Deal averts strike by tanker drivers

An agreement in May 2012 ended a high-profile dispute involving UK tanker drivers delivering to petrol stations for the major oil companies. The drivers were formerly employed directly by the oil giants, but in recent years distribution has mostly been outsourced to contractors who are under pressure to cut costs. The drivers voted to strike over a string of grievances including pay and safety, but agreed to settle despite the deal falling far short of their demands.

Campaign for minimum standards

The union that represents 3,000 oil tanker drivers in the UK, Unite, says that the industry has become increasingly fragmented and unstable since 2000. There has been a general reduction in the length of contracts between oil companies and distribution firms, and mounting pressure from the former to cut costs. Unite argues that this has led contractors to reduce drivers’ pay and conditions, and eroded health and safety standards, training and pensions.

In early 2011, Unite launched the ‘Enough is enough’ campaign demanding minimum industry-wide standards, to be negotiated by a national forum involving the sector’s main companies. A number of major distributors agreed to set up an industry forum but refused to give it a bargaining role or deal with pay. The employers did, however, agree to discuss pensions, health and safety standards and training.

By early 2012, Unite had become frustrated by a perceived lack of progress. Its concerns were underlined by a dispute involving drivers working for the haulage firm Wincanton on a contract with ConocoPhillips. Wincanton sought to renegotiate drivers’ contracts and cut pay and conditions, leading to strike action in January 2012.

Strike ballot

In March 2012, Unite balloted 2,060 members working for seven major distribution companies – BP, DHL, Hoyer, JW Suckling, Norbert Dentressangle, Turners and Wincanton – over industrial action to support its demands for industry-wide standards. Drivers at five companies voted in favour of strike action.

The strike call on 26 March led to widespread panic-buying of petrol, with many filling stations running out of fuel, though Unite had set no date for action. The government condemned the possible strike as ‘wrong and unnecessary’ and urged Unite to return to negotiations. It said that it would, if necessary, use emergency powers to maintain fuel supplies, as well as training military personnel to drive tankers. The government’s reaction, and comments by a government minister that were interpreted as advice that people should stock up on petrol, were widely criticised for contributing to the panic-buying.

Employers condemned the strike threat, denied erosion of health and safety standards in the industry, and claimed that tanker drivers had pay and conditions far above the haulage industry average. A statement by Wincanton in response to the Unite action described the dispute as ‘wholly unnecessary and inappropriate’, saying that it had high health and safety standards and well-trained and well-paid drivers. While it was committed to the industry forum, Wincanton believed that ‘a sector-wide collective arrangement for pay, working hours is both impractical and inappropriate’.

Acas talks lead to deal

The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) initiated discussions between Unite and the distribution companies, and talks to resolve the dispute started on 4 April. Proposals were drawn up on 13 April but rejected by delegates to Unite’s specially convened oil trades conference. Talks resumed at Acas and final proposals were made on 24 April. The conference put these proposals to a membership ballot but recommended rejection. The ballot’s outcome was announced on 11 May. A narrow overall majority (51%) of members backed the deal, although it was rejected by a majority of drivers at four of the seven companies. Unite called off the threatened strike, a move welcomed by the government as the ‘right result for those involved in the dispute and for the economy’.

While the details of the settlement that averted the strike have not been made public, it clearly falls short of the national minimum standards sought by Unite. A core provision of the deal is an industry-wide accreditation scheme, or ‘passport’, covering health and safety standards and training. Other provisions reportedly include greater involvement of the Health and Safety Executive, a possible framework to allow drivers to transfer their training and pensions between employers, and an employer-funded ‘benchmarking study’ of terms and conditions across the sector. The employers also, according to Unite, gave assurances on longer contracts and improved terms.

Unite’s Assistant General Secretary Diana Holland said:

The proposals represent progress on some of the key areas such as health and safety. But it is clear that they do not give enough guarantees that the instability and insecurity gripping the industry will come to an end. It is in everyone’s interest that we end…the erosion of standards in a vital industry.

The official statement from the oil trades conference said that employers had failed to give sufficient guarantees on maintaining standards, security of employment, pensions and subcontracting.

Unite stressed in a press release that the narrow vote in favour of the agreement left oil transport companies with ‘no room for complacency’, and that ‘fundamental problems remain in the industry with urgent action needed to halt the race to the bottom and bring stability and security to the supply of a vital commodity’.

Mark Carley, IRRU/SPIRE Associates