Author: Paul

Posted on

LUL Track Access: Section 15 Concerns

Background

Different parts of the Business have been told different stories regarding the benefits and purpose of Section 15.  DRACT submission advocates Section 15 as a single rule set, necessary to replace existing Possession procedures, including end on for Night Time running.  The Access Transformation Project promises increased time on tools, 30–60 minutes more working time, again necessary to deliver Night Tube.  When challenged about how unrealistic this was, Management informed staff that it wasn’t about working time, but better planning and control.  An attempt perhaps to regain control that was lost when CPD made most SABRE bookings “generic” in nature, to cut jobs in the planning department, which made it possible for staff to attempt to book into Specified Areas/Possessions.  A new process to allow last minute/poor planning to go unseen, hidden within Possessions.  He told Kebba Jobe (RMT Service Control) that Section 15 Would be used to permit things such as re-lamping, running new cable for upgrades, minor work to maintain line side equipment … it would be extremely unlikely that Section 15 would be used for larger works.”  This is the polar opposite of what Management told TAC’s; it wouldn’t be used for routine maintenance and most worrying that they had no cause to be concerned for their survival.  Perhaps the most useful insight into the rational behind Section 15 can be found in the ATP Transitional Safety Risk Assessment, compiled by Management.  This concentrates on the perceived benefits of Permissioning.  Last train issues (caused by CPD’s inability to publish this information correctly), and the can be eliminated by Permissioning.  Taken from the RA, concerning the perceived potential for signallers to misroute trains in complex areas; By September 2015 London Underground will be in a position to always “permission contractors onto the track” through a possession master, rather than LC/LS procedures (Section 15 possession). 

3 months into the trial, Section 15 has predominantly been used for mini BTR’s and other significant pieces of work such as the RAM’s project.  But it has also been published to facilitate routine maintenance.  SUP have been told to base their contracts for resignalling the sub-surface on all work being carried out in Section 15 Possessions, Management confirmed this at a presentation to TAC.  Experience of resignalling on Northern / Jubilee line demonstrates this will be a huge undertaking, probably the biggest ever LU signal project, requiring several Section 15 Possessions each night. In addition CPD have embarked on a trial with the intention of converting all Specified Areas into Possessions.

LUL Track Access Controllers, through its Power Control colleagues, have firsthand knowledge of when traction current is actually switched off and when Service Control authorises switch on.  They are also aware of the call back times given within these Possessions, from staff who book on with TAC across the boundaries.  There is no evidence that working time has increased, on the contrary in some locations it has been reduced.  Any claims of increased productivity can only be due to using more staff and equipment, or being better prepared to work in the short time available.

In order to address a problem of its own making, CPD are implementing a procedure introducing many other risks instead.  Line Clear / Line Safe protection has an exceptional safety record, which could be compromised by the proliferation of Section 15 Possessions across the Network.  Attempts by staff  to raise concerns through all usual channels have for the most part been ignored. These concerns have only recently been taken seriously by the Engineering Branch of the RMT, whose members are most at risk of having their safety compromised as a result of these changes.

Safety concerns fall into 2 main categories; work site controls and impact on existing process.

 

Work Site Controls

Until recently there would have been about 12 Specified Areas around the Network on weeknights; each confined to a small exclusive area, where no-one else could gain access except in an emergency.  Each Specified Area will now become a much larger S15 Possession; e.g. train originally booked 08/06/15 to work between Moorgate and Angel, became a Possession; Euston (City) sub-gaps to Kennington sub-gaps, All.  Under S15 principles whole Traction Current Sections must be taken; thus affecting much greater areas with much greater impact on other work.  To avoid taking weekend Closures, which will impact on Night Tube, more work will be carried out on weeknights.  Including mini BTR’s which use numerous trains and mechanised vehicles in hazardous worksites.  Larger Possession areas allows flexibility to move trains / vehicles around without the detailed planning involved in Specified Areas; staff have no visibility of where these are actually working, which could change at short notice anyway.  Staff less able to plan work to avoid sites where trains/vehicles are working, will be increasingly forced to working within Possessions with these hazards present.

Previously other staff would have been kept away from such work, not permitted access within a Specified Area or Possession. The purpose of a worksite for Engineers Trains / Mechanised Vehicles was to exclude access to anyone other than those undertaking hazardous work. But such is the pressure to squeeze 7 nights work (plus weekend shutdowns) into 5 to enable the Night Tube; previous controls have been covertly changed without following due process. Evidence suggested other work was being allowed to take place in the same worksites as hazardous work was taking place.  Patrols and routine maintenance have continued in the BTR worksite on the Heathrow branch, which has been running nearly every night for 3 months.  Ultrasonic defects have been found and fixed, around train movements.  Safe segregation of staff and machines has not been documented in Possession Works Guides, to rail industry standards.  This has been confirmed in a “clarification” to the OSP on 25/06/15 which now says; Provided all work has been planned to safely co-exist, whether or not the worksite involves train(s) or rail mounted mechanised vehicle(s), separate work groups are permitted to share one worksite.  This is the polar opposite of what Management told staff that when this concern was raised at a team talk he attended. The long standing purpose of having separate worksites within a Possession is totally lost if any work can take place within them. The safety of staff carrying out maintenance and unrelated work within the same worksite as Engineers Trains / Mechanised Vehicles is now reliant on ad-hoc controls being imposed by staff on the ground, instead of being locked into separate documented worksites.  Increased risk of staff being struck by engineers trains / mechanised vehicles.

