Southern DOO: ASLEF members vote 79.1% for revised deal

[highdyke]

Ask a French lawyer. Their laws work very different from ours, they have a completely different constitution.

 

[OliverS]

You're not answering the question though, how can work to rule be illegal and how is it enforced? People must do something they're not contracted/required to do?

As an example. Perhaps a union and an employer had agreed that there should be a minimum amount of overtime be available to the staff. If the union then said "We won't work overtime" that would be industrial action as the company would not have the staff to do the job because of union action.

 

[Degsi00]

As an example. Perhaps a union and an employer had agreed that there should be a minimum amount of overtime be available to the staff. If the union then said "We won't work overtime" that would be industrial action as the company would not have the staff to do the job because of union action.

I understand your point, and using your example, I distinctly recall Mr Horton telling The Transport Select Committee that overtime covers 10% of the service provided - when are more realistic figure would be nearer 30%.

 

[Llanigraham]

It's not, it's industrial action though.

No it isn't, it is working to the terms of the Rule Book.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Ask a French lawyer. Their laws work very different from ours, they have a completely different constitution.

No, that is not answering the question, that is totally ignoring it.

 

[highdyke]

I'm not obliged to answer the question? And WTF has the RSSB Rule Book got to do with French employment/contract law?

 

[GT4E]

Ask a French lawyer. Their laws work very different from ours, they have a completely different constitution.

Sir, you tried to imply that UK is in some way soft because it is illegal to 'work to rule' in countries such as France. Please explain exactly how a Judge would force a workforce to work beyond the terms of their contracts. I cannot in any way see how it is even slightly possible to make working to rule illegal.

 

[highdyke]

Under UK law it would be more to do with contract law and custom and practice, but this is a very complex legal area and I'm not a lawyer or judge. Personally support work to rule btw, striking I'm erring more toward binding arbitration after a set period for striking.

 

[the sniper]

As an example. Perhaps a union and an employer had agreed that there should be a minimum amount of overtime be available to the staff. If the union then said "We won't work overtime" that would be industrial action as the company would not have the staff to do the job because of union action.

Hmm, maybe so. The RMT and ASLEF don't usually encourage overtime or look for guaranteed overtime though, usually they formally agree to it at the request of the TOC, so I don't imagine your example would apply if a similar law existed here.

Guaranteed RDW/Overtime was something I think they discussed for the OBS grade, but industrial action by them will be irrelevant anyway. I don't know of it being a thing widely elsewhere.

In the document highdyke linked to it says "go slow or work-to-rule (unlawful)" in France. Obviously this isn't railway specific, so could apply in many different ways. On the railway I imagine it'd be more to do with not being allowed to just leave a train in the middle of nowhere when your day is up (I think something like this happened in Spain a month or two ago, there was a thread about it), rather than not working rest days or non compulsory overtime.

 

[Barn]

Sir, you tried to imply that UK is in some way soft because it is illegal to 'work to rule' in countries such as France. Please explain exactly how a Judge would force a workforce to work beyond the terms of their contracts. I cannot in any way see how it is even slightly possible to make working to rule illegal.

I know nothing about about French law, but perhaps it's not that it's illegal for workers not to work overtime. Perhaps it's illegal for unions to instruct their members not to work overtime?

 

[Carlisle]

I know nothing about about French law, but perhaps it's not that it's illegal for workers not to work overtime. Perhaps it's illegal for unions to instruct their members not to work overtime?

Yes that sounds like the only credible way such a law could actually be made to function in practice

 

[infobleep]

Since the whole process from application being granted to a ruling of some sort; it could take upto 18 months or so.
Given this, one can only deduce that GTR seek to take their case to The European Court where they would likely seek favour - given its European law they are arguing.

Given the timescale of things, it could also be argued that court action is being sought - not for Southern's despite per se, but more so, stall further industrial action likely taken with other TOCs before the rollout of new franchise deals.

Is this really Southern going to Court or the Government/DfT? The question begs....

