Scotrail Guards Dispute

[Falcon1200]

National Rail Enquiries report an impending Scotrail Guards dispute;

Incident: IA SR | National Rail

Industrial action to affect ScotRail on weekends from Saturday 18 May until Sunday 2 June. Find details of all current incidents on National Rail Enquiries.

www.nationalrail.co.uk

Industrial action to affect ScotRail services has been announced by the RMT Union. A series of 48 hour strikes will take place on the following weekends:

• Saturday 18 and Sunday 19 May
• Saturday 25 and Sunday 26 May
• Saturday 1 and Sunday 2 June

Each weekend, the following routes will be affected:

• Glasgow Central - East Kilbride
• Glasgow - Barrhead / Kilmarnock
• Glasgow - Dumfries / Carlisle
• Glasgow Central - Ayr
• Glasgow Central - Stranraer

Further information will be provided on the impact of this strike action once known.
You can find more details on ScotRail's website here.

Presumably in connection with extending Driver Only Operation to the newly electrified routes.

 

[Bill57p9]

In reality, there have not been any services between Kilmarnock, Ayr and Stranraer since the Ayr Station Hotel fire in Ayr last September.
Electric services between Glasgow Central and Prestwick are (already) Driver Only Operation. The Prestwick to Ayr shuttle could be affected.

 

[Christmas]

This dispute was entirely avoidable. ScotRail has the power to halt it immediately by simply implementing DOCCO, driver open conductor close operation. This method is already in place using the class 380 on the Shotts line.

What ScotRail management is trying to implement is a fourth method of working, where the driver is in charge of the doors. The management has stated that a conductor will always be on board (not a ticket examiner) and that the train will not run without them.

Now we get into the nitty gritty. The above comes with the caveat that the train will only run without a conductor IF the driver thinks that it is safe to do so. This was agreed with ASLEF and is frankly disappointing and wrong. To leave the decision of running or cancelling a train to individual drivers is a total sell out from ASLEF.

RMT members have been backed into a corner. They would accept DOCCO, so this is entirely the fault of ScotRail management, in particular a character called Phil Campbell who seems determined to push this through. Contingency conductors (!) will be in place to operate the trains. Frankly, a horrible situation created by someone spoiling for a fight.

 

[Carntyne]

This dispute was entirely avoidable. ScotRail has the power to halt it immediately by simply implementing DOCCO, driver open conductor close operation. This method is already in place using the class 380 on the Shotts line.

What ScotRail management is trying to implement is a fourth method of working, where the driver is in charge of the doors. The management has stated that a conductor will always be on board (not a ticket examiner) and that the train will not run without them.

Now we get into the nitty gritty. The above comes with the caveat that the train will only run without a conductor IF the driver thinks that it is safe to do so. This was agreed with ASLEF and is frankly disappointing and wrong. To leave the decision of running or cancelling a train to individual drivers is a total sell out from ASLEF.

RMT members have been backed into a corner. They would accept DOCCO, so this is entirely the fault of ScotRail management, in particular a character called Phil Campbell who seems determined to push this through. Contingency conductors (!) will be in place to operate the trains. Frankly, a horrible situation created by someone spoiling for a fight.

ScotRail shouldn't have given in on the DOO fight a few years ago and pushed it through.

 

[GordonT]

Genuine question. What are the distinctive features of the Barrhead and the East Kilbride lines that justify anything other than the arrangements originally enshrined in the Strathclyde Manning Agreement decades ago with trains being worked by Driver and Ticket Examiner and not subject to cancellation on the odd occasion of no Ticket Examiner available?

 

[Carlisle]

I think the above 2 posts sum up the realities of the current situation extremely well, can’t really add anything else worthwhile

 

[theironroad]

This dispute was entirely avoidable. ScotRail has the power to halt it immediately by simply implementing DOCCO, driver open conductor close operation. This method is already in place using the class 380 on the Shotts line.

What ScotRail management is trying to implement is a fourth method of working, where the driver is in charge of the doors. The management has stated that a conductor will always be on board (not a ticket examiner) and that the train will not run without them.

Now we get into the nitty gritty. The above comes with the caveat that the train will only run without a conductor IF the driver thinks that it is safe to do so. This was agreed with ASLEF and is frankly disappointing and wrong. To leave the decision of running or cancelling a train to individual drivers is a total sell out from ASLEF.

RMT members have been backed into a corner. They would accept DOCCO, so this is entirely the fault of ScotRail management, in particular a character called Phil Campbell who seems determined to push this through. Contingency conductors (!) will be in place to operate the trains. Frankly, a horrible situation created by someone spoiling for a fight.

(My green highlighting)

Really poor that ASLEF have agreed this and wonder what individual members think about it. It's putting Drivers in the middle of a dispute between Conductors & Management and Drivers will be put under pressure from their managers and control to run, even when the driver thinks it's not right.

 

[Towers]

(My green highlighting)

Really poor that ASLEF have agreed this and wonder what individual members think about it. It's putting Drivers in the middle of a dispute between Conductors & Management and Drivers will be put under pressure from their managers and control to run, even when the driver thinks it's not right.