Another significant change, made by means of a “clarification” to the OSP on 25/06/15, is to allow Sections within a Possession to be switched of progressively instead of taking current off from the whole area simultaneously.  After the passage of the last train, this can either be consecutively requested for each traction current section, or all sections can be requested simultaneously, as determined when planned.  Service Control are now required to progressively protect areas as they are being switched off, with trains still running, as opposed to simply protecting the whole published Possession area when all train movements have ceased.  It also has an impact on Possession Master who, based on hand written records, can permission staff onto the track within a Possession where traction current may still be alive in part of it, with trains running.  This process is outside of any existing Rule Book Possession procedures, or existing training standards, raising new concerns.  Both have safety implications above and beyond the scope of the original OSP.  Risk of staff being inadequately protected within partly taken Possessions.

Section 15 is driven by the Contractors desire to control access, in the manner they wish, forcing everyone else work around them.  It is incestuous that the Rule Book team now resides in the same part of the organisation responsible for delivering projects, making it possible for this to happen, without following due process and proper consultation.  A building site type culture is being introduced to replace the existing controlled Engineering Hours environment, increased risk to staff accessing the track.

Impact on existing process

Service Control POM/SPC’s do not have the tools to manage bookings in the same manner that the present Track Access Controller do using CTAC, increasing the risk of clerical error associated with booking staff onto wrong sections, missing call back times and managing overruns.  The transformation of Specified Areas into much larger Section 15 Possession areas, plus other major works undertaken in this manner including sub-surface resignalling, will result in increased numbers of staff being forced to work within Section 15 Possessions instead of booking on with the TAC. At present the TAC manages access for up to 900 groups of staff at night using a bespoke computer system designed to a Safety Integrity Level.  Any transfer of workload from the computer system to paper increases the risk of clerical error.  Risk increases proportionally to the number of Section 15 Possessions taken each night.  Section 15 introduces an increased risk of clerical error, with potential to place staff in danger of electrocution/being struck by train.

Service Control/POM/SPC’s do not have tools to check the validity of licenses of the staff they are protecting (staff uses computer to interrogate SCL database; statistics show these checks are worthwhile).  Creating risk of staff being allowed to undertake roles they are not licensed to do, or for which they have been barred.  An allegation strongly refuted by Management at a JNP H&S forum, but subsequently corroborated by evidence from Service Control and Protection staff.  Section15 will result in a reduction in existing safety controls.

The concept of staff working in a Possession simply booking on with POM, as shown in Management’s risk assessment, is in truth more complicated because responsibility for access within each worksite rests with individual SPC’s.  As a result staff working over a large area (patrolmen, litter pickers, etc…), can find themselves coming under the protection of the POM, one or more SPC’s, in addition to TAC for areas outside the Possession.  These complex arrangements increase the risk of staff becoming confused and making errors taking/clearing protection.  Already there is evidence it will be more difficult to safely manage existing Line Clear/Line Safe procedures in areas surrounding Section 15 Possessions. EIRF 60817 raised by staff on 01/07/15 involved staff working in these challenging circumstances, which caused problems to TAC process. On that occasion a group of staff were not even given a call back time to work within the Section 15 Possession.  Another EIRF (60798) was raised on 30/06/15 when a member of staff working in a Section 15 Possession tried to clear his protection with the existing TAC’s.  Section 15 process creates increased risk of staff being inadequately protected, situation compounded by Engineering Hours procedures applying in surrounding areas.

Where Section 15 is used at night, with no trains running, no Banners are placed at the Possession limits.  Gives rise to the possibility of staff accidentally walking into the Possession from adjoining areas under Line Clear/Line Safe protection (TAC records demonstrate staff are often denied access through unfamiliarity with sub-gaps at complex locations, such as Northfields).  While this is also a feature of Section 13 protection, the banners are only missing for a short time, at weekends when there are few staff working in surrounding areas.  Since Section 13 was created, the NEPA was introduced, which has caused problems with staff failing to highlight Possession limits.  As a result TAC insisted markers were placed for the Section 14 trial.   Lack of Possession limit markers creates risk of staff accessing the Possession area in error.

