TOC privilege card..

[34D]

Virgin contract Carlisle to provide staff cleaning duties.

Are they not an agency, like Initial? Do the cleaning staff get the same priv entitlement as the driver gets?

 

[scotsman]

Are they not an agency, like Initial? Do the cleaning staff get the same priv entitlement as the driver gets?

They're not agency staff, they're contractors - instead of employing cleaners, Virgin pays a company to organise it and do it for them. Hence the branding, which reads: "Carlisle Group, working on behalf of Virgin Trains"

So, they're actually entitled to nothing

 

[RJ]

Are they not an agency, like Initial? Do the cleaning staff get the same priv entitlement as the driver gets?

No. As I said, Virgin contract them.

 

[34D]

They're not agency staff, they're contractors - instead of employing cleaners, Virgin pays a company to organise it and do it for them. Hence the branding, which reads: "Carlisle Group, working on behalf of Virgin Trains"

So, they're actually entitled to nothing

Which is presumably contrary to TUPE and to the Agency Workers Regulations?

Think this is now going off-topic for fares and ticketing..... sorry if that's partly my fault

 

[RJ]

Which is presumably contrary to TUPE and to the Agency Workers Regulations?

Think this is now going off-topic for fares and ticketing..... sorry if that's partly my fault

The phrase "give it a rest" springs to mind. Incessant Virgin bashing with no concrete justification, what is the point?

If you don't work for, or with them, it doesn't affect you so why go on about it? If you do work for/with them, surely a union or tribunal are entirely more appropriate venues to vent your grievances and seek advice as opposed to a ticketing forum?

Feel free to correct me but I haven't seen any veritable criticisms in this thread - only digs from people who would most certainly have benefitted from consulting the direct.gov.uk website prior to posting. I see that nobody has bothered to respond to the point I made about objective justification, for which I provided a veritable source. Only further vitriol with at best, weak or non-existent analysis of legislature that has been referred to.

For the record, I'm the type of person who will defend myself if I feel I have been wronged. By the same token, I do not condone the posting of wholly uniformed drivel against any business just for the sake of posting.

 

[34D]

The phrase "give it a rest" springs to mind. Incessant Virgin bashing with no concrete justification, what is the point?

Its not just Virgin. Other ops outsource their cleaning in this way, with negative employment conditions.

Also, it has been posted in this thread that virgin treat part-time and fixed-term workers differently, along with workers who joined after c.1996, with no apparent objective justification.

Please explain how the above can be justified.

Mods - do we have a different forum area where this could go please?

 

[MikeWh]

All TOCs treat workers who joined after c1996 differently. The ones who joined before then worked for BR and are safeguarded.

 

[tony_mac]

You could do a FOI request to eastcoast, asking for a copy of any 'objective justification' that they have provided.

I would guess that there isn't one - it's been pointed out that it's a non-contractual benefit and the unions wouldn't want to risk losing it.

 

[34D]

All TOCs treat workers who joined after c1996 differently. The ones who joined before then worked for BR and are safeguarded.

Yes - and this is age discrimination. I suspect that this can be objectively justified more than the part-time issues though.

 

[MikeWh]

Yes - and this is age discrimination. I suspect that this can be objectively justified more than the part-time issues though.

Yes and no. True you can't have a safeguarded 18-year-old, but you can certainly have a non-safeguarded 45-year-old.

 

[Deerfold]

All TOCs treat workers who joined after c1996 differently. The ones who joined before then worked for BR and are safeguarded.

You could do a FOI request to eastcoast, asking for a copy of any 'objective justification' that they have provided.

I would guess that there isn't one - it's been pointed out that it's a non-contractual benefit and the unions wouldn't want to risk losing it.

Just out of interest, how can a benefit be both "non-contractual" and "safeguarded"?

 

[tony_mac]

Just out of interest, how can a benefit be both "non-contractual" and "safeguarded"?

I was obviously not referring to "safeguarded" benefits.

Nowhere in any employee's contract are travel facilities included, even full-time ones like myself. I am not contractually entitled to them.

 

[Deerfold]

I was obviously not referring to "safeguarded" benefits.

Whcih were you referring to? They seem to be the ones many people are referring to as being discriminatory.

 

[driver9000]

Yes - and this is age discrimination. I suspect that this can be objectively justified more than the part-time issues though.

