Casualisation dispute: So what does management’s ‘final offer’ actually say?

Posted in Tubeworker's blog on ,

Here it is verbatim, with Tubeworker’s response in italics after each point. Bear in mind that this should not be a case of totting up wins and losses to see if there is an overall win, lose or draw. As we have argued previously, each issue stands on its own merits, so if one part is unacceptable, then so is the whole lot.

=====

1. SERIOUS AND IMMINENT DANGER (Refusal to work on grounds of safety)
LU confirmed that the existing procedure for Serious and Imminent Danger was still in place (and had never been withdrawn). LU agreed to take the draft, proposed changes off the table. LU will reiterate to all staff that the current Serious & Imminent Danger procedure has not changed.

Tubeworker says: That’s OK. The unions’ campaign made management back down on this.

=====

2. MINIMUM STAFFING LEVES FOR EMERGENCY EVACUATION: STATIONS

All parties agreed to a form of words to be included in the Emergency plan. Instead of specifying minimum numbers of different grades of station staff that would be on duty during the traffic day, we have agreed that these minimum levels, which have not changed, must be:

  • Station Supervisor(s) and
  • ”State number” London Underground station staff fully trained, qualified, licensed and familiarised to a minimum of CSA level.

Tubeworker says: That’s OK. The unions’ campaign made management back down on this.

=====

3. RECRUITMENT

We propose further discussion via a JWP [Joint Working Party] to examine how staff can be helped to be developed. First task will be to agree the terms of reference after the TSSA and RMT have had the opportunity to consider the additional information given to them during the talks.

The JWP will review the causes of the current pass/fail ratio for internal applicants for Train Operator vacancies with a view to identifying appropriate steps to improve the number of successful applicants.

All parties support the letter and spirit of existing agreements. LU will endeavour to fill operating positions internally. LU will continue to support staff development with this in mind.

Tubeworker says: Not good enough. The unions went into this dispute demanding fair promotion opportunities for Underground staff and an end to external recruitment. This wording guarantees neither. LUL seems to suggest that the reason so many staff are being knocked back and held back is that we are not good enough at ‘developing ourselves’! The truth is that it is because of their promotions system: messed up by private recruitment agencies; and unfairly stacked against us to ‘justify’ external recruitment.

External recruitment will continue. The chaos and unfairness in the promotion system is still a big issue for many staff, especially those who are still waiting for assessment or training dates, were failed on spurious grounds, or got no meaningful feedback. Tubeworker has documented some of these problems here. We doubt whether some union officials are aware of the extent of the problem or the strength of feeling about this.

=====

TICKET OFFICES: STATIONS

We confirm our proposal that a Working Group be set up to examine and consider ticket offices in the context of the wider marketing and ticketing strategy as raised by the TUs. It would be a frank and open discussion where no ticket office issue is ruled in or out by either party, including opportunities for our staff. During this period of discussion, there will be no ticket office closures or reduction in ticket office hours.

Tubeworker says: So, because of the unions’ campaign, both before and during this dispute, and the level of public opposition, LUL and its puppet-masters in the Mayor’s office do not feel confident enough to close shedloads of ticket offices this side of the Mayor election. Good. But we can be sure that as far as they are concerned, this Working Group is just a way of parking the issue until a less politically-sensitive time in the not-too-distant future. We are concerned that the longer this drags on, the more people will begin to feel that it is inevitable. Every time management have put it on hold before, the unions have also wound down their campaigns. This must not happen this time.
More on the ticket office cuts and closures here
.

=====

5. DETRAINMENT ON THE WEMBLEY CENTRAL GROUP

  • After 06 April 08 this will cease to be an issue on the Wembley Central Group. All the affected staff on the line will be LU trained and qualified to CSA level, and therefore able to undertake detrainments.
  • Should there be a time when there are insufficient detrainment staff, a member of staff will be moved from within the station or from an adjacent location to assist.

Tubeworker says: Detrainment staff explain why this is not good enough here.

=====

6. SERVICE CONTROL

A Tubeworker assessment of this section of management’s position will be posted on the blog soon.

=====

7. HEATHROW TERMINAL 5 STATION

  1. Detrainment, Despatch and any other safety critical functions relating to the LU train service will be undertaken by LU staff.
  2. LU will maintain the temporary staffing arrangements at Platform 6 whilst the Risk Assessment takes place at the appropriate level within the Company Machinery.
  3. The Mayor has indicated that he intends to write to owners Ferrovial about expanding the role of LU staff at T5.
  4. LU undertake that no training will be given to non-LU staff to undertake detrainment, dispatch of any other safety critical functions relating to the train service at T5, except for the discharge of traction current in an emergency, which is in line with current accepted industry wide practice.

Tubeworker says: This is an improvement on the earlier position, where LUL was doggedly insisting that it had no control at all over how T5 would be staffed. It’s amazing how these things change under the pressure of industrial action. But the ‘temporary staffing arrangements’ are CSAs nicked from the rest of the group, probably put there to fend off the prospect of Piccadilly line drivers refusing to drive through or stop at T5 on safety grounds. Whether LUL intends to make them permanent rostered posts, involving the creation of new jobs, remains to be seen.

The letter from the Mayor to Ferrovial (owner of the British Airports Authority (BAA), which owns the station and contracts the staffing out to Heathrow Express, with further sub-contracts it to an agency) is nothing to get excited about it, even if he does get past his ‘indication’ and ‘intention’ and actually send it. Why would Ferrovial take any notice, especially when there is no longer a strike to be scared of?

One more point on T5. It appears that the unions knew about the non-LUL staffing of the LUL platforms back in 2004. They registered their objections then forgot about it – until more on-the-ball reps re-discovered it late last year.

=====

8. Ex-SILVERLINK STATIONS (Security Staff / Agency Staff & Supervision)

Below are the proposals for staffing issues associated with the ex-Silverlink Stations:

  1. Rostered LU Station Supervisors during traffic hours at these stations.
  2. As stated previously it is not our intention to retain Agency Staff. They will be retained to support staff training. It is expected that this will be completed 9 months after agreement of the training plan at the JWP (with an option to extend for a further 3 months).
  3. We agree to a regular 6 monthly Review, the purpose of which will be to monitor:
    a. The pace of the refurbishments
    b. The effectiveness of proposed staffing arrangement
    c. The time period required for retaining the Agency Staff
  4. LU confirms that these are interim arrangements, ring fenced to the ex-Silverlink stations (there will be no roll out of this model) and commit that once the refurbishments are complete (anticipated to be end of November 2009), there will be no 3rd Party Security Staff on these stations.
  5. Following several previous undertakings, LU confirms that it is not its policy to expand the use of 3rd Party Security Staff elsewhere across the Network for station operation.

Tubeworker says: This breaks the principle of round-the-clock station supervision. Tubeworker outlines our objections to this here and here.

One thing to add. When LUL says it will not expand the use of “3rd Party Security Staff”, it means that it is looking to employ its own! And you can bet that they will be paid a lot less than the station supervisors they are employed to replace.

This website uses cookies, you can find out more and set your preferences here.
By continuing to use this website, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.