Aslef may have agreed this with the thinking being that drivers are unlikely ever to decide that it is “safe”, however it would remain to be seen how it would play out in reality. If a driver just wants to get home on their last train of the day, might they be more inclined to feel it is “safe” than if it were their first train? Or might they feel it is definitely not “safe” on the outbound journey of the last round trip of their job, conveniently resulting in an early finish?

If this really is as described (big caveat there!), then it’s a p*ss poor agreement and Aslef need to give their head a wobble, not necessarily for the benefit of the RMT but just to avoid agreeing to such loose and poorly thought out proposals again in the future. There needs to be a clear baseline set of criteria to define what is normally “safe”, what makes a situation not “safe”, and where and why the judgement of a driver is allowed to affect either situation.

 

[Falcon1200]

What are the distinctive features of the Barrhead and the East Kilbride lines that justify anything other than the arrangements originally enshrined in the Strathclyde Manning Agreement decades ago with trains being worked by Driver and Ticket Examiner and not subject to cancellation on the odd occasion of no Ticket Examiner available?

No distinctive features at all; Class 380 sets now depart the same terminus (Glasgow Central), controlled by the same Signalling Centre (West of Scotland), serve essentially the same area (Glasgow south western suburbs), and terminate at two stations less than 3 miles apart (Barrhead and Neilston); Yet the Barrhead trains must have a Guard whereas the Neilstons (among many others) have run DOO for decades.

 

[Kite159]

And what's the difference this time between Glasgow to East Kilbride & Barrhead compared to the Whifflet, Paisley Canal & Cumbernauld* lines which switched to the Strathclyde Manning Agreement style DOO with ticket examiners when those lines got wired up?

(*Motherwell to Cumbernauld plus the short lived Queen Street low level to Cumbernauld EMUs before the wires extended to Falkirk)

 

[GordonT]

No distinctive features at all; Class 380 sets now depart the same terminus (Glasgow Central), controlled by the same Signalling Centre (West of Scotland), serve essentially the same area (Glasgow south western suburbs), and terminate at two stations less than 3 miles apart (Barrhead and Neilston); Yet the Barrhead trains must have a Guard whereas the Neilstons (among many others) have run DOO for decades.

So am I right in saying that the train operator caved in and for no operational justification agreed that conductors would be retained on Barrhead and EK services? And instead of being consumed with glee at this bizarre concession the conductors are in dispute about who should work the doors?

 

[Carntyne]

So am I right in saying that the train operator caved in and for no operational justification agreed that conductors would be retained on Barrhead and EK services? And instead of being consumed with glee at this bizarre concession the conductors are in dispute about who should work the doors?

Yes.

Scotrail will have wanted an easy life with no strikes, and it has come back to bite them on the bum.

 

[GordonT]

Yes.

Scotrail will have wanted an easy life with no strikes, and it has come back to bite them on the bum.

A good case study in why adopting the line of least resistance can expose weak management.

 

[380101]

This dispute was entirely avoidable. ScotRail has the power to halt it immediately by simply implementing DOCCO, driver open conductor close operation. This method is already in place using the class 380 on the Shotts line.

What ScotRail management is trying to implement is a fourth method of working, where the driver is in charge of the doors. The management has stated that a conductor will always be on board (not a ticket examiner) and that the train will not run without them.

Now we get into the nitty gritty. The above comes with the caveat that the train will only run without a conductor IF the driver thinks that it is safe to do so. This was agreed with ASLEF and is frankly disappointing and wrong. To leave the decision of running or cancelling a train to individual drivers is a total sell out from ASLEF.

RMT members have been backed into a corner. They would accept DOCCO, so this is entirely the fault of ScotRail management, in particular a character called Phil Campbell who seems determined to push this through. Contingency conductors (!) will be in place to operate the trains. Frankly, a horrible situation created by someone spoiling for a fight.

The "caveat" as you refer to it as, only applies to the current SMA DOO services that have Ticket Examiners onboard and will come into force from the December timetable change. A massive upgrade to the current SMA in my opinion, and as a driver I'm happy that the company have suddenly decided that Ticket Examiners are indeed vital to the running of safe trains in the Strathclyde area.

Barrhead and East Kilbride will remain Driver/conductor operated with the Driver in control of all door operations - RMT have signed off similar agreements in other areas of the UK. No Conductor and the train WILL NOT run as per current practice.

I suspect the compromise to resolve the current dispute will be to agree DOCO.

I'd post the full agreement but suspect it would breach the social media policy unfortunately given that it has not been posted in full anywhere publicly yet.

 

[68000]

I have travelled in the Strathclyde area (commuting for work and leisure) for over 30 years now, all of them on DOO services and they have been perfectly safe

 

[Christmas]

I have travelled in the Strathclyde area (commuting for work and leisure) for over 30 years now, all of them on DOO services and they have been perfectly safe

Good for you.

