I would just like to remind you that this is a proposed agreement with ASLEF. Therefore, expecting it to outline the details of the OBS grade is erroneous, especially when such matters have not been negotiated with the relevant staff-side representatives.
The number of OBS staff employed is specified, but their working hours are not, so there is nothing stopping GTR reducing hours for new staff so that they can make tighter diagrams where OBSs are more likely to make it to their next train. There is no requirement for even a single OBS to be diagrammed on a spare turn, so a single illness/late OBS to work could result in a train running without an OBS.
The availability of cover is a function of the number of staff employed, depot establishment (for those not familiar with the term, this means the number of staff per depot), diagramming and rostering. The proposal guarantees coverage of trains that previously had conductors and the formula for calculating depot establishments therefore guaranteeing a certain size of workforce. It may be that GTR may decide to tighten up the OBS diagrams, but the depot establishments would indicate that there should be adequate spare cover.
However, such matters are for RMT to negotiate and monitor. It is not for ASLEF to police such matters.
It appears that OBSs will have no obligation or financial incentive to opt to undergo training to hold the competancy to assist in train dispatch, so why should they bother? It'd just be extra work and liability for no gain. Maybe I'm being cynical, but I can't see many new entrants opting for this. Drivers must also get permission from control every time the OBS is to use these skills. Is this so that control can pressurise them not to?
Again, this is for RMT to negotiate, not ASLEF.
The so-called 'indemnity scheme' doesn't exist - there is only a promise that its feasibility will be explored, and then probably deemed unfeasible.
The details of this are still to be established. The proposed agreement is only to look into it. Perhaps it will be considered unworkable. I'm certainly not aware of any similar scheme on other TOCs, but until it's looked at no-one can know for sure.
The Joint Working Party detailed in Appendix C appears to be toothless and has I can't see any mechanism to compel the company to act on its findings.
The enforcement mechanism is by reference to the Company Council and the collective bargaining agreement. If the TOC and union fail to agree then this would be dealt with in the same way as any other failure to agree.
In appendix D, the statement "Both parties acknowledge that while the current systems meet industry safety standards," is a direct contradiction to ASLEF's previous press releases. The appendix provides no detail of what technology GTR must introduce or any timeframe which it must be completed by. In the meantime the old equipment must be used, for at least 8 more weeks. Further details are kicked into the long grass.
Agreeing that existing equipment meets industry standard is not contradictory. Even where equipment meets industry standard, DOO despatch is still less safe than guard despatch, as has been discussed at great length. I would imagine that deciding the upgrades and timescales to deliver them will be the work of the Joint Working Party.
Besides, you quote out of context. The full quote is below.
The parties acknowledge that some of the equipment, although meeting industry standards, is capable of updating. The intention of the company is to provide the driver with an improved image quality in line with more recent compatible rolling stock.
Appendix E (Restoration of Positive Relationships) is all filler and contains no detail of what GTR will do or how.
Are we reading the same document? There's actually quite a lot in there, such as a new drivers agreement replacing the existing DRI and a commitment to look at flexible and family-friendly working arrangements.
I can't see that ASLEF have really negotiated anything of substance at all in this agreement.
I agree that the details are still to be worked out, but what they have negotiated is a process and procedure together with a commitment from the company to take such matters seriously. I agree that I would have preferred something that rejects DOO outright, but under the circumstances it looks like a reasonable first step.
One more point to add is that the public were told by GTR that this 'modernisation' would mean that all Southern trains would have an OBS, even those previously true DOO such as Southern Metro. However, the proposed ASLEF agreement explicitly excludes these services, and my own experience recently on them is that they pretty much don't run with OBS.
That's something for RMT to negotiate. The scope of this agreement covers the expansion of DOO working on Southern onto other routes, which is what this dispute has been about.
O L Leigh