The annual "Boxing Day Trains" row.

[Bellbell]

No I'm suggesting contracts will be amended. It could happen as part of a proposed pay offer as I already suggested e.g. if you want the annual 5% increase and 2 extra days holiday you must accept working on 26th December. Or it could be much worse - think about what could happen if a new franchise doesn't choose to TUPE over existing employees - which they don't have to unless DfT require them to. A choice of a new contract or no job could well result in industrial action!

How would that work? New TOC wants/has to introduce Boxing Day working but fearing resistance chooses not to TUPE existing employees. Who's working the trains on the first day of the new franchise then? Even assuming the new TOC can recruit all necessary staff and train them on basics in advance how do you envisage route and traction training happening?

 

[northwichcat]

How would that work? New TOC wants/has to introduce Boxing Day working but fearing resistance chooses not to TUPE existing employees. Who's working the trains on the first day of the new franchise then? Even assuming the new TOC can recruit all necessary staff and train them on basics in advance how do you envisage route and traction training happening?

There's a lot of tricks TOCs and DfT can use to get around things like that as most people who have worked for a company which has been put in to administration will tell you.

 

[Bellbell]

There's a lot of tricks TOCs and DfT can use to get around things like that as most people who have worked for a company which has been put in to administration will tell you.

Come on, give some specifics, that's pretty woolly.

 

[northwichcat]

Come on, give some specifics, that's pretty woolly.

It's not been tried with a TOC before so I don't know exactly how it would work in the context of railways and given the way some people have reacted to my recent posts I'm not posting how I think it could work with a TOC - plus Chris Grayling may read this thread!

 

[philthetube]

The DFT does not care about Southern services running, so what is a year without trains in order to ensure a boxing day service sometime in the future.

 

[bramling]

The DFT does not care about Southern services running, so what is a year without trains in order to ensure a boxing day service sometime in the future.

That's a good point, which puts Boxing Day services into perspective. DFT evidently doesn't care about Southern passengers getting no service on multiple working days of the year, plus a poor service for a large proportion of the time, so why does anyone think DFT should care about one day?

 

[FordFocus]

It's not been tried with a TOC before so I don't know exactly how it would work in the context of railways and given the way some people have reacted to my recent posts I'm not posting how I think it could work with a TOC - plus Chris Grayling may read this thread!

I'm still interested in how you propose to force something like this in?

A TOC can put Boxing Days into a restructuring deal possibly with Sundays inside the working week and other productivity gains for the TOC. I have little appetite for giving away my conditions along with many others I work with. There has to be some kind of a work life balance on the railway. It's not the end of the world though as I can think of a dozen people where I work who are happy with the overtime.

I'd trial it first with volunteers on additional pay and see how it gets on before deciding to mess around with the terms and conditions.

 

[dk1]

Alan Williams has been pushing for a Boxing Day service in his MR column for many years much to my displeasure but even he advocates that is should only be on a voluntary basis.

As a foot note, I have read out some of the posts from a select few on this thread to other traincrew members in the messroom today. The overwhelming opinion has been for more of these hilarious comments. It has certainly cheered everyone from the post Christmas blues. Who needs the Comedy Club?

 

[Clip]

No I'm suggesting contracts will be amended. It could happen as part of a proposed pay offer as I already suggested e.g. if you want the annual 5% increase and 2 extra days holiday you must accept working on 26th December. Or it could be much worse - think about what could happen if a new franchise doesn't choose to TUPE over existing employees - which they don't have to unless DfT require them to. A choice of a new contract or no job could well result in industrial action!

They dont have a choice - they have to. Suggest you have a read up on this.


https://www.gov.uk/transfers-takeovers/overview

When TUPE applies
There are 2 types of transfer protected under TUPE regulations:

business transfers
service provision changes


Business transfers

This is where a business or part of a business moves from one employer to another. This can include mergers where 2 companies close and combine to form a new one.

The identity of the employer must change, to be protected under TUPE during a business transfer.

Service provision changes

This is when:

a service provided in-house (eg cleaning, workplace catering) is awarded to a contractor
a contract ends and is given to a new contractor
a contract ends and the work is transferred in-house by the former customer
Employees aren’t protected under TUPE if the contract is:

for the supply of goods for the company’s use (eg a restaurant changing food suppliers)
for a single event or short-term task (eg a catering company being used for a large corporate event)
Only the employees who can be clearly identified as providing the service being transferred are protected.