The "caveat" as you refer to it as, only applies to the current SMA DOO services that have Ticket Examiners onboard and will come into force from the December timetable change. A massive upgrade to the current SMA in my opinion, and as a driver I'm happy that the company have suddenly decided that Ticket Examiners are indeed vital to the running of safe trains in the Strathclyde area.

Barrhead and East Kilbride will remain Driver/conductor operated with the Driver in control of all door operations - RMT have signed off similar agreements in other areas of the UK. No Conductor and the train WILL NOT run as per current practice.

I suspect the compromise to resolve the current dispute will be to agree DOCO.

I'd post the full agreement but suspect it would breach the social media policy unfortunately given that it has not been posted in full anywhere publicly yet.

You must have missed the information put out by your own union (assuming that you are in it) about the train not being able to run without a second staff member "unless the driver says so". Source: Kevin Lindsay, ASLEF.

 

[Carlisle]

Good for you.

You must have missed the information put out by your own union (assuming that you are in it) about the train not being able to run without a second staff member "unless the driver says so". Source: Kevin Lindsay, ASLEF.

That applies to the existing & longstanding DOO routes not the East Kilbride & Barrhead lines under discussion here where guaranteed conductors on all services are proposed.

 

[GordonT]

Good for you.

You must have missed the information put out by your own union (assuming that you are in it) about the train not being able to run without a second staff member "unless the driver says so". Source: Kevin Lindsay, ASLEF.

The operation or non operation of a journey resting upon the whim of whichever driver happens to be rostered for a journey without a second staff member seems a bit of a bodge. It has echoes of maybe c.50 years ago when there was similar contention around the need or otherwise for a second staff member in the cab of locomotives.

 

[Ashley Hill]

the conductors are in dispute about who should work the doors?

If guards have a role in door operation then it ensures that the train must have a guard.

 

[Blindtraveler]

Honestly what a complete pickle. I would say it a guess that it will just be Glasgow based crew that are affected, services operated by Dumfries Woods at a gas be less affected other than perhaps some stock shortages

I normally take a Pro staff but anti-union approach when it comes to industrial relations but on this occasion I think there's blame on all sides and ultimately both staff and passengers suffer because the whole situation as has been pointed out could have been avoided

 

[Carlisle]

And what's the difference this time between Glasgow to East Kilbride & Barrhead compared to the Whifflet, Paisley Canal & Cumbernauld* lines which switched to the Strathclyde Manning Agreement style DOO with ticket examiners when those lines got wired up?

Nothing going by previous reports & other posts on here, just weak management & poor political oversight in recent years.

 

[GordonT]

Nothing going by previous reports & other posts, just weak management & poor political oversight in recent years.

Currently and historically has there been a degree of interworking of traincrews across services worked by Class 156 units to/from Glasgow Central and Barrhead/Kilmarnock/Carlisle via Dumfries/East Kilbride/Stranraer? I wonder how efficient resource utilisation will be once part of the operation is electric and the remainder diesel.

 

[roymunson]

I hope for the guards sake that management agree to their preferred means of operation. Perhaps they feel that this is an attack on their grade?

 

[Carlisle]

Perhaps they feel that this is an attack on their grade?

Possibly but Greater Anglia, SWR, Merseyrail & Southeastern guards already have in place very similar operational working agreements to the Scotrail proposals.

 

[laseandre]

I normally take a Pro staff but anti-union approach when it comes to industrial relations

So you take an anti-staff approach, then? Considering the unions *are* the staff.

 

[Towers]

So you take an anti-staff approach, then? Considering the unions *are* the staff.

Don’t think that’s fair, plenty of occasions where staff are openly displeased at their union’s chosen actions.

For instance, when the RMT had everybody out together, was it the decision of frontline operational staff to be on strike over jobs in the ticket offices, or was it the their union being clever knowing very well that the ticket office staff striking separately would have had zero impact? Did that decision aid or hamper the cause for those operational grades who were inadvertantly supporting a national campaign to protect different colleagues’ jobs?

A union might comprise staff, but those staff don’t have much sway over their unions’ politics or decision making.

 

[al78]

So you take an anti-staff approach, then? Considering the unions *are* the staff.

You're either with us or against us.

It is possible to be largely supportive of a category of people but object to their actions in a minority of situations. Supporting someone 95% of the time and disagreeing 5% of the time does not equate to being anti-that person. Why the binary thinking?

 

[roymunson]

For the staff, I.e those who voted in favour of the industrial action but against the unions for actioning it?

 

[najaB]

For instance, when the RMT had everybody out together, was it the decision of frontline operational staff to be on strike over jobs in the ticket offices, or was it the their union being clever knowing very well that the ticket office staff striking separately would have had zero impact?

That's one of the fundamental principles of the labour movement: management moves that are detrimental to any role will be resisted by all roles.

 

[skyhigh]

For the staff, I.e those who voted in favour of the industrial action but against the unions for actioning it?

How can you vote in favour of industrial action but against the unions actioning it??

That's simply how the ballot works - do you support action short of a strike? do you support strike action?