Age doesn't come into it. Staff employed by BR prior to 1 April 1996 have their travel facilities in their contracts, those who joined afterwards don't. I can't see how it is age discrimination. There are even different levels of travel granted to safeguarded staff relating to ferries and LT based on the terms at date of entry to service not the individuals age. From memory those in service prior to 1984 are the ones granted free or reduced fare LT travel, not sure about the cut off for ferries.

 

[tony_mac]

Age doesn't come into it. Staff employed by BR prior to 1 April 1996 have their travel facilities in their contracts, those who joined afterwards don't. I can't see how it is age discrimination.

It is quite possibly indirect age discrimination, but I am sure it could be justified by business need, given the unique contractual position.
http://www.lge.gov.uk/lge/core/page.do?pageId=119667#contents-4

The Equality Act therefore provides that any benefit based on a length of service requirement of 5 years or less is lawful. In addition, the Act says that it won't be unlawful to provide different levels of benefit based on length of service of more than 5 years where the employer “reasonably believes that doing so will fulfil a business need” , e.g. by encouraging loyalty, increasing motivation, or rewarding the experience of some or all of your workers.

 

[RJ]

Safeguarded facilities are contracted.
The New Entrant Priv is a mere arrangement which can be withdrawn at any time.

I do wish the ungrateful people who moan about the NE Priv would shut up before it gets withdrawn. I for one make maximum use of it.

 

[driver9000]

Safeguarded facilities are contracted.
The New Entrant Priv is a mere arrangement which can be withdrawn at any time.

I do wish the ungrateful people who moan about the NE Priv would shut up before it gets withdrawn. I for one make maximum use of it.

As a non safeguarded pass holder I certainly make what use I can of it and its better than nothing. You never know when it might be gone. I don't feel discriminated against because I am too young to have worked for BR before 1996

 

[tony_mac]

I do wish the ungrateful people who moan about the NE Priv would shut up before it gets withdrawn. I for one make maximum use of it.

Don't you think that's rather a selfish attitude?
Is it ok to illegally discriminate as long as you are one of those that benefit?

 

[driver9000]

Don't you think that's rather a selfish attitude?
Is it ok to illegally discriminate as long as you are one of those that benefit?

Surely if it was illegal then it would have been brought up between 1996 and now? ASLEF are running a campaign to try and get companies to agree to reciprocal travel but it has so far fallen on deaf ears. If it was illegal or discrimination then the union or TOC lawyers would have noticed? Post 96 travel facilities are a non contractual benefit that may be withdrawn at any time - something we signed when we join. If my TOC withdrew travel facilities I doubt there is anything we could do about it similarly if the TOCs withdrew support for Priv.

 

[tony_mac]

I'm not talking about the safeguarded staff, but about the treatment of part-time workers.

Why would the union complain about it? Most of their members are full-time, and they wouldn't want to risk losing a benefit - I think RJ makes this quite clear.

I think somebody else has posted on the assumption that 'they've been doing it for a long time, so it must be legal!'

I don't know if it would definitely be considered illegal, that would depend on the 'objective justification'. But I think it's on pretty thin ice!

 

[driver9000]

I'm not talking about the safeguarded staff, but about the treatment of part-time workers.

Granted but staff travel would be considered an above contract obligation to part time workers too. If they have signed the contract which does not provide for the travel facility then as I see it they have agreed to this. When I worked part time in a supermarket (years ago admittedly) I didn't receive the discount that those working over 16 hours did so. If it was illegal or discriminatory then I'm sure it would have been through the courts by now...everything else seems to have been. Personally I don't think its fair but I'm also inclined to believe that employers are free to place whatever restrictions on perks and benefits that are non contractual they see fit to.

If anyone feels like taking it through a court then by all means, I'd be interested to see the answers given

 

[RJ]

Don't you think that's rather a selfish attitude?
Is it ok to illegally discriminate as long as you are one of those that benefit?

I'm a part time (two on, five off) worker on a fixed term contract working for a TOC and I get a TOCNE pass for which I'm very grateful. If it was to become a Rail Staff Railcard for £28/year, I'd pay for it.

 

[tony_mac]

When I worked part time in a supermarket (years ago admittedly) I didn't receive the discount that those working over 16 hours did so. If it was illegal or discriminatory then I'm sure it would have been through the courts by now...

It depends when it was, The Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000
came into force in July 2000, and has been amended since.