I assure you that there is no company on this earth that would try and not TUPE over railway staff when they took on a new franchise. They would go to the wall quicker that Bolt runs the 100 metres.

 

[II]

I'd trial it first with volunteers on additional pay and see how it gets on before deciding to mess around with the terms and conditions.

That is my way of thinking, too.

 

[northwichcat]

They dont have a choice - they have to. Suggest you have a read up on this.

https://www.gov.uk/transfers-takeovers/overview

I assure you that there is no company on this earth that would try and not TUPE over railway staff when they took on a new franchise. They would go to the wall quicker that Bolt runs the 100 metres.

I've been TUPEd between companies twice. The first time all employees were moved from one business to another. The second time a company specialising in corporate restructuring was called in and took over management of the existing company which resulted in half the employees being TUPEd to a new company on their existing contracts. Some were offered temporary/part-time work with the new company which they accepted but the rest (apart from one member of senior management who resigned) were not TUPEd across and were told their employment was being terminated. The ones who had their contracts terminated were also told the existing company was insolvent and had been put in to administration meaning they would be unsecured creditors of the existing company. However, the ones who were offered temporary/part-time work with the new company automatically became secured creditors if they accepted the offer. The new business also employed additional staff not longer after the restructuring.

I think anyone who thinks a similar scenario could be avoided on the railways if DfT want to implement a restructuring change doesn't live in the real world.

 

[Bellbell]

I've been TUPEd between companies twice. The first time all employees were moved from one business to another. The second time a company specialising in corporate restructuring was called in and took over management of the existing company which resulted in half the employees being TUPEd to a new company on their existing contracts. Some were offered temporary/part-time work with the new company which they accepted but the rest (apart from one member of senior management who resigned) were not TUPEd across and were told their employment was being terminated. The ones who had their contracts terminated were also told the existing company was insolvent and had been put in to administration meaning they would be unsecured creditors of the existing company. However, the ones who were offered temporary/part-time work with the new company automatically became secured creditors if they accepted the offer. The new business also employed additional staff not longer after the restructuring.

I think anyone who thinks a similar scenario could be avoided on the railways if DfT want to implement a restructuring change doesn't live in the real world.

OK, I'm not sure whether you're legally correct or not, but leaving that aside: so TOC A doesn't get franchise renewed. TOC B is successful bidder. TOC B announces it plans to terminate contracts of front line staff because they won't play ball over Boxing Day working. TOC B is aggressively recruiting and training staff somewhere else prior to taking over the franchise. Someone in training points out that without traction and routes, the new recruits won't be productive on day 1 of new franchise. TOC B says ha! We'll get TOC A to let us do traction training and route learning on their trains. Even if TOC A agrees when units are on depots, why on earth would the staff who are losing their jobs allow new recruits into their cabs for routes and traction? How would you train all your new recruits on traction when you can only, at best, get access on the depots? What do you do about the routes that are only signed by that particular TOC?

 

[ComUtoR]

I've been TUPEd between companies twice. The first time all employees were moved from one business to another.

That sounds like TUPE.

The second time a company specialising in corporate restructuring was called in and took over management of the existing company

Restructuring isn't a transfer of business to a new employer. That sounds as if the same company simply restructured and there was then a surplus of existing staff. Which were made redundant and or given a new opportunity with a new company.

In terms of a TOC. It could be possible to split the business into operations/retail and then outsource all staffing. That way you could, in theory, TUPE the staff who wish to transfer but still retain staff (doing a new role) with new contracts.

At My TOC we may be in a situation where the franchise is split up. IF that happened then something similar could happen. All staff that move to the new split part of the franchise could be TUPE'd over and then potentially harmonised. Any staff wishing to transfer could be offered guaranteed positions (without TUPE)

A completely new franchise with new Drivers terms etc could be the only way to have new contracts.

I can see it potentially happening but I think with Crossrail they still TUPEd over the staff. If any one drives for Crossrail is able to enlighten me as to how they transferred over the staff etc, I'd be grateful.