Would be Intresting if this got referred to the EU Court for advice, given the country is in the process of leaving Europe. GTR higher management clearly like the EU and EU citizen coming to this country. On that point I agree with them but not on much else.

Of course the Britexit challenge got to the Supreme Court rather quickly so they can shift things along if they wish it seems.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think it's most likely to be Wilkinson's war chest in addition to the £60m this dispute has already cost + the damage to the economy of the Southern region.. Pretty much GTR have ran out of ideas and are awaiting instructions from their masters in Whitehall. Angie Doll is a mouth piece, the other commercial director has gone quiet and some commentators suggested Horton wasn't effective on that botched BBC South East 'debate'.

Also heard that Mick Whelan has never met Charles Horton as he doesn't turn up for meetings.

He said, she said. It's one word against another so I can't say whose right or wrong about meetings.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I understand your point, and using your example, I distinctly recall Mr Horton telling The Transport Select Committee that overtime covers 10% of the service provided - when are more realistic figure would be nearer 30%.

If it really is 30% then someone should tell the Select Committee. They don't take to kindly to people misleading them.

If it is just 10% then Southern should be running 90% of their services.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Hmm, maybe so. The RMT and ASLEF don't usually encourage overtime or look for guaranteed overtime though, usually they formally agree to it at the request of the TOC, so I don't imagine your example would apply if a similar law existed here.

Guaranteed RDW/Overtime was something I think they discussed for the OBS grade, but industrial action by them will be irrelevant anyway. I don't know of it being a thing widely elsewhere.

In the document highdyke linked to it says "go slow or work-to-rule (unlawful)" in France. Obviously this isn't railway specific, so could apply in many different ways. On the railway I imagine it'd be more to do with not being allowed to just leave a train in the middle of nowhere when your day is up (I think something like this happened in Spain a month or two ago, there was a thread about it), rather than not working rest days or non compulsory overtime.

Could a train legally be left in the middle of nowhere here if one so wished?

 

[the sniper]

Could a train legally be left in the middle of nowhere here if one so wished?

It's against the rules here and would probably result in rather more than a 'please explain'! If you're literally asking about the legality of doing it, I suppose it could be argued to be an offence either under obstruction of the railway or endangering safety on the railway, but I think we're getting a bit off topic here!

This was the story from Spain, by the way: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...d-spanish-train-driver-abandons-109-passenge/

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Not being au fait with the said "rule book", how often is this updated and information on such passed to the holders of such a book?

Are there any arcane sections in this rule book that refer to occurrences from the days of yore, as contained in the Railway Byelaws?

 

[the sniper]

Not being au fait with the said "rule book", how often is this updated and information on such passed to the holders of such a book?

Are there any arcane sections in this rule book that refer to occurrences from the days of yore, as contained in the Railway Byelaws?

I thought you knew all about the rule book we get? More info here.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I thought you knew all about the rule book we get? More info here.

You are a wag...

I am sure that Mick Cash will have a bound volume of same in his possession at all times.

 

[Domeyhead]

No extension of DOO has been in the ASLEF Charter for years.

I commuted along the Great Western main line east of Reading for years on very overcrowded 5 carriage trains comprised of a pair of class 165s. These had driver controlled doors and I never saw a guard except on revenue protection duties. The doors were frequently interrupted on closing by a passenger jumping on or fouling the door closing with a bag. But the doors were rechecked and reclosed. All this was "safe enough" and normal. and not one passenger ever thought that who closed the doors was an issue that increased or decreased the overall journey safety with thousands of other factors to consider. Now I travel on coastway west where trains are 3 or four coaches long. I feel just as safe, which is a testament to the overall quality of UK railway operations. WHile I understand that DOO on a 12 coach train has other issues which I am inclined to support I do not understand why a practice that is demonstably "safe enough" on one line using trains built in BR days is somehow unsafe on modern stock of the same or shorter length? If ASLEF says "We oppose all DOO" I want to know why. THey might as well say "We oppose trains painted pink". I don't see why coastway trains to and from Brighton cannot work with OBSs and DCDs regardless of what happens on the main lines with longer trains. If the guards are called OBSs and are paid the same and there are no redundancies planned then that is not an issue for passengers either so it must be the safety issue. So why are short trains on coastway unsafe, but safe enough in the Thames Valley?