Since the introduction of the NEPA there has been an increase in the prevalence of staff trying to book into Possessions.  Until recently the exact areas affected by Possessions were not shown in the NEPA.  Evidence is now emerging (from denied bookings in CTAC), that staff are confused about the extent of Section 15 Possessions with impact on TAC delivery.  They find it difficult to assimilate whether the station they wish to work at lies within the Possession area, which runs from sub-gap to sub-gap.  This is likely to increase as more Specified areas, which are usually from station to station, are converted into Section 15 Possessions.  These same people will now need to arrange protection in more complex situations involving POM/SPC/TAC.  Previously most staff were trained to avoid Possessions, in future they have to work in them.  No training/familiarisation has been given in what is a fundamental change to protection principles.  Section 15 process creates increased risk of staff being inadequately protected, situation compounded by new procedure being poorly delivered.

OSP does not take into account access for LU Operational Landlord responsibilities presently undertaken using Engineering Hours Track Access.  Rule Book 22, Section 3.3 specifically prohibits access within a Possession.  The Heathrow Possession has been running nearly every night for 3 months, making it almost impossible to safely fulfil Landlord responsibilities within existing rules.  Operational staff will be forced to work in Possession worksites, in close proximity to hazards that existing rules are designed to protect them from.  Section 15 introduces risk of Operational staff being struck by engineers trains/mechanised vehicles.

Records held on paper scattered around the railway with POM’s and EIC’s will increase the time to manage incidents.  The safety and operational benefits of centralised Command and Control in LUCC will be lost, particularly for incidents which extend over large areas or involve more than one line.  Section15 will result in a reduction in existing safety controls.

Traction current switching arrangements in Section 15 Possessions are fundamentally different to Engineering Hours (TAC involved in some areas and the Controller in others).  Running both processes side by side introduces risk of human/communication errors.  Section 15 Possessions can now randomly appear anywhere on the Network taking the place of Specified Areas, changing on a nightly basis.  Power Control staff have expressed concerns about making switching errors, the consequences of which are unimaginable.  Risk increases proportionally to the number of Section 15 Possessions taken each night.  There have already been two instances where Power Control staff thought messages to switch on at SOT would come from TAC when it should have been the Controller, as a result of not being briefed as prescribed in the OSP and inadequate publications. TAC EIRF’s 60459 (08/06/15) and 60795 (30/06/15) refer.  Section 15 has introduced more complex switching arrangements, therefore increased risk of error, with potentially serious consequences.

Concerns raised by Power Control about Controllers handing over Sections within Section 15 Possessions in bulk (when Possession clears), as opposed to TAC passing messages individually 5 minutes before switch on time, have not been addressed.  In the event of access being needed in an emergency in the intervening time, or Sections needing to be held to protect overrunning work outside the Possession area, the Controller needs to retract messages previously given.  Otherwise traction current will be switched on at the published time regardless.  Section 15 process is not as robust as Engineering Hours rules, does not fail safe under these conditions.  Risk increases proportionally to the number of Section 15 Possessions taken each night.  Section 15 increases risk of human/communication errors in managing switching arrangements.

Managing switching arrangements for  unpublished events/incidents also becomes more complex; Premature discharge, Track Alive, sleet train running, early switch on, holds for overruns/implementing Buffer Sections….  With the exception of emergency switch on, these events are not covered by the OSP.  Lack of process, compounded by the complexity of running both procedures simultaneously in a random manner across the Network, will lead to human/communication errors.  Risk increases proportionally to the number of Section 15 Possessions taken each night.  Incident management becomes more complex with the introduction of Section 15, therefore increased risk of error, with potentially serious consequences.

 

At present staff are able to manage incidents such as Track Alive using CTAC and team working, allowing several TAC’s to be used simultaneously to contact protection staff in an emergency, thus reducing the time staff are exposed to whatever risk is present.  Section 15 POM does not have the facilities to do this.  Furthermore the chain of command under Section 15 is increased as a result of staff within each worksite coming under the control of individual SPC’s.  Section 15 will increase response times during incident management, with increased risk to staff on the track.

 

Another significant change, made by means of a “clarification” to the OSP on 25/06/15, is the introduction of a process to allow traction current to be switched on in an emergency inside the published Section 15 Possession area.  Previously OSP was “clarified” to prevent current being switched on before the published time, as that affected the integrity of Engineering Hours protection outside the Possession.  Poorly worded it assumes current will also need to be switched on outside the Possession area, which won’t always be the case.  Process should mandate the Controller to consult with TAC, to request Special messages if required, or obtain assurances that staff working outside the Possession will not be put at risk if traction current is switched on unexpectedly within the Possession.  TAC may also need assurance that mitigation has been put in place to prevent any train leaving the published Possession area, to protect staff on abutting Sections.  In order to prevent any misunderstanding TAC have obtained assurances from Service Manger that this process will not be carried out without first discussing with TAC; EIRF’s 60718 (24/06/15) 60793/4 (30/06/15) refer.  Clarification to Section 15 OSP creates risk to staff outside Possession area from traction current being switched on in an emergency.

