when the 360s worked to Clacton & other routes which had guards join midway as triple units
Maybe even Chiltern if they run triple units North of Banbury on certain trains

[Plus C2C when they had guards for 12 coach operation]

------

I assume loadings on the Corby services have picked up on certain trains that triple units have been considered?

 

[GALLANTON]

I know they only run in 6 car formations up here but the RMT don't seem to be bothered about ticket examiners having to switch units while working services operated by 318s, 320s, and 334s. I'm also certain they don't get in a fizz when guards on 158+170 combos have to switch units(if they do that is).

 

[24Grange]

With the railways hemorrhaging money at the moment - is this a good battle to nail their colours too?

 

[STINT47]

I doubt that this has much to do with safety but is more about getting better pay and conditions for staff. Examples of trains running ith 12 cars, no connection between units and only one conductor or even just a driver exisit already and the union hasn't gone on strike over it. I traveled on a 10 car South Eastern service that was three Networkers couples together in June was I in mortal danger especialy as an evacuation would be onto a potentialy live third rail.

The RMT puts about safety as saying we want more money and better conditions at a time when people are lossing jobs, facong pay freezes and worse conditions would be crass even by their standards.

 

[the sniper]

I think maybe the RMT feel it will erode their position (and current agreements) on Meridians and future Hitachi trains if they sit back over twelve car 360s.

Indeed.

It's a dispute over what is an agreement. People here can cite whatever examples they like, if every agreement in a TOC could be automatically superseded because things are done differently elsewhere, then agreements would be worthless. If you want the same system of work agreed nationally, maybe the fragmentation of the industry, which is set to continue on the staff side, is actually to blame...

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

How much effort will EMR put in to fight RMT when they just have to sit back and collect the management fee while DofT pick up the bill.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

How much effort will EMR put in to fight RMT when they just have to sit back and collect the management fee while DofT pick up the bill.

Why fight - as in Scotland it’s proved you can save money by not running trains on Sundays which is when the strikes are. Just let them get on with it and bank the cost savings.

 

[warwickshire]

Yes great Anglia 1000am braintree to London liverpool Street 12 car 321.
But only as far as Witham.
Then driver only to London liverpool Street.
Only remaining Anglia 12 car class 321 at momment retaining a guard.

 

[Watershed]

As always, you've got to look beyond the bluster of the press release. This has very little to do with safety - otherwise the RMT wouldn't have agreed to run trains without a member of staff in each portion on other TOCs!

This is really about forcing EMR into employing more Train Managers when/if they want to operate triple 360s, and/or being more reliant on overtime and RDW. Which, by total coincidence, means the RMT ends up with more members, that are better paid, and with more leverage for future negotiations.

Of course, if enough money is made available, I'm sure the safety concerns will suddenly be allayed. But with the current DfT line on pay rises, it's easy to foresee a 21st-century 'winter of discontent' as more and more of these disputes pile up.

 

[Bald Rick]

It's a dispute over what is an agreement. People here can cite whatever examples they like, if every agreement in a TOC could be automatically superseded because things are done differently elsewhere, then agreements would be worthless.

It’s not. It’s a dispute about the RMT trying to throw its weight around (again), dressed up as a dispute about what is in an agreement.

Agreements can be changed, by further agreement, but it takes two to tango. Unions are under an obligation to consider proposed changes that allow progress. In this case, the RMT have evidently decided not to agree the proposal. They clearly think that it is not reasonable to change an agreement to reflect the progress that has been made with other companies, in some cases over a century ago, and thus the examples quoted are very relevant.

It’s really quite simple - a minor change to the agreement where no one loses any jobs, or pay. Indeed quite the opposite - the introduction of the 360s have led to more jobs (and RMT members). Given the 360s were due to be introduced in service last December, this will no doubt have been the subject of discussion between the company and RMT for about a year, and the RMT have evidently refused to agree to it throughout that time. I would love to see what their rationale for not accepting the proposal is. I’d be willing to bet that the local reps are happy with the proposal, but that they have been told not to agree it by those further up in the union.

I do wonder what all the new members at Kettering depot are thinking about this, given they were specifically recruited on the basis of operating 12 car trains. Besides, it seems particularly irrational to take industrial action on a matter that is currently irrelevant - ie that 12 car 360s are not running at the moment and are unlikely to do so for some time.

 

[Kite159]

The RMT would love for more staff to be employed (more staff = more subs), even if that member of staff basically sits in the middle unit of a triple 360 doing nothing, other than maybe the odd ticket check [until the "chancers" discover that the front unit has less chance of getting gripped].

 

[74A]

I believe when the 170 were first introduced by what was Midland Mainline there was only one TM even though there was no gangway.

Then RMT went into dispute and Midland Mainline gave in and agreed to one TM for each unit.

12 car 360 would need 3 TM which I doubt EMR have enough staff to provide. And as many posters have said there are many TOC which run non interconnecting trains in multiple with only 1 TM/conductor.