 

[74A]

I commuted along the Great Western main line east of Reading for years on very overcrowded 5 carriage trains comprised of a pair of class 165s. These had driver controlled doors and I never saw a guard except on revenue protection duties. The doors were frequently interrupted on closing by a passenger jumping on or fouling the door closing with a bag. But the doors were rechecked and reclosed. All this was "safe enough" and normal. and not one passenger ever thought that who closed the doors was an issue that increased or decreased the overall journey safety with thousands of other factors to consider. Now I travel on coastway west where trains are 3 or four coaches long. I feel just as safe, which is a testament to the overall quality of UK railway operations. WHile I understand that DOO on a 12 coach train has other issues which I am inclined to support I do not understand why a practice that is demonstably "safe enough" on one line using trains built in BR days is somehow unsafe on modern stock of the same or shorter length? If ASLEF says "We oppose all DOO" I want to know why. THey might as well say "We oppose trains painted pink". I don't see why coastway trains to and from Brighton cannot work with OBSs and DCDs regardless of what happens on the main lines with longer trains. If the guards are called OBSs and are paid the same and there are no redundancies planned then that is not an issue for passengers either so it must be the safety issue. So why are short trains on coastway unsafe, but safe enough in the Thames Valley?

This really is the heart of the issue. Why is DOO ok where it is at the moment with 12 car trains but not ok on routes with 2 or 3 cars ?

ASLEF position really seems to be we will carry on with the DOO we have at the moment but not more. Sort of go away and leave us alone.

Doing the doors is a large part of the routine safety responsibilities a driver of a DOO train has to do. Who wouldn't like to do the same job with a guard. Half the responsibility but for the same pay. Maybe if the drivers offered to take a 20% pay cut to keep the guards it could be done. They got a decent increase when DOO was first brought in.

Merseyrail drivers are on about 5k less than many other drivers. When the new DOO trains come in I am sure that gap can be closed.

 

[LowLevel]

The irony being the guard, who you are far more likely to retain on 2, 3, 4 etc coach rural services with absolute block signalling or where revenue protection staff and gatelines are just a dream, will in fact dispatch a shorter train far more effectively than a driver ever will, in that they should (unless in extreme circumstances including poor practice as at Newcastle) see and hear absolutely everything that is going on both right next to the train and in the surrounding areas.

The short and long train thing has always seemed a bit daft to me - my 4 coach services load around 400 people in the peaks.

I couldn't for example imagine a literally driver only operated service running to Skegness - it would be anarchy.

 

[infobleep]

It's against the rules here and would probably result in rather more than a 'please explain'! If you're literally asking about the legality of doing it, I suppose it could be argued to be an offence either under obstruction of the railway or endangering safety on the railway, but I think we're getting a bit off topic here! [emoji38]

This was the story from Spain, by the way: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...d-spanish-train-driver-abandons-109-passenge/

Cheers for that. I've often wondered why train services don't sudden stop when there is a strike, as opposed to being run down in advance, which does happen. Of course if companies didn't run down the services, drivers or guards might be compelled to carry on beyond the strike period. That would be interesting.

I guess that would need separate thread so I'll leave it at that.

 

[O L Leigh]

This really is the heart of the issue. Why is DOO ok where it is at the moment with 12 car trains but not ok on routes with 2 or 3 cars ?

We've been through this all before. I know I've posted about it more than one.

O L Leigh

 

[thelem]

Very interesting in that article from the Croydon Advertiser. According to the drivers union chap the offer Southern made to them about upgrading the equipment on the trains was conditional on the union attesting that the changes that the company want to bring in are safe. So they wouldn't upgrade the cameras unless the drivers union declared the companies changes as safe. If they can upgrade the cameras why didn't they do it to start with?