The Risk Assessment that presently underpins the trial is based on the premise that it is not possible to address last train publication issues.  It goes into detail on the perceived benefits of “Permissioning”, but does not properly identify or evaluate the risks arising from introducing Section 15 (other than a few Power Control issues).  It has not been carried out to Company standards.  It contains no “access subject expert” / formal HSE input; as a result its conclusions are not sound or objective.  Union reps from Engineering Departments have been excluded, despite the fact it is their staff whose safety is most at risk from such significant changes to access procedures.  Section 15 risk assessment does not address the relevant safety issues arising from the introduction of Section 15.

Finally, there is no confidence that CPD will deliver Section 15 safely.  Given their poor track record with the NEPA, quality of publications, planning failures, other access “improvements” in recent years…. 

 

Posted on

Trade Union Bill

 

To the Secretary all Branches,

Council of Executive members,

Regional Councils and Regional Offices

 

Thursday 16th July 2015

 

 

Dear Colleagues,

 

Trade Union Bill

 

On 15th July the Government introduced the new Trade Union Bill to Parliament. The Bill is an unprecedented, draconian assault on democracy and trade union rights, and even more so for workers in listed sectors which include transport.

 

The Bill includes:

 

  • a 50% voting threshold for union ballot turnouts, plus a requirement of 40% of those entitled to vote in favour of industrial action in certain “essential” public services (health, education, fire and transport)
  • changing “unlawful” or “intimidatory” picketing from a civil offence to a criminal one
  • an opt-in process for the political fund trade union subscriptions
  • a limit on the proportion of working time a public sector worker can spend on trade union duties
  • further proscriptive detail to be included on ballot papers and notice to employers. The current level of detail is often used by employers to challenge industrial action and this will further compound the situation.
  • an increase in the notice period given to employers prior to industrial action
  • time limits on a mandate (4 months) following a ballot for industrial action
  • additional powers to the Certification Officer to fine trade unions.

 

The ballot threshold means that in a transport workplace of 100 union members, 50 members would have to participate in a ballot and a minimum 40 of that 50 would have to vote yes for industrial action to be legal. This means on a turnout of 50%, an 80% yes vote would be required.

 

Attacks on picketing not only include changing “unlawful” or “intimidatory” picketing from a civil offence to a criminal one but also involves the union appointing a “picket supervisor” for every picket and taking “reasonable steps” to tell the police the picket supervisor’s name, where the picketing will be taking place, and how to contact the picket supervisor.

 

The Union will also now have to itemize all industrial action undertaken, and all expenditure from the political fund in our Annual Return to the Certification Officer. Any errors or omissions will be penalised by the Certification Officer.

 

It is expected that the ban on employers using Agency Staff to replace striking workers will be lifted through secondary legislation.

 

RMT has a proud record of fighting the anti-unions laws and our struggle against them will now intensify. We will continue to work with other unions and the TUC, and through campaign groups such as the Institute of Employment Rights and the Campaign for Trade Union Freedom, to build the broadest possible alliance to fight these laws.

 

We have submitted a motion to the 2015 Trade Union Congress which reflects this position.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Mick Cash

General Secretary

 

 

 

Posted on

Blacklisting High Court Update

  1. High Court update:

We spanked them 4-0.

Hugh and John crushed them on Tuesday and Wednesday. Dinah and Guy were brilliant on Thursday. We won on every single decision made by the judge. The blacklist firms now have a massive, costly and highly intrusive exercise to find & disclose the documentary evidence by 31st October. Take that, you human rights abusing wretches.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/60718029@N06/19692078866/in/album-72157655502198878/

http://unitelive.org/blacklisting-high-court-case-hearing/

 

  1. Pitchford Inquiry into undercover policing. 

Spycops inquiry Terms of Reference announced by Teresa May today. Not a single explicit mention of blacklisting or spying on unions – we need to keep up the pressure to ensure that we are a core part of the inquiry. John McDonnell MP asked a parliamentary question about whether spying on unions would be part of the inquiry – but there has been no response from the Home Office.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2015-07-16/HCWS115/

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/15/doreen-lawrence-name-undercover-police-spied-family

http://campaignopposingpolicesurveillance.com/2015/07/16/home-secretary-announces-terms-of-undercover-police-inquiry/

Statement from the Blacklist Support Group regarding the announcement of the terms of reference for the Pitchford Inquiry into undercover policing

“The Blacklist Support Group has called on the Pitchford Inquiry not to become a whitewash in its investigation into undercover policing and ensure that spying on trade unionists is properly investigated. Teresa May has today (Thurs) announced the terms of reference for the public inquiry into undercover policing. The announcement by the Home Secretary lays out the scope of the inquiry to be led by the High Court judge and Privy Council member, Lord Justice Pitchford. The inquiry, set to run for three years, will look into the role of undercover policing and political campaign groups and social justice groups. The concerns of thousands of trade unionists must be heard and must be investigated – otherwise this is just another whitewash.