 

[northwichcat]

Restructuring isn't a transfer of business to a new employer. That sounds as if the same company simply restructured and there was then a surplus of existing staff. Which were made redundant and or given a new opportunity with a new company.

All the existing contracts the business were retained and fulfilled by the new business but the proportion of staff in each part of the business was wrong and consequently what should have been a profitable business was sometimes needing to borrow from shareholders to make payments on time.

Not all that dis-similar to a TOC being put on revenue support - which most have been at some point.

In terms of a TOC. It could be possible to split the business into operations/retail and then outsource all staffing. That way you could, in theory, TUPE the staff who wish to transfer but still retain staff (doing a new role) with new contracts.

At My TOC we may be in a situation where the franchise is split up. IF that happened then something similar could happen. All staff that move to the new split part of the franchise could be TUPE'd over and then potentially harmonised. Any staff wishing to transfer could be offered guaranteed positions (without TUPE)

A completely new franchise with new Drivers terms etc could be the only way to have new contracts.

I can see it potentially happening but I think with Crossrail they still TUPEd over the staff. If any one drives for Crossrail is able to enlighten me as to how they transferred over the staff etc, I'd be grateful.

In theory what would have stopped First Group setting up a company called First TransPennine Train Drivers Limited and using TUPE to transfer train drivers from First Kelios TransPennine Express to First TransPennine Train Drivers Limited and then using First TransPennine Train Drivers Limited as a contractor for First TransPennine Express Limited but using First TransPennine Express Limited to train and employ new drivers?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

why on earth would the staff who are losing their jobs allow new recruits into their cabs for routes and traction?

If train drivers are expected to allow new recruits in to the cabs as part of their training would they be in breach of contract if they refused meaning potential redundancy turns in to immediate dismissal? If so it's interesting drivers would be happy to sacrifice their jobs and any redundancy pay they would be due in order to make a point over proposed contract changes!

 

[LAX54]

All the existing contracts the business were retained and fulfilled by the new business but the proportion of staff in each part of the business was wrong and consequently what should have been a profitable business was sometimes needing to borrow from shareholders to make payments on time.

Not all that dis-similar to a TOC being put on revenue support - which most have been at some point.



In theory what would have stopped First Group setting up a company called First TransPennine Train Drivers Limited and using TUPE to transfer train drivers from First Kelios TransPennine Express to First TransPennine Train Drivers Limited and then using First TransPennine Train Drivers Limited as a contractor for First TransPennine Express Limited but using First TransPennine Express Limited to train and employ new drivers?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


If train drivers are expected to allow new recruits in to the cabs as part of their training would they be in breach of contract if they refused meaning potential redundancy turns in to immediate dismissal? If so it's interesting drivers would be happy to sacrifice their jobs and any redundancy pay they would be due in order to make a point over proposed contract changes!

Lost me on the first part ! lol and as for not having anyone in the cab, I think everyone has the right not to train, if they feel its a distraction surely, as it is Safety of the Line at risk

 

[notverydeep]

I have just checked Boxing day 2016 demand (number of journeys) were I work. They were about the same as New Year's Day 2017 journeys, which puts Boxing Day demand just short of a the demand for train travel on a typical January Sunday. The demand on Boxing Day journeys has grown by nearly 400% over the last 15 years. At the start of this period, it was less than a third of a normal Sunday.

I am not sure what the impact of the absence of neighbouring TOC routes is. This may cause some passengers to be abstracted from unavailable routes, but other passengers who would normally interchange onto the services that do operate wouldn't be able to travel at all, being to far from a station with a service at one of the ends of the journey they would make.

If I was an employee of a mainly rural or cross country TOC, I might be anxious that Christmas Day and Boxing Day may well end up an excellent show case for the advantages of autonomous road vehicles in the years ahead...

 

[northwichcat]

Lost me on the first part ! lol

Well some people asked me to expand on what I was suggesting and it seems it's too complex for some to understand. :roll:

and as for not having anyone in the cab, I think everyone has the right not to train, if they feel its a distraction surely, as it is Safety of the Line at risk

Question would be if you've trained on the same route at the same time before on multiple occasions and didn't complain about it being a distraction then what factors have changed to claim it would be a distraction when you actually just don't want to do it?

