Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal

[Dave1987]

From what I've heard ASLEF are being very very careful. The last injunction in relation to the ASLEF ballot was done with the finest of technicalities, literally based on which doors drivers use to get into their signing on points. I would not like to be those negotiating any future local agreements or pay deals as the past actions will make it exceptionally difficult because union reps and lawyers will be looking to make it water tight with no loopholes at all.

 

[infobleep]

Nothing publicly, though there has been an internal circular saying that the proper tests specified by RSSB in the Group Standards for clearing a route for DOO (test trains run under all possible lighting conditions, etc) may not have been done, and the executive committee will be meeting to decide what to do about it.

In the mean time, they have asked drivers not to refuse work so as not to jeopardise any future ballot on the issue, like what happened with the 12-car Gatwick dispute. (One driver refusing to work a 12-car was ruled to be illegal industrial action prior to an official ballot, therefore the entire dispute would have been nullified had the parties not settled out of court.)

Personally, I think it's just another example of GTR placing performance targets before safety, which (although I sincerely hope it doesn't) will probably result in casualties some day. I wasn't around for Railtrack, but from what I've read it sounds eerily similar.

So what might have legally have happened if that one driver hadn't refused to work that train?


Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[74A]

So what might have legally have happened if that one driver hadn't refused to work that train
Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

Probably nothing different to was has happened. The driver refusing to work a train was what triggered the action. If it hadn't happened then it would probably happened at some point.

Really you need to read the full judgement to get an understanding as to where ASLEF as with this situation. ASLEF have a policy of no extension of DOO. However DOO driving is what GTR drivers do everyday. So effectively ASLEF are telling their members to breach there contract by not driving DOO trains in certain circumstances.

At the court case it was discussed about safety but even ASLEF did not argue that DOO was any less safe than despatch with a guard. Therefore the court held it was not a valid trade dispute and ASLEF were asking drivers to breach there contract by refusing to drive DOO trains. In this case then ASLEF becomes liable for all the losses of GTR in the dispute which if ASLEF did not stop the dispute would rapidly bankrupt them.

If ASLEF were to ballot because they felt it was less safe they could do that but they haven't. They tried to ballot on the basis that GTR could not introduce DOO without their agreement. The courts ruled that no agreement was required and GTR could tell drivers to drive DOO over any route.

 

[Robertj21a]

Probably nothing different to was has happened. The driver refusing to work a train was what triggered the action. If it hadn't happened then it would probably happened at some point.

Really you need to read the full judgement to get an understanding as to where ASLEF as with this situation. ASLEF have a policy of no extension of DOO. However DOO driving is what GTR drivers do everyday. So effectively ASLEF are telling their members to breach there contract by not driving DOO trains in certain circumstances.

At the court case it was discussed about safety but even ASLEF did not argue that DOO was any less safe than despatch with a guard. Therefore the court held it was not a valid trade dispute and ASLEF were asking drivers to breach there contract by refusing to drive DOO trains. In this case then ASLEF becomes liable for all the losses of GTR in the dispute which if ASLEF did not stop the dispute would rapidly bankrupt them.

If ASLEF were to ballot because they felt it was less safe they could do that but they haven't. They tried to ballot on the basis that GTR could not introduce DOO without their agreement. The courts ruled that no agreement was required and GTR could tell drivers to drive DOO over any route.

All understood, thanks for the clear summary. In your view, is there anything to stop ASLEF now balloting on the safety issues ?

 

[74A]

All understood, thanks for the clear summary. In your view, is there anything to stop ASLEF now balloting on the safety issues ?

No but the fact they have not done so far suggest they are unable to present a credible to case to do so.

 

[Dave1987]

All understood, thanks for the clear summary. In your view, is there anything to stop ASLEF now balloting on the safety issues ?

One of the ballots was judged unlawful simply because of which doors drivers use to sign on a a particular depot. The lawyers are going through everything ASLEF do in incredible detail looking for any reason to get a ballot judged invalid. Must be costing serious amounts of cash in legal costs.

 

[BestWestern]

No but the fact they have not done so far suggest they are unable to present a credible to case to do so.

It's very unlikely that they ever willl, as the powers that be have made sure all official 'evidence' is stacked firmly against it.

 

[Robertj21a]

No but the fact they have not done so far suggest they are unable to present a credible to case to do so.

Thanks. So the long-running discussions and arguments over DOO are now, finally, all over and done with ?

 

[FordFocus]

I'm hearing Southern have jumped the gun and haven't consulted the Health & Safety reps about the extension to the new DOO routes. No tests on lighting and degrading working as such.