Many in the trade union movement may be skeptical about whether the Pitchford Inquiry, or indeed any investigation by the British establishment, will expose the full extent of state spying on unions. Even to get to this point has been a struggle. Getting the Pitchford inquiry to looking at political campaigns was not granted out of the generosity of Teresa May’s heart. Campaigners have had to fight for it over many years. This is only the latest stage in our battle for justice.

 

Trade unionists have known for decades that the police have been spying on us but whenever we have raised it we were accused of being conspiracy theorists with no evidence to back up our allegations. That has changed thanks to a combination of grassroots campaigning and investigate journalism – and the Pitchford Inquiry has the opportunity to test these allegations.

 

It is now known that the undercover police officers Mark Jenner and Peter Francis spied on trade union members in construction and other sectors. Both were part of the Special Demonstration Squad, a unit within Special Branch where police officers went undercover not for the occasional demonstration but for years on end.

 

Peter Francis, the undercover cop who turned whistleblower to expose the scandal, has publicly admitted spying on UCATT, FBU, CWU, NUT and Unison members. He released a statement admitting this at the Parliamentary launch of Blacklisted – the book which details the secret vetting of construction industry workers and environmental activists. However Francis was unable to appear in person even in the House of Commons because he feared prosecution under the Official Secret Act.

 

It is vital that Francis is able to give evidence in full to the Pitchford Inquiry without fear of prosecution. Just as the Child Sexual Abuse inquiry has secured a guarantee from the Attorney General that whistleblowers will be granted immunity from prosecution.  Similarly, the Attorney General needs to give such an assurance to the Pitchford Inquiry.

 

The inquiry must investigate the activities of officers such as Mark Jenner. Under his alias Mark Cassidy, the officer was well known on construction picket lines in London. The police spy was a paid-up member of the construction union UCATT between 1996-98, infiltrating the union to spy on activists.  He chaired meetings for one rank and file campaign.

 

One of those he spied on was Steve Hedley, currently the RMT Assistant General Secretary. Hedley said:”The police and big business has spied on me and other union activists for decades for nothing more than standing up for rights of our fellow workers. The undercover cop Mark Jenner targeted me for a number of years in the late 1990s and even stayed at my mum’s house. The sooner this anti-democratic scandal at the heart of the British state is exposed the better.”

 

Other ‘enemies of the state’ were targeted by undercover cops such as John Dines, Bob Lambert, Marco Jacobs and Mark Kennedy. These include environmental and anti-racists activists. Many of those subject to state surveillance also had files held by the notorious The Consulting Association (TCA) blacklist maintained on behalf of some of the country’s biggest construction firms. Francis says he opened a Special Branch file on one Liverpool bricklayer – that activist has a TCA file which says he is “under constant watch officially”.

 

This is more than about simply gathering details of who attended which meeting. The total lack of morality at the heart of this state-sectioned surveillance is demonstrated by the fact that the SDS training manual encouraged these officers to have sexual relationships with women activists as a way of gaining trust within the campaigns they were targeting. In some cases they fathered children with their targets. When the bereaved families of racist murder victims such as Ricky Reel and Stephen Lawrence dared to question the police, this resulted in undercover surveillance by the SDS.

 

And this was not about a few secret policeman swapping gossip with friends in the private sector. This was not about a few bad apples.

 

In 2013, the Blacklist Support Group complained to the IPCC about the role of the police spying on blacklisted trade union activists in the building industry. In a frank admission, the police watchdog admitted that its initial investigations had found that “every Special Branch in the country routinely provide information about prospective employees”.

 

Documents leaked to John McDonnell MP show that DCI Gordon Mills from the then National Extremism Tactical Coordination Unit (NETCU) even attended The Consulting Association meetings to give a PowerPoint presentation. A ‘two way exchange of information’ was agreed between TCA and NETCU..

 

Spying on trade unionists is not an aberration but standard operating procedure, outside of democratic oversight and out of control. The effects on those targeted were often life-changing. It is a human rights abuse that cannot be tolerated – and which Pitchford cannot ignore.

 

A central question Pitchford must answer is why police intelligence was exchanged with big business. If our liberal democracy is to have any meaning then we deserve to know in whose interests the state acts. It may be uncomfortable for some but the public needs to know what, if any, political oversight has been exercised by both Labour and Conservative home secretaries.

 

One obvious omission from Teresa May’s statement is any mention of the role of the security services. The excuse of national security will be used as a cloak these undemocratic antics. The actions of Special Branch, the foot soldiers for MI5, cannot be the  end of Pitchford’s investigation if it is to have any meaning.

 

Our hopes are not high on this.The government continues to block the release of official papers relating to the prosecution of pickets at Shrewsbury in 1972. These secret documents would expose the role of undercover state agents in this notorious miscarriage of justice.