 

[Clip]

I've been TUPEd between companies twice. The first time all employees were moved from one business to another. The second time a company specialising in corporate restructuring was called in and took over management of the existing company which resulted in half the employees being TUPEd to a new company on their existing contracts. Some were offered temporary/part-time work with the new company which they accepted but the rest (apart from one member of senior management who resigned) were not TUPEd across and were told their employment was being terminated. The ones who had their contracts terminated were also told the existing company was insolvent and had been put in to administration meaning they would be unsecured creditors of the existing company. However, the ones who were offered temporary/part-time work with the new company automatically became secured creditors if they accepted the offer. The new business also employed additional staff not longer after the restructuring.

I think anyone who thinks a similar scenario could be avoided on the railways if DfT want to implement a restructuring change doesn't live in the real world.

Oh I live in the real world alright and have been part of the TUPE process thrice now.

In the second situation the unios would be involved form the start and during the consultancy period and they wouldnt be happy for jobs to disappear and would quite rightly kick up a stink before they even started.

I would go on but you can read all about TUPE on this handy guide and information page from ACAS


http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1655

Maybe the second time in your experience wasnt handled correctly or legally? But believe me there is no way they would just not TUPE anyone across from one TOC to another - there simply would not be anyone to run the railway from day one.

 

[AlterEgo]

I have just checked Boxing day 2016 demand (number of journeys) were I work. They were about the same as New Year's Day 2017 journeys, which puts Boxing Day demand just short of a the demand for train travel on a typical January Sunday. The demand on Boxing Day journeys has grown by nearly 400% over the last 15 years. At the start of this period, it was less than a third of a normal Sunday.

I am not sure what the impact of the absence of neighbouring TOC routes is. This may cause some passengers to be abstracted from unavailable routes, but other passengers who would normally interchange onto the services that do operate wouldn't be able to travel at all, being to far from a station with a service at one of the ends of the journey they would make.

If I was an employee of a mainly rural or cross country TOC, I might be anxious that Christmas Day and Boxing Day may well end up an excellent show case for the advantages of autonomous road vehicles in the years ahead...

That is interesting - where do you work? Is it a TOC, or a bus company, or something else?

 

[dk1]

When it comes to having anyone in my cab when I am driving the decision is mine & mine alone. If I say no there is nothing that can be done. As soon as I mention distraction what manager would take the risk?

 

[Bellbell]

Well some people asked me to expand on what I was suggesting and it seems it's too complex for some to understand. :roll:

My reaction to your earlier post when you said you didn't know how it would work was fair play, at least he's held his hands up. Now you've started with the condescending comments I think a little differently!

Question would be if you've trained on the same route at the same time before on multiple occasions and didn't complain about it being a distraction then what factors have changed to claim it would be a distraction when you actually just don't want to do it?

First of all, it was me that raised the point, and I'm not a driver, so don't go attributing that attitude to all drivers. However, as others have said, it's entirely up to us whether we have people in the cab with us. Do you not think in this hypothetical situation that having someone in your cab with you who's only there to replace you in a few weeks time might be a distraction? As dk1 said, it can't be questioned, anyway. If a driver doesn't want you there, you won't be there. End of. If a manager was dumb enough to question it then any number of things might have changed - sleep, hydration, weather conditions to name a few. If I don't want someone in my back cab with me, I don't have to have them there either, for similar reasons plus the added fact that I could potentially have a substantial amount of revenue in there.

Why would TOC A threaten someone with disciplinary action for not allowing someone from TOC B in the cab with them, even disregarding the above? TOC B is already sacking the guard/driver, so it's not much of a threat, and why would TOC A suspend someone and cost themselves money and time when they're losing the franchise and all being sacked anyway?

This is all rather off topic and I didn't intend for it to become so intricately discussed but you suggested it as a way of bringing in Boxing Day working. I think as much as I agree that it's on the horizon, mass sacking, even leaving aside all legal issues, is not the way it's going to happen.

 

[FordFocus]

Question would be if you've trained on the same route at the same time before on multiple occasions and didn't complain about it being a distraction then what factors have changed to claim it would be a distraction when you actually just don't want to do it?

Train Drivers have the right to refuse anyone access to the cab with the exception of when they need their mandatory assessments or it's in accordance to the rule book e.g. a pilotman or conductor driver. After all they are driving the train so it's ultimately their call.