 

[JamesTT]

If the Sectional Appendix does not state a route is DOO(P) does that mean a driver can refuse to take the train without a guard?

 

[physics34]

If the Sectional Appendix does not state a route is DOO(P) does that mean a driver can refuse to take the train without a guard?

the fear factor has been put on ASLEF and Southern drivers after the GX court action.... so nobody is gonna refuse it at the moment.....
its a sad situation.

 

[Carlisle]

Thanks. So the long-running discussions and arguments over DOO are now, finally, all over and done with ?

Well done for at least an attempt at humour mate

 

[redbutton]

Probably nothing different to was has happened. The driver refusing to work a train was what triggered the action. If it hadn't happened then it would probably happened at some point.

Really you need to read the full judgement to get an understanding as to where ASLEF as with this situation. ASLEF have a policy of no extension of DOO. However DOO driving is what GTR drivers do everyday. So effectively ASLEF are telling their members to breach there contract by not driving DOO trains in certain circumstances.

At the court case it was discussed about safety but even ASLEF did not argue that DOO was any less safe than despatch with a guard. Therefore the court held it was not a valid trade dispute and ASLEF were asking drivers to breach there contract by refusing to drive DOO trains. In this case then ASLEF becomes liable for all the losses of GTR in the dispute which if ASLEF did not stop the dispute would rapidly bankrupt them.

If ASLEF were to ballot because they felt it was less safe they could do that but they haven't. They tried to ballot on the basis that GTR could not introduce DOO without their agreement. The courts ruled that no agreement was required and GTR could tell drivers to drive DOO over any route.

ASLEF were relying on the disruption agreement, which clearly stated that DOO services would not "normally" be formed of more than 10 coaches, except if a guard were unavailable due to certain types of disruption that were enumerated in the agreement. However, that agreement was in the Southern T&Cs but I'm not sure it was in the Gatwick T&Cs. I'm not sure they've actually introduced any Southern 12-car DOO working yet, because of the existence of that agreement.

But now the whole thing is a mess because of the court case redefining how the union can legally operate, what communications they can make to the drivers without being accused of inciting unofficial action, and just how enforceable a lot of our agreements actually are. (I can say from experience that many of them are very loosely and informally worded, based on meeting minutes, and very open to interpretation. Some are simply customary practice that nobody can actually find documented on paper anywhere.)

So ASLEF are understandably reluctant to act until they are absolutely sure of how any potential dispute would hold up in court, now that it's a virtual certainty that any dispute will end up there.

 

[RichardKing]

It's clear that refusing to drive the train is not a good move, so why not refer back to ASLEF's previous instructions: when DOO is forced upon the driver, they should make a final comprehensive safety check prior to departing; this would involve walking down the entirety of the train and locking each door out manually. Granted, it won't be a fun task for the driver (especially if it's raining) and the passengers will become very irritated, but, it would work as a matter of principle and would, most probably, displease the management.

I'm not sure GTR could do much about this as it's not industrial action. If they were to ban the driver from performing this final safety check, it wouldn't look good for them (not that their name isn't already in the dirt!).

 

[Domh245]

It's clear that refusing to drive the train is not a good move, so why not refer back to ASLEF's previous instructions: when DOO is forced upon the driver, they should make a final comprehensive safety check prior to departing; this would involve walking down the entirety of the train and locking each door out manually. Granted, it won't be a fun task for the driver (especially if it's raining) and the passengers will become very irritated, but, it would work as a matter of principle and would, most probably, displease the management.

I'm not sure GTR could do much about this as it's not industrial action. If they were to ban the driver from performing this final safety check, it wouldn't look good for them (not that their name isn't already in the dirt!).

If the union said that it should be done, then it could be perceived as some kind of industrial action?

 

[RichardKing]

If the union said that it should be done, then it could be perceived as some kind of industrial action?

Sorry, that was meant to say 'striking', not 'industrial action'. I know taking this action would be a form of working to rule, and therefore would come under industrial action, but surely it would be the final nail in the coffin for the management if they banned the drivers from carrying out a safety check.

 

[Dave1987]

If the union said that it should be done, then it could be perceived as some kind of industrial action?

Nothing to stop a driver walking back and closing doors individually if they are not happy that it's safe to proceed. Safety above performance every time.

 

[Domh245]

Nothing to stop a driver walking back and closing doors individually if they are not happy that it's safe to proceed. Safety above performance every time.

Sure, but if almost every driver (or at least enough to disrupt a morning peak) on the new DOO service suddenly decided to walk back and close doors manually, questions are going to be asked by the Government and Media, and it'll almost certainly land ASLEF with another court date where they can argue about the technicality of who told everyone to start doing it.