 

But public inquiries are stand alone bodies, in theory at least, one step removed from the government. If Pitchford is demonstrate that justice done must seen to be done without fear or favour then it must show its teeth. Campaigners will be arguing forcibly that other instances such as the Miners Strike, Grunwick, Wapping and blacklisting should all be investigated. There is prima facie evidence in all these case of undercover police involvement. The internal police inquiries so far have been a sham.

 

Pitchford may not get the full story of state surveillance on trade unions but an opportunity like this only comes along once in a generation. After decades of campaigning, we cannot tolerate a whitewash”.

 

  1. Tolpuddle Festival 

Phil Chamberlain and Dave Smith will be at Tolpuddle Festival at 10:30am this Saturday 18th July in the Marquee.

Books signed by the authors available from the Bookmarks tent.

http://tolpuddlemartyrs.org.uk/index.php?page=2012-festival-and-rally

 

  1. Blacklisting Arrest

Dave Smith’s trial following his arrest for protesting about blacklisting and safety isues on Crossrail is next week.

Thursday 23rd July (assemble 9am for photos)

City of London Magistrates Court

(next to bank tube)

Expect celebrity witnesses, political revelations and fireworks (not literally) in court

 

 

 

 

Posted on

Why ex-UKPN staff are on strike?

So why are UKPN part of the dispute over pay and night Tube? They are still in a multi-year deal so how does this affect them?

The answer is surprisingly simple:

  • LUL are asking for a multi-year deal that will potentially be in place once the UKPN deal elapses. That would affect you.
  • LUL and the RMT are in discussions to bring all staff onto LUL T’s & C’s. That would mean getting the LUL agreed pay rise. That would affect you.
  • Imposition of Rosters affects us all. If they can do it to train drivers, then they will do it to you
  • LUL have stated that they are removing ALL rostered rest days from Track Staff on the Victoria Line. This is being imposed but fought. LUL would dearly love to do the same to you.
  • The RMT are arguing that any Night Tube payments should be for everyone. This affects you.
  • Strength. We are stronger as a whole and that is the whole point of a union. You are standing along side over 10,000 other people. We have just shut down the whole Tube Network.

So it is as simple as that

We stand together and we will win. If you stand alone then you will lose and we have no intention of losing now, tomorrow or ever

Posted on

LUL Declares War on Engineering

LUL, have decided to wage a war against Engineering rather than deal with the underlying issues surrounding pay and night tube. These words might sound like harsh and mellow dramatic words however the facts speak for themselves.

So what have LUL planned to do that is so confrontational?

  • Training Cleshars staff to undertake Track Patrolling
  • Looking to Network Rail to undertake Cable Linesman work
  • Getting contracting companies to undertake Signalling Work. With some contractors arriving for work in a Porsche to highlight the pay they are receiving.
  • Changing the Rules to eliminate or reduce the need for internal staff to carry out certain roles such as possessions
  • Wholesale outsourcing of core work
  • Wholesale ignoring of the CMO Roster Agreement and Track Agreement on Rostered Rest Days

CMO Roster Agreement

 

Following a full discussion at our branch last night, it was decided that the only way to stand up to a bully is to fight back. And fight back we will. The following resolution was carried unanimously last night and will now go to our Union Executive to discuss and potentially agree the strategy to fight back and win

 

Emergency Resolution: LUL Strike ‘This branch notes and supports the work done to maintain inter-union unity to produce a stunning strike action that resulted in a total LUL shutdown by our GGC Member and Regional Organiser. This branch wishes for this Unity to be maintained and further all grades action is coordinated with our sister unions.

We also note that LUL are attacking our members over the issue of non-working of overtime. This includes long term threats to the job security of track, signals and power and electrical members through rule changes and outsourcing of work.

To confront this we request the GGC remove the overtime ban in Operational Areas covered by this branch. We however request that the following action is brought forward:

  • Tactical overtime ban action aimed at ending the large weekend engineering works
  • Instruction to our assessors and trainers to refuse to train and assess outside staff to take our work
  • Liaise with Network Rail members to refuse to work on LUL infrastructure
  • Members are reminded to follow the Rules in totality and to take their meal breaks.
  • Full strike action up to three day period, again aimed at maximising the disruption to Engineering and Maintenance Works across LUL.

This branch also believes that any dispute settlement should include

  • The removal of the threat to rewrite the Rule Book and contract out our work whether, it is signals work to Kelly Rail, Power and Electrical Work to Network Rail and Track Patrolling to Cleshars (or any other contractors).
  • A substantial pay rise at least to the level of the Network Rail settlement
  • Recognition of our right to a family life for now and future expansions of night tube. That should include working towards a 32 hour week. Sunday to Thursday staff moves to be voluntary. Rostered rest days to be protected and expanded. All agreements abided by including the CMO Roster Agreement. A substantial financial incentive for these changes and acceptable completion of all health and safety talks.’
Posted on

RMT responds to new raft of anti-union laws

RMT responds to new raft of anti-union laws

 

General Secretary Mick Cash said;

 

“We know that these brutal new anti-union laws are specifically targeted at our members in the transport sector who have shown in recent months that they have the guts to stand up and fight for jobs, pay, services and safety. The response of this Government mirrors the actions of hard-right regimes throughout history – shackle the unions, criminalise it’s members and use a raft of new laws to try and bankrupt workers’ organisations.