Can see this one dragging on for a long time.

 

[Bald Rick]

AIUI it is about having a safety critical member of staff for each unit. For two units the driver plus TM is sufficient.

 

[43066]

I do wonder what all the new members at Kettering depot are thinking about this, given they were specifically recruited on the basis of operating 12 car trains. Besides, it seems particularly irrational to take industrial action on a matter that is currently irrelevant - ie that 12 car 360s are not running at the moment and are unlikely to do so for some time.

Kettering drivers and TMs also interwork with intercity services (and will sign 810s in due course). None are dedicated to the 360 fleet, albeit clearly they make up a large portion of the work.

[until the "chancers" discover that the front unit has less chance of getting gripped].

Already happened!

 

[24Grange]

Driver is in one - TM is in the rear one ? No?

 

[74A]

RMT believes that the Class 360 method of working that the company has imposed is not safe and that a second safety critical person, preferably a Train Manager, should be in each portion of the multi-unit trains.

From the RMT press release. A TM in each portion 3 TM in a 12 car and 2 TM in an 8 car.

 

[Watershed]

RMT believes that the Class 360 method of working that the company has imposed is not safe and that a second safety critical person, preferably a Train Manager, should be in each portion of the multi-unit trains.

From the RMT press release. A TM in each portion 3 TM in a 12 car and 2 TM in an 8 car.

I don't think they are suggesting there would necessarily have to be 3 train managers on a 12 car (though no doubt they'd quite like that!).

 

[Kite159]

I don't think they are suggesting there would necessarily have to be 3 train managers on a 12 car (though no doubt they'd quite like that!).

And if they somehow get their demands for having a guard per unit, will they set their sights on other operators who run trains in multiple with only 1 guard with no gangways citing that it is also unsafe for the front unit to only have the driver in?

 

[43096]

RMT believes that the Class 360 method of working that the company has imposed is not safe and that a second safety critical person, preferably a Train Manager, should be in each portion of the multi-unit trains.

From the RMT press release. A TM in each portion 3 TM in a 12 car and 2 TM in an 8 car.

Which is clearly nonsense and demonstrably so. They're just playing the safety card because they think it sounds better publicly. If they really think it's about safety, why haven't they been in dispute over (say) SWR running 455+456+456 formations where you also have three units with no gangway. Or the 360s on Greater Anglia. Or 321s. Or 465/466s. Or...

 

[74A]

I don't think they are suggesting there would necessarily have to be 3 train managers on a 12 car (though no doubt they'd quite like that!).

Well they are saying safety critical and there are only TM are safety critical so I don't know who else it could be.

 

[the sniper]

It’s not. It’s a dispute about the RMT trying to throw its weight around (again), dressed up as a dispute about what is in an agreement.

Agreements can be changed, by further agreement, but it takes two to tango. Unions are under an obligation to consider proposed changes that allow progress. In this case, the RMT have evidently decided not to agree the proposal. They clearly think that it is not reasonable to change an agreement to reflect the progress that has been made with other companies, in some cases over a century ago, and thus the examples quoted are very relevant.

It’s really quite simple - a minor change to the agreement where no one loses any jobs, or pay. Indeed quite the opposite - the introduction of the 360s have led to more jobs (and RMT members). Given the 360s were due to be introduced in service last December, this will no doubt have been the subject of discussion between the company and RMT for about a year, and the RMT have evidently refused to agree to it throughout that time. I would love to see what their rationale for not accepting the proposal is. I’d be willing to bet that the local reps are happy with the proposal, but that they have been told not to agree it by those further up in the union.

I do wonder what all the new members at Kettering depot are thinking about this, given they were specifically recruited on the basis of operating 12 car trains. Besides, it seems particularly irrational to take industrial action on a matter that is currently irrelevant - ie that 12 car 360s are not running at the moment and are unlikely to do so for some time.

I've never really brought into the idea pedalled here for almost every RMT dispute that it's always just to get more members, which is frankly irrelevant to people on the ground. This is a dispute with a lot of baggage for the TM grade in this franchise and its predecessors.

You say "They clearly think that it is not reasonable to change an agreement to reflect the progress that has been made with other companies". On that basis you'd agree to one TM on any 360x2 or x3, because it's done elsewhere. Well, now you've agreed that, you haven't got a leg to stand on defending 2 TMs on 222x2. A subsequent dispute over that would be greeted here and by the TOC with, 'well, RMT agreed to one TM on 360x2, what's the difference'... Any concession made here to 'be reasonable' will almost inevitable cost them further down the road, it's a slippery slope.

 

[ExRes]

I believe when the 170 were first introduced by what was Midland Mainline there was only one TM even though there was no gangway.

Then RMT went into dispute and Midland Mainline gave in and agreed to one TM for each unit.

The norm for that period was a TM in one unit and a Senior Host in the other whenever possible, I had a fair few pairs when it was just the TM in the rear and me in the front which was considered perfectly acceptable