Why upgrade the cameras if the drivers union are still going to say that the cameras are unsafe and need to be upgraded again (or replaced with platform CCTV, mirrors, or some other method)?

If it was really all about safety then Southern could have sat everyone down around a table two years ago and said "We are going to extend DOO. What do we need to change in order for this to be acceptably safe?"

 

[G136GREYHOUND]

I commuted along the Great Western main line east of Reading for years on very overcrowded 5 carriage trains comprised of a pair of class 165s. These had driver controlled doors and I never saw a guard except on revenue protection duties. The doors were frequently interrupted on closing by a passenger jumping on or fouling the door closing with a bag. But the doors were rechecked and reclosed. All this was "safe enough" and normal. and not one passenger ever thought that who closed the doors was an issue that increased or decreased the overall journey safety with thousands of other factors to consider. Now I travel on coastway west where trains are 3 or four coaches long. I feel just as safe, which is a testament to the overall quality of UK railway operations. WHile I understand that DOO on a 12 coach train has other issues which I am inclined to support I do not understand why a practice that is demonstably "safe enough" on one line using trains built in BR days is somehow unsafe on modern stock of the same or shorter length? If ASLEF says "We oppose all DOO" I want to know why. THey might as well say "We oppose trains painted pink". I don't see why coastway trains to and from Brighton cannot work with OBSs and DCDs regardless of what happens on the main lines with longer trains. If the guards are called OBSs and are paid the same and there are no redundancies planned then that is not an issue for passengers either so it must be the safety issue. So why are short trains on coastway unsafe, but safe enough in the Thames Valley?

" Ignorance is bliss " would be my comment on this post, ( and by God there's some ignorance on this thread ) have you ever driven said train ? No ? then you have no idea of how many times the driver has sucked up the seat cushion with his sphincter do you ? Safe enough now / There is an ex driver in court.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Under UK law it would be more to do with contract law and custom and practice, but this is a very complex legal area and I'm not a lawyer or judge. Personally support work to rule btw, striking I'm erring more toward binding arbitration after a set period for striking.

Enforced overtime is illegal under U.K. law unless your contract states that you agree to work overtime. Even then unless you opt out in writing, you can work no more than a maximum of 48 hours.

 

[FordFocus]

This really is the heart of the issue. Why is DOO ok where it is at the moment with 12 car trains but not ok on routes with 2 or 3 cars ?

ASLEF position really seems to be we will carry on with the DOO we have at the moment but not more. Sort of go away and leave us alone.

Doing the doors is a large part of the routine safety responsibilities a driver of a DOO train has to do. Who wouldn't like to do the same job with a guard. Half the responsibility but for the same pay. Maybe if the drivers offered to take a 20% pay cut to keep the guards it could be done. They got a decent increase when DOO was first brought in.

Merseyrail drivers are on about 5k less than many other drivers. When the new DOO trains come in I am sure that gap can be closed.

Yet another circle we've gone round again in this debate.

Pay isn't really a factor in DOO as it was in BR days where you got an extra few quid a day if you drove a DOO train. A recent FGW/GWR contract restructuring was rejected partly because of the DOO been introduced for the West and High Speed drivers. They were offered around a £5k pay rise to harmonise conditions and include DOO but was thrown out.

Some drivers who have guards are on more money than DOO services but maybe more productive. It's a series of complex restructuring agreements since BR days. This is something of a seperate subject.

ASLEF can't suddenly down tools on all DOO trains, I'm fairly sure that would be borderline illegal. It's taken many years but the penny has finally dropped with the concerns of the risks of DOO trains. The culture of railway safety has changed since 1982. Too many RAIB reports (9 out of 11 PTI incidents are DOO trains), a driver in court from the Hayes and Harlington incident, ORR keen to prosecute, broken DOO equipment, increased workload on drivers and overcrowded platforms.

The spread of DOO needs stopping. Once this happens then previous schemes can be looked at again.

