Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal

[Darandio]

However when you invite the public into a space even if they have to pay the space then becomes public for the period of time the public has access to it.

It's not that simple though, especially if we go back to this....

Any member of the public can film or take pictures in any public space they like and they don't need anybodies permission to do so.

....again, not as simple as made out.

If you are on private property, regardless of whether you believe it to be a public space or not, you can be asked not to take pictures and you are obligated to honour the request.

The employer of Flamingo and 455driver are telling employees as a company rule that they cannot stop people taking photos, it's not because they wouldn't be allowed to do so from a legal standpoint.

 

[Emmery]

It's not that simple though, especially if we go back to this....



....again, not as simple as made out.

If you are on private property, regardless of whether you believe it to be a public space or not, you can be asked not to take pictures and you are obligated to honour the request.

The employer of Flamingo and 455driver are telling employees as a company rule that they cannot stop people taking photos, it's not because they wouldn't be allowed to do so from a legal standpoint.

You can be asked to do anything by anybody as long as it's not against the law. If you comply with the request is a matter for yourself. The station is private land so you can ask the person to leave for failing to comply with a request such as taking photos.

You certainly can't stop a person taking photos you can ask them to stop or ask them to leave.

Can the TOC insist employees don't ask people to stop taking photos. I don't know. Help please.

 

[cjmillsnun]

It's not that simple though, especially if we go back to this....



....again, not as simple as made out.

If you are on private property, regardless of whether you believe it to be a public space or not, you can be asked not to take pictures and you are obligated to honour the request.

The employer of Flamingo and 455driver are telling employees as a company rule that they cannot stop people taking photos, it's not because they wouldn't be allowed to do so from a legal standpoint.

Correct. As a photographer, on private land, even private land the public are invited onto (for example a supermarket, railway station or shopping centre), you follow the rules as laid down by the landowner, tenant or their agent. If however you are in the street looking onto the private land, then its fair game, even if the landowner objects.

 

[Robertj21a]

You can take photos unhindered if you are in any *public* place although there may be some instances (usually MoD) with specific restrictions. It may also be inadvisable in today's world to take photographs of mosques, synagogues, school children etc etc - but it's not against the law as such.

Bus stations are generally private property (with access rights for the public intending to use the services) and I would have thought that railway stations were the same.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Can the TOC insist employees don't ask people to stop taking photos. I don't know. Help please.

Yes, a TOC's employee must follow Company policy or reasonable Company requests provided that policy is within the law, which it is. Same as any employee.

 

[BestWestern]

Yes, a TOC's employee must follow Company policy or reasonable Company requests provided that policy is within the law, which it is. Same as any employee.

Indeed. The basis of such a policy is of course nothing to do with any legal position regarding photography, it is merely a part of the general 'conflict avoidance' approach and is aimed at preventing matters from escalating. The advice that I have seen points out that a staff member doing their job properly has little to fear; the film wouldn't make for very interesting viewing!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed. The basis of such a policy is of course nothing to do with any legal position regarding photography, it is merely a part of the general 'conflict avoidance' approach and is aimed at preventing matters from escalating. The advice that I have seen points out that a staff member doing their job properly has little to fear; the film wouldn't make for very interesting viewing!

Or might even confirm that the employee was doing their job correctly, as a result of which the complaining passenger can be told to get lost.

 

[455driver]

A station, platform or inside of a train is classed as a public space.

No they are not, they are private property with an inferred right to access, that inferred right comes with some rules and regs that you agree to by entering that private property, if you break any of the rules or regs then that inferred right can be removed at any time.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It can be made a condition of admission to such a space that photographs are not taken, however, and it can be treated as trespass if they then do. The railway has chosen not to impose this condition, but other places, like some shopping centres and for obvious reasons most swimming pools, do.

Our local one has decided to allow photographs, hence me stopping the kids swimming lessons, seeing people prancing around the pool taking pictures of all the kids has caused quite a stink down here.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Our local one has decided to allow photographs, hence me stopping the kids swimming lessons, seeing people prancing around the pool taking pictures of all the kids has caused quite a stink down here.