 

“It is not lost on us that this legislation has been tabled just a few days before we celebrate the Tolpuddle Martyrs at their annual festival – a group of Dorset farm labourers criminalised and ‎exiled for daring to organise a union.

 

“The trade union movement will unite to fight this brutal assault on the most basic of human rights and that campaign will be taken into the communities who stand to lose access to safe and reliable services as this noose of the anti-union laws is twisted round our necks. ”

 

Posted on

BRIGHTON PRIDE

TO: THE SECRETARY

BRANCHES & REGIONAL COUNCILS

 

 

Dear Colleague,

 

BRIGHTON PRIDE – SATURDAY 1ST AUGUST 2015

 

Please find enclosed a poster regarding RMT taking part in the Brighton Pride 25th Anniversary Parade for display and circulation.

 

All family and friends are welcome to join the RMT group.  Should you plan on attending please contact Roger Hackett so that t-shirts can be provided to everyone (Roger@freedomtolive2014@gmail.com)

 

RMT will also be supporting the following pride events: Plymouth 8th August, Cardiff 15th August and Glasgow 22 August.  Please contact our Equal Opportunities Officer, Jess Webb (j.webb@rmt.org.uk) with any queries.

 

Yours sincerely,

Mick Cash

General Secretary

Posted on

LUL: RMT confirms tube strike dates

RMT confirms tube strike dates

 

Tube union RMT confirmed that members across London Underground will be taking strike action from 1830 hours on Wednesday 5th August to 1829 hours on Thursday 6th August. The on-going overtime ban, which has already severely impacted on staff availability to run services, also continues.

 

The strike times for driver members will run slightly later, between 21.00 on 5th August to 20.59 on 6th August.

 

General Secretary Mick Cash said;

 

“The unity and determination of staff across London Underground in the dispute ‎over night tube, the imposition of the rosters from hell and the destruction of any semblance of work/life balance remains rock solid. Workers in all grades are furious at the attempt to rip up long-standing agreements in an effort to bulldoze through these wholly unacceptable new working patterns.

 

“RMT also remains in dispute over the parallel issue of the axing of 850 station staff jobs, cuts which make a mockery of the safe delivery of the night tube in just a few weeks time.

 

“RMT remains available for talks and tube managers need to understand the universal anger of their staff if we are to start making some serious progress in negotiations. “

Posted on

Tube Strike

RMT salutes tube workforce for solid, united and determined action and demands that LU return to serious negotiations.

 

General Secretary Mick Cash said;

 

“RMT congratulates the 20,000 members of all four tube unions who have stood united, solid and determined today and who have shown the world that ‎you can stand and fight for workplace justice if you are organised and strong. They are a credit to the entire trade union movement.

 

The tube management need to take a long hard look at today’s shutdown and recognise that they have managed to alienate and anger their entire 20000 workforce across all grades with the way they have approached the issue of night running. Instead of macho, death-or-glory posturing over take-it-or-leave offers now is the time for serious and mature negotiations which address the issues at the heart of this dispute. We now expect that to happen as a matter of urgency.

 

Bulldozing through the new rosters without discussion and outside of the long-standing agreements was always a disaster waiting to happen. Of course staff feel angry that they are being bullied into accepting new patterns that would wreck work life balance. LU have to wake up and understand that grievance instead of pretending that it doesn’t exist.

 

“The company also need to remember that we remain in dispute with them over the parallel issue of 850 station staff jobs losses – job losses that would make a mockery of delivering passenger and staff safety on the night tube.  The ball is now in firmly in LU’s court. “

Posted on

Blacklisting: Pitchford Inquiry

MPs have called for the Pitchford inquiry into the failures of undercover policing to cover spying on trade unions. Teresa May is set to announce the full Terms of Reference for the Pitchford Inquiry next week. The full text of Early Day Motion #263 submitted by John McDonnell MP is below:

 

“That this House remains deeply concerned about the extent and conduct of undercover police surveillance and the use of covert human intelligence sources; deeply regrets the distress caused to women by undercover officers forming intimate relationships and even fathering children with them; is concerned that police surveillance extended to covert monitoring of anti-racist and family justice campaigns, together with other civil society and political groups; is shocked by the revelations of Peter Francis, former member of the Metropolitan Police Force’s Special Demonstration Squad, in relation to the unit’s covert state surveillance of trade unions and their members, including Unison, the Fire Brigades Union, the Communication Workers Union, the National Union of Teachers and the construction workers union UCATT; commends the ongoing campaign of the National Union of Journalists over the surveillance of union members; welcomes the inquiry to be conducted by Lord Justice Pitchford into covert police surveillance; and calls on the terms of reference of the inquiry to include an investigation into the practice of covert surveillance of lawful trade union activities”.