If the government are serious about saving money I'd point them in the direction of Network Rail first. Not losing £60m on a dispute to remove guards from Southern and destaffing the railway.

 

[BestWestern]

Quite. I suspect some of them won't be bothered, they'll blame someone else. I'm on half the salary but I'd rather be happier and better other peoples' lives than be bitter and rolling in cash.

At what point did anybody taking industrial action on Southern begin doing so because of money?

 

[74A]

Yet another circle we've gone round again in this debate.

Pay isn't really a factor in DOO as it was in BR days where you got an extra few quid a day if you drove a DOO train. A recent FGW/GWR contract restructuring was rejected partly because of the DOO been introduced for the West and High Speed drivers. They were offered around a £5k pay rise to harmonise conditions and include DOO but was thrown out.

Indeed. It created a lot of bad feeling among the west drivers. Cost them about 30K so far and counting.

Some drivers who have guards are on more money than DOO services but maybe more productive. It's a series of complex restructuring agreements since BR days. This is something of a seperate subject.

Part of the problem of privatisation. If one company was paying less than another then the drivers would just leave. So wages have been driven up by each company having to pay an increase because another company did so. If we still had BR drivers would be on less money than now.

ASLEF can't suddenly down tools on all DOO trains, I'm fairly sure that would be borderline illegal.

If they did that then they would not be paid. I doubt many drivers would last longer than a month before they would have to go back to work. Either that of find themselves out of a job

It's taken many years but the penny has finally dropped with the concerns of the risks of DOO trains. The culture of railway safety has changed since 1982. Too many RAIB reports (9 out of 11 PTI incidents are DOO trains), a driver in court from the Hayes and Harlington incident, ORR keen to prosecute, broken DOO equipment, increased workload on drivers and overcrowded platforms.

But bringing back the guard will not take away that risk. it simply transfers it to another individual. The only person so far who has been prosecuted and convicted has been a guard. Are you suggesting drivers have a pay cut as a significant part of their job will be done by someone else.

The spread of DOO needs stopping. Once this happens then previous schemes can be looked at again.

Fantasy. DOO is used all around the world including France that bastion of industrial strife. There does not seem to be a shortage of people wanting to be drivers and take on the responsibility. If you don't want that responsibility then don't be a driver.

 

[FordFocus]

The only time money was mentioned was when GTR offered the one off £2000 payment for guards to transfer to the OBS and take no more industrial action. That was back in autumn last year.

 

[Juniper Driver]

" Ignorance is bliss " would be my comment on this post, ( and by God there's some ignorance on this thread ) have you ever driven said train ? No ? then you have no idea of how many times the driver has sucked up the seat cushion with his sphincter do you ? Safe enough now / There is an ex driver in court.

Definitely,that's why the politicians are at it as well.

 

[Barn]

Safe enough now / There is an ex driver in court.

We shouldn't really focus on individual cases but perhaps these prosecutions are taking place because there is actually evidence that the railway employee in question has been criminally negligent?

Staff and unions make a very great deal of the roles being 'safety critical', 'highly responsible', etc, and thus inherently deserving of high pay and of great respect being given to their views, and yet they seem to reject any suggestion that those who may have failed to uphold their vital safety responsibilities should be held to account.

If your point is that, regardless of fault, the case simply shows that accidents can happen, then we should also remember that other recent prosecutions have been of guard dispatchers.

 

[the sniper]

We shouldn't really focus on individual cases but perhaps these prosecutions are taking place because there is actually evidence that the railway employee in question has been criminally negligent?

Are you ignoring or unaware of the Merseyrail case awaiting court where the TOC support the Guard?

 

[AlterEgo]

Are you ignoring or unaware of the Merseyrail case awaiting court where the TOC support the Guard?

All very well, but none of us have heard the evidence yet.

In the James St incident the guard was found to be negligent partly because (repeatedly) he failed to follow Merseyrail's dispatch procedure. Had he followed the proper procedure we do not know what would have happened.

If I were you I would be cautious about suggesting a TOC which supports DOO is some sort of authority on dispatch safety!