I've been route learning and been declined access to the cab, it's no big deal.

I wouldn't be comfortable with a person in the front cab who's potentially putting me out of a job (your TUPE idea) distracting me with questions on the route that could cause a mistake been made such as a fail to call or a SPAD.

 

[dk1]

Train Drivers have the right to refuse anyone access to the cab with the exception of when they need their mandatory assessments or it's in accordance to the rule book e.g. a pilotman or conductor driver. After all they are driving the train so it's ultimately their call.

I've been route learning and been declined access to the cab, it's no big deal.

I wouldn't be comfortable with a person in the front cab who's potentially putting me out of a job (your TUPE idea) distracting me with questions on the route that could cause a mistake been made such as a fail to call or a SPAD.

Perfectly put Sword. I am the most easy going driver you could meet but don't dictate or p#ss me off. I even do instructing so enjoy the company & helping those new to the grade to succeed. Not sure where these 'push over' myths have ever come from. You see comments that train drivers are bullied into taking unfit trains from depots. When??? It's either fixed or its cancelled. It's as simple as that :roll:

 

[miami]

Perfectly put Sword. I am the most easy going driver you could meet but don't dictate or p#ss me off. I even do instructing so enjoy the company & helping those new to the grade to succeed. Not sure where these 'push over' myths have ever come from. You see comments that train drivers are bullied into taking unfit trains from depots. When??? It's either fixed or its cancelled. It's as simple as that :roll:

Aren't there limits? Other drivers on here post here that the TOC won't pay for safety essential systems to be tested and they are forced to take the train out - being unable to cancel the journey

 

[dk1]

Aren't there limits? Other drivers on here post here that the TOC won't pay for safety essential systems to be tested and they are forced to take the train out - being unable to cancel the journey

Safety systems no way. There are certain minor defects where the rule book clearly states that a a train my start or continue in service but definatley not from a maintainence depot. Things like internal sliding door not working or toilet out of use are ok but anything like tail light out, coach MA not working, exterior door fault & even repair book not signed off let alone anything like TPWS or GSMR fault & the train is going nowhere.

 

[furnessvale]

Safety systems no way. There are certain minor defects where the rule book clearly states that a a train my start or continue in service but definatley not from a maintainence depot. Things like internal sliding door not working or toilet out of use are ok but anything like tail light out, coach MA not working, exterior door fault & even repair book not signed off let alone anything like TPWS or GSMR fault & the train is going nowhere.

Indeed. My brother would refuse to bring the string of first generation DMUs for Preston off Newton Heath unless EVERY engine was running.

When told he was a troublemaker and surely he had enough engines to get to Preston, he would (non too) politely explain that when reaching Preston, the train would be split into separate 2 cars for various services, and any short of engines would be failures before the day's work began.

Much grumbling would ensue as time spent working on trains took them away from the important work of repairing taxis on night shift.

 

[dk1]

To be fair the days when anyone would even argue with the driver or cut corners by taking it as a favour are long gone. You advise what needs repairing & somebody is sent directly or the train cancelled. Nobody whether it be maintainence or control would put their name to anything that might come back & bite them.

 

[miami]

Safety systems no way. There are certain minor defects where the rule book clearly states that a a train my start or continue in service but definatley not from a maintainence depot. Things like internal sliding door not working or toilet out of use are ok but anything like tail light out, coach MA not working, exterior door fault & even repair book not signed off let alone anything like TPWS or GSMR fault & the train is going nowhere.

I'm referring specifically to the PA system, which has been asserted by multiple people to be a safety critical feature, but is unable to be checked on many trains as the driver can't be in both the cab and the carriages at the same time.

 

[Clip]

I'm referring specifically to the PA system, which has been asserted by multiple people to be a safety critical feature, but is unable to be checked on many trains as the driver can't be in both the cab and the carriages at the same time.

They should get checked at night by the team inside the depot.

 

[Dieseldriver]

To be fair the days when anyone would even argue with the driver or cut corners by taking it as a favour are long gone. You advise what needs repairing & somebody is sent directly or the train cancelled. Nobody whether it be maintainence or control would put their name to anything that might come back & bite them.

Sounds like you work for a pretty well managed TOC where the management have a healthy respect towards safety and their staff. Unfortunately, it is not the same everywhere.