Are they not mostly taking pictures of their own kids?

Not being able to swim is a far greater actual risk to your kids (unless you can find another pool) than having a photo taken, even if said photo is then misused on a website.

 

[Emmery]

No they are not, they are private property with an inferred right to access, that inferred right comes with some rules and regs that you agree to by entering that private property, if you break any of the rules or regs then that inferred right can be removed at any time.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I have already said they are private property, that's not in dispute. You can also remove the consent to be on the property that's also not in dispute. The point is when you allow the public into a space that space then becomes a public place for the time the public have access to it. The right of the private land owner to put conditions on the space runs along side this.

You can take photo's in any public place, however if the land owner puts conditions in place they have the right to do so as it's there land.

I'm surprised people have been allowed to take photos of people in a swimming pool. I though everywhere banned that sort of thing ages ago.

 

[IKB]

The GTR v ASLEF dispute has been concluded - the trail date of 27th June has been vacated. Presumably ASLEF realised they couldn't win and have withdrawn at the 11th hour.

See here:

http://www.aslef.org.uk/information/100012/144472/consent_order/

 

[Deepgreen]

The GTR v ASLEF dispute has been concluded - the trail date of 27th June has been vacated. Presumably ASLEF realised they couldn't win and have withdrawn at the 11th hour.

See here:

http://www.aslef.org.uk/information/100012/144472/consent_order/

It appears to have cost ASLEF £250,000 in costs, too.

 

[Domh245]

It appears to have cost ASLEF £250,000 in costs, too.

£250,000 + their legal fees + GTR's legal fees. That's going to hurt.

 

[DarloRich]

It appears to have cost ASLEF £250,000 in costs, too.

Plus their own costs!

Why cant the unions get legal matters right? They need to start taking lawyers to top level consultation meetings and have each clause assessed by their lawyers before agreement.

If the employer is to constantly resort to the assistance of our learned friends then the union must do the same.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

£250,000 + their legal fees + GTR's legal fees. That's going to hurt.

no: its £250k for GTR costs plus their own costs UNLESS the fees are disputed and subject to detailed assessment.

 

[Domh245]

no: its £250k for GTR costs plus their own costs UNLESS the fees are disputed and subject to detailed assessment.

So it is. One for the legal profession then, would the legal fees be about £250k?

 

[Tetchytyke]

If the employer is to constantly resort to the assistance of our learned friends then the union must do the same.

I couldn't agree more with this.

It's a very sad day for democracy that employers can continually get the courts to prevent strike action on technicalities, but the courts don't have the same appetite for enforcing technicalities when it is employers riding roughshod over employment law.

 

[74A]

So I guess that is it then. The changes GTR propose to extend DOO will happen at the end of July.

 

[DarloRich]

So it is. One for the legal profession then, would the legal fees be about £250k?

I don't think RMT will argue. Detailed assessment will only increase the costs. EVERYTHING gets costed then

 

[Deepgreen]

£250,000 + their legal fees + GTR's legal fees. That's going to hurt.

Deleted.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Where does this leave the RMT action - will it have any effect on their strategy?

 

[Anvil1984]

So I guess that is it then. The changes GTR propose to extend DOO will happen at the end of July.

Could be just my reading but wasn't the "unlawful" ballot just in regards to Gatwick Express services and not the further extension

 

[Robertj21a]

No they are not, they are private property with an inferred right to access, that inferred right comes with some rules and regs that you agree to by entering that private property, if you break any of the rules or regs then that inferred right can be removed at any time.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I have already said they are private property, that's not in dispute. You can also remove the consent to be on the property that's also not in dispute. The point is when you allow the public into a space that space then becomes a public place for the time the public have access to it. The right of the private land owner to put conditions on the space runs along side this.

You can take photo's in any public place, however if the land owner puts conditions in place they have the right to do so as it's there land.

I'm not sure if you're trying to make this more confusing than it needs to be or if you're saying something slightly different to my understanding.

If we ignore special arrangements for things like MoD land, any person in a public place can take photographs of virtually anything they wish. However, if that person is on private land, say a bus station, they may well be restricted from taking any photos at all. In law it doesn't become a public place just because the public may have access to it.
.