 

Link to EDM 263 http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2015-16/263

 

John McDonnell MP has been at the forefront of exposing the role of undercover police spying on and colluding with the blacklisting of trade unions. He commented:

““Thousands of innocent trade unionists and their families have suffered at the hands of blacklisting companies. They deserve a thorough and open inquiry to bring out the truth of how they were victimised and harmed by blacklisting.”

 

The Blacklist Support Group (BSG) has led the campaign to expose the role of the police spying colluding with blacklisting union members and has made a formal submission to the Home Office with suggested Terms of Reference for the Pitchford Inquiry into undercover policing, calling for the judge led inquiry to investigate police surveillance of trade union members. The Pitchford Inquiry was set up by Teresa May before the General Election following the revelations that undercover police units spied on the Stephen Lawrence family and had long term sexual relationships with women activists they were spying on. BSG are being legally represented by the prominent human rights solicitor Imran Khan, who has supported the blacklisted construction workers since presenting an IPCC complaint about the police collusion in blacklisting back in 2012. Imran Khan is also representing Doreen Lawrence in the Pitchford Inquiry.

 

Dave Smith, BSG secretary and co-author of the book ‘Blacklisted’ that exposes the blacklisting conspiracy commented:

“There are secret political police units in the UK that spy on anyone they consider to be a ‘domestic extremist’. In reality, that means trade unions, environmental activists, anti-racist campaigns and even the families of murder victims who dare to criticise the police, all of which are perfectly legal within a democratic society. The Pitchford inquiry must investigate why the police have been spying on trade unions and why they have been exchanging information with multinational companies. Any pressure put on by politicians and trade unions is extremely welcome. BSG applaud the EDM and call on all MPs concerned about human rights to sign it”.

 

Imran Khan commented:

“It is extremely sad to note that it often takes many years, grave injustices and tenacious individuals to uncover discreditable conduct in society. Those involved in the BSG have been bearing the brunt of severe injustices for a long time. Their hardship in doing so has not diminished their tenacity in seeking to throw light on this most murky of worlds. The Public Inquiry to be chaired by Lord Justice Pitchford will give the BSG the opportunity to not only uncover what happened to them but also ensure that the general public finally hears what went on and that the conduct complained of never happens again.”

 

Proposed Terms of Reference for the Public Inquiry into Undercover policing from the Blacklist Support Group:

 

“To inquire into and make recommendations as to the role, conduct and governance of the police service and her majesty’s Government in the establishment and deployment of undercover and covert operations, with specific regard to the Special Demonstration Squad, National Extremism Tactical Coordination Unit and any other similar units in the police and in particular, to consider: 

  • The surveillance of trade union activists and trade union supported campaigns;
  • The provision of information by the police, whether directly or indirectly, of information contained on databases they have access to, to businesses about prospective employees;
  • The collusion, specifically with the Economic League and the Consulting Association and any other similar organisations, in the blacklisting of trade union members;
  • The outsourcing of state surveillance operations to private contractors;
  • The level and degree of political oversight into the above operations;
  • The extent to which the police were assisted in the above operations by the security services;
  • The circumstances of, and the reasons for, the loss, destruction and /or unavailability of documentation with regard to the matters above.

The Inquiry will also consider how to fulfill the objectives set out in these Terms of Reference by considering, in particular, the:

  • Extent and degree of protection from prosecution, under the Official Secrets Act or any other relevant legislation, of any witnesses giving information / evidence including whistleblowers;
  • Extent and degree to which the police’s stated position of ‘Neither Confirm Nor Deny’ affects a transparent and thorough investigation into the matters set out above”. 

 

Steve Hedley, Assistant General Secretary RMT, who was blacklisted by the Consulting Association and targeted by undercover Special Demonstration Squad officer Mark Jenner commented:

“The police and big business has spied on me and other union activists for decades, for nothing more than standing up for rights of our fellow workers. The undercover cop Mark Jenner targeted me for a number of years in the late 1990s and even stayed at my mum’s house! The sooner this anti-democratic scandal at the heart of the British state is exposed the better”.

 

 

 

Posted on

LUL Strike

General Secretary Mick Cash said;

 

“The strike action on London Underground is rock solid across all lines, all grades and all depots and the unity and solidarity of the entire workforce, which has now brought London to a standstill, must force the tube bosses back to the negotiating table to address the issues at the heart of this dispute.

 

“That means an end to the attempt to bulldoze through new working patterns that would wreck work/life balance and leave staff in safety critical jobs burnt out and stressed out at a time when tube services are facing unprecedented demand. We’ve wasted three months in negotiations that failed to address staff concerns and it’s essential for London that there’s no repeat of that fiasco and that puts the ball firmly in LU’s court this morning. ”

 

RELATED NEWS

Archives