I am pretty sure that no supermarkets still do that.

http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1576

An employer must objectively justify the reason why they treat part time staff differently, and show the reason will meet a genuine business need. Part-time staff should not be treated less favourably just because they work part time.

I'm also inclined to believe that employers are free to place whatever restrictions on perks and benefits that are non contractual they see fit to.

You mean like if they only gave a company car to their male employees?

Obviously, that wouldn't be acceptable - but part of the reason for the regulations with respect to part-time workers is that far more of them are women, who have often been paid less or received less benefits than their male colleagues.

 

[142094]

As an aside to this, DB Regio contract out station cleaning to a company called Churchill, and they do not get a travel pass.

 

[driver9000]

You mean like if they only gave a company car to their male employees?

Obviously, that wouldn't be acceptable - but part of the reason for the regulations with respect to part-time workers is that far more of them are women, who have often been paid less or received less benefits than their male colleagues.

Without going into a male v female tangent or taking this away from the core railway theme are male and female part time workers paid different rates? Obviously it is totally unacceptable to pay two people doing the same job based on their gender but gender shouldn't dictate who receives a non contractual perk or benefit. What if a woman working part time received the travel pass but her male counterpart didn't because there is a greater number of female part time workers? That wouldn't be fair either. I understood the part time work favourable treatment regulations related to workers rights (sickness, pay, holiday etc) rather than a gratuity that is given in kind.

On a slightly different note, I don't see why someone working for Carlisle cleaning for example should receive the staff travel benefits that an employee of Virgin Trains receives. I base this purely on the fact that they are not employees of Virgin Trains but instead employed by a company paid by Virgin to provide on board cleaning services. If I was employed by a company contracted to work in another companies premises or vehicles I wouldn't expect to receive the perks that employees of that company simply because I was employed to carry out the work of my employer there.

 

[RJ]

Why would the union complain about it? Most of their members are full-time, and they wouldn't want to risk losing a benefit - I think RJ makes this quite clear.

I'm neither full time nor a union member so not sure what you're talking about?

 

[tony_mac]

I'm neither full time nor a union member so not sure what you're talking about?

You made it clear that, as you get the benefit, you would rather that others don't complain about it in case you lost it.
My comparison was that I expect full-time union members would feel the same way, which may be why the unions have not made a fuss about it.

I understood the part time work favourable treatment regulations related to workers rights (sickness, pay, holiday etc) rather than a gratuity that is given in kind.

That's not what I have read.

(a) as regards the terms of his contract; or
(b)by being subjected to any other detriment

If I was employed by a company contracted to work in another companies premises or vehicles I wouldn't expect to receive the perks that employees of that company simply because I was employed to carry out the work of my employer there.

I don't disagree with that, but employers have used agency staff who are their employees in all but name, and used that to deny them the same treatment that their other employees get.
Contractors are not the same thing, although I guess that the lines can be quite blurred.

 

[driver9000]

You made it clear that, as you get the benefit, you would rather that others don't complain about it in case you lost it.

I don't think that was me although I did say you don't know when it will be gone. It is made clear to us that our passes may be cancelled at any time and this is also made clear on the note that the Priv card arrives attached to. that said I am unaware of any TOC that is planning to scrap staff travel or pull out of the Priv agreements. I agreed that it was unfair that part time etc may not receive a pass but legally don't think there is much that can be done about it. I also said if someone wanted to try it out then I would be interested in the answers.

I am full time non safeguarded but as far as I'm aware all employees of the company I am with, part or full time receive the appropriate staff travel facility applicable to their start date (ie pre or post 1996).

 

[tony_mac]

I don't think that was me

No, that was reply to RJ. I've put the attributions on the quotes now.

as far as I'm aware all employees of the company I am with, part or full time receive the appropriate staff travel facility applicable to their start date

Obviously, I have no idea at all, but I am going from this...

15 hours is the general minimum weekly hours for Priv entitlement across the board, not just for Virgin.

I also said if someone wanted to try it out then I would be interested in the answers.

I would be interested too, but as an example, Birmingham City Council were found to have been breaking the law for something like 10 years.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/apr/28/pay-female-staff-birmingham-council

 

[RJ]

I'm not talking about the safeguarded staff, but about the treatment of part-time workers.

I don't disagree with that, but employers have used agency staff who are their employees in all but name, and used that to deny them the same treatment that their other employees get.

So are you talking about part time or agency workers?