 

[Dave1987]

It's not quite as clear cut as that. If the driver has clear concerns that they can't dispatch safely then they are going to walk back. If the government or media considered that as industrial action then if an incident did occur the union would have plenty to go to court with.

 

[Sprinter153]

Sure, but if almost every driver (or at least enough to disrupt a morning peak) on the new DOO service suddenly decided to walk back and close doors manually, questions are going to be asked by the Government and Media, and it'll almost certainly land ASLEF with another court date where they can argue about the technicality of who told everyone to start doing it.

At my TOC certainly we have the right to refuse to work due on grounds of a health and safety concern, and this is enshrined in a document that is part of the TOC's Safety Management System. And so it should be, since we have criminal liability for the safety of the passengers on our trains.

If we have a genuine concern we can cease work immediately, report to the person in charge (usually the Senior Controller) and there is a three-tier system of managers at various levels (up to director level) who will carry out a review of the procedure in question, as well as the disputed method of working being stopped across the business until the investigation is complete.

Each invocation of the 'Refusal to Work' procedure (such as a driver refusing to take a 12-car DOO service) must be investigated like this. It would be a breach of the SMS (which wouldn't be looked upon favourably by the ORR) to do anything but adhere to the published policy.

Of course the TOCs live in fear of CIRAS, the industry confidential reporting service, who would be interested to hear of a safety concern being ignored.

 

[pompeyfan]

I read further up about using a non DOO franchise as a gauge to see how the dispute could go I.E. Northern, it should be noted that even the most (publicly) anti DOO TOCs may have provisions to run trains DOO in service written in to drivers contracts. SWTs do for sure.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I read further up about using a non DOO franchise as a gauge to see how the dispute could go I.E. Northern, it should be noted that even the most (publicly) anti DOO TOCs may have provisions to run trains DOO in service written in to drivers contracts. SWTs do for sure.

Does anyone know if this is actually the case with Northern?

 

[JamesTT]

Nothing to stop a driver walking back and closing doors individually if they are not happy that it's safe to proceed. Safety above performance every time.

Unless it's one's going home train
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

the fear factor has been put on ASLEF and Southern drivers after the GX court action.... so nobody is gonna refuse it at the moment.....
its a sad situation.

What would be wrong with refusing to carry out an instruction which contravenes the Sectional Appendix? Such as driving a passenger service DOO(P) on the Arun valley

 

[Monty]

I read further up about using a non DOO franchise as a gauge to see how the dispute could go I.E. Northern, it should be noted that even the most (publicly) anti DOO TOCs may have provisions to run trains DOO in service written in to drivers contracts. SWTs do for sure.

Not entirely true, SWT's already operate DOO trains, these are ECS moves without a guard. DOO (P) is completely different entirely and as far as I know there had been no provision made for nor is there any agreement about drivers operating the doors. ALSEF would have a good case to refuse DOO (P) on the south western division if it was ever forced on us.

 

[Carlisle]

nor is there any agreement about drivers operating the doors. ALSEF would have a good case to refuse DOO (P) on the south western division if it was ever forced on us.

I remember a request from SWT a few years ago to allow their drivers to release the doors but the RMT objected mostly on the grounds that it was merely a step towards full DOO

 

[JonathanH]

Anyway, latest update:

From next monday.

Arun valley services become DOO between Three Bridges and London T
Horsham - Dorking trains become DOO
More Btn to Vic services become DOO

Services may have a guard as an assist.

"Arun Valley" as in only long-distance services from south of Horsham or the Horsham stoppers via Redhill as well?

 

[gietek]

Horsham to L Bridge and Victoria, Victoria to Bognor Regis and Southampton and Portsmouth.

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

 

[tony6499]

It will be interesting how the new train crew diagrams are done to allow this, could be a recipe for chaos if they haven't been checked properly to see that they are legal etc

 

[gietek]

Conductor diagrams will remain the same for now. They will have "assist" on all DOO routes. This will also change the way trains are dispatched from certain stations. Platform staff will no longer give a tip, instead they will "observe" the platform while the driver does all the checks.

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

 

[Fincra5]

Conductor diagrams will remain the same for now. They will have "assist" on all DOO routes. This will also change the way trains are dispatched from certain stations. Platform staff will no longer give a tip, instead they will "observe" the platform while the driver does all the checks.

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

Possibly the worst idea ever. Platform to Train interface is the biggest risk, so the notion of removing/ changing dispatch staff at certain stations is an accident waiting to happen.