 

[DarloRich]

Where does this leave the RMT action - will it have any effect on their strategy?

I doubt it will impact at all. The events are separate although predicated on similar concerns.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

So I guess that is it then. The changes GTR propose to extend DOO will happen at the end of July.

That is not long then. Does this mean that all guards/conductors will have to accept OBS roles by then?

 

[74A]

Could be just my reading but wasn't the "unlawful" ballot just in regards to Gatwick Express services and not the further extension

While that may be true my reading of it is that ASLEF cannot call strike action to prevent members carrying there contractural duties. In this case it is 12 car DOO trains. The same argument probably applies to operating DOO trains over new routes. It would certainly apply over the Brighton main line where at the moment some trains are DOO and some are not.

So if ASLEF had better start a new ballot soon otherwise it will be too late. I note on the ASLEF website there is no mention as to what ASLEF intend to do next.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That is not long then. Does this mean that all guards/conductors will have to accept OBS roles by then?

Either that or take redundancy if they don't want to be OBS

 

[XDM]

Aslef's decision is pragmatic & sensible & demonstrates why it is such a successful Union. RMT would have demanded an even more expensive day in court,lost, & blustered on like the dinosaur it is until it had spent every last penny of members money on wasted costs. Drivers are the future of Southern (& many guards can become drivers). Because the selection tests are quite demanding most drivers are calibre employees &,as the statistics show, well able to do DOO safely.

 

[Emmery]

I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall. If you allow the public into a space it becomes a public place. Here is a list of 14 different sections of law that say the same thing. pages 12 and 13

http://www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/Documents/...rivate_places_and_dwellings_February_2014.pdf

 

[74A]

Aslef's decision is pragmatic & sensible & demonstrates why it is such a successful Union. RMT would have demanded an even more expensive day in court,lost, & blustered on like the dinosaur it is until it had spent every last penny of members money on wasted costs. Drivers are the future of Southern (& many guards can become drivers). Because the selection tests are quite demanding most drivers are calibre employees &,as the statistics show, well able to do DOO safely.

I agree with you up to the point they tried to say they could stop further extension of DOO. Previously they had accepted that it would happen at Overground, Scotrail etc.

The attempt to stop it has now cost the union at least £250,000 plus their own expenses. Money that will have to be found by the members.

Also now that this court case has happened other companies will say to them well we are going to do this as well. So they have probably lost the chance to negotiate better benefits for their members as the courts have ruled that negotiations are not required.

 

[hwl]

Could be just my reading but wasn't the "unlawful" ballot just in regards to Gatwick Express services and not the further extension

From the consent order:

(3) The Defendant accepts that the collective agreements between it and the Claimant and its predecessors (including the 2009 and 2013 agreements) do not preclude drivers employed by the Claimant being contractually obliged to drive 12 car DOO(P) trains on its Gatwick Express Services.

Aren't the 2009 & 13 agreements Southern (as in the old TOC) wide rather than just GatEx? If so further role out shouldn't be difficult.

 

[Robertj21a]

I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall. If you allow the public into a space it becomes a public place. Here is a list of 14 different sections of law that say the same thing. pages 12 and 13

http://www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/Documents/...rivate_places_and_dwellings_February_2014.pdf

On a quick read of that I would say that the definitions listed are only there for those Acts as there is a need for them to be very specific when dealing with certain major issues - Firearms, Public Order, Terrorism etc etc. I don't read it as an invitation for all other 'standard' issues to be routinely included as some form of blanket coverage.

You seem to have ignored a good example in the text:-


...........‘the fact that the public can obtain access to a private house as visitors through the front garden does not make the garden a public place.’

 

[Domh245]

Aren't the 2009 & 13 agreements Southern (as in the old TOC) wide rather than just GatEx? If so further role out shouldn't be difficult.

I don't think that there was going to be much fuss from the Southern drivers about the expansion of DOO on their services. It exists already, and it's quite likely that every southern driver is trained to operate DOO services (if anyone could confirm?)