Members of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers took industrial action at nine UK train companies in March 2003 over the safety role of train guards. The train drivers’ trade union is also threatening nationwide action over pay.
The rail sector has seen a number of disputes over the past year, though localised within individual companies. Examples include a series of 24-hour stoppages over pay by around 700 train conductors at Arriva Trains Northern, starting in January 2002 (UK0201169F) and continuing into 2003. The dispute was triggered by a pay offer that fell far short of a large increase awarded earlier to drivers. Similarly, a long-running pay dispute, this time concerning train drivers, escalated into a series of 48-hour strikes at First North Western from August 2002. The company offered a 19% pay rise over three years but the drivers’ trade union, the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen (ASLEF), said that the productivity conditions attached were unacceptable.
In the spring of 2003, disputes escalated to national level when both groups of workers were involved in actual or threatened strike action across the country. The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT), which represents train conductors, or 'guards', took action against a number of companies to restore the guards' responsibilities for safety, a concern also linked to fears over job losses and low pay. Furthermore, ASLEF has strongly suggested that industrial action may soon be taken to reduce the large pay differentials for drivers that have emerged in different operating companies. ASLEF’s demand for a return to a national pay framework has also received backing from the RMT.
The guards’ dispute
Train guards in nine passenger train operating companies (TOCs), collectively representing a fifth of the national network, held two one-day strikes in March 2003. The companies involved were Silverlink, ScotRail, Thames Trains, Connex South Eastern, Govia South Central, Arriva Trains Merseyside, Central Trains, Virgin Cross Country and Virgin West Coast. Staff in two other companies (South West Trains and c2c) voted against industrial action. Of the 4,424 conductors balloted, 1,401 backed stoppages with 745 voting against; a majority of roughly two to one in a turn-out of just over 50%. The remaining TOCs escaped industrial action by either supporting the RMT’s position over restoring the safety role of the guards, or agreeing to enter talks over the issue. Further strikes were planned for 17 April, traditionally the busiest day of the year for passenger travel.
The impact of the strikes varied, as some companies operate a number of driver-only trains or were in a better position to substitute managers and other staff trained to act as guards. Services run by Central Trains were worst hit, with only about 10% of trains running. Virgin Cross Country ran about 20% of services, and Virgin’s inter-city West Coast operation was reduced to between 50% and 60% of normal levels. In contrast, Arriva Merseyside and ScotRail ran about half their normal services, Silverlink 75%, and Thames Trains more than 95%, according to the Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC).
At the heart of the dispute is the RMT’s long-standing fear that TOCs are looking to reduce further the safety role of train guards, emphasising instead catering duties and checking tickets, in order to boost profits and cut jobs. Much of their traditional responsibility for the safety management of the train was transferred to drivers in the 1990s, and the union wants the safety aspects of the guards’ job reinforced. Under present rules, guards stay with passengers if the train has an accident or breakdown, making sure, for example, that passengers do not put themselves at risk by leaving the train, but leaving overall safety responsibility for the train to the driver. Instead, the RMT argues that guards should help drivers to make the train and track safe.
The union claims that an understanding to restore the safety role of the guards was reached in an earlier agreement. Some train operators, including some of the industry's largest operators such as GNER and GWR, have agreed to work with the RMT to apply for a rule change, so avoiding industrial action. GNER, operator of the east coast mainline, also published an independent report with the RMT which the union said showed that their proposals would 'make rail travel safer'. Bob Crow, the RMT’s general secretary, said: 'The rest must surely now recognise the widespread anger among our members that costs and profits are being put before safety. It is time for all of them to honour the agreement reached in 2001 to restore key aspects of the guard safety role.' However, other companies, which claim that the RMT is merely trying to protect guards’ jobs, say that the change must be made by the independent standards body Railway Safety (called the Rail Safety and Standards Board, or RSSB, since 1 April 2003). Train companies involved in the dispute said that Railway Safety had approved all the earlier changes made, including the transfer of some duties from guards to drivers.
The drivers’ demands
In February 2003, Mick Rix, the general secretary of ASLEF, warned of coordinated industrial action intended to close a widening pay gap between the lowest and highest paid drivers in the industry, with strike ballots planned from May if no agreements were reached. The union said that some provincial drivers earned GBP 23,000 a year when Virgin and GNER paid GBP 36,000, and staff on Eurostar earned GBP 40,000. ASLEF wants a minimum GBP 29,500 a year and drivers to perform a maximum of four 10-hour shifts or three eight-hour night shifts a week, and aims to cut the 36 different rates of pay across the network to just four, covering: London and south-east England; other regions; inter-city routes; and freight services. The union believes that a uniform rate of pay would be both fair and efficient because it would limit the 'poaching' of drivers among companies and end industrial action over pay differentials, but train operators argue that standardisation would hinder efficiency and commercial viability by decoupling pay from productivity.
The TOCs are likely to resist the union’s claims and the government’s Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) has suggested that it will oppose big rises in the 16 of the 28 franchises up for renewal. Mr Rix, whose union has been involved in a series of local disputes over pay, said: 'Fragmentation of bargaining on pay and conditions has led to massive disparities which have caused serious driver shortages in many parts of the country. Also unacceptable are the different standards on equality issues between companies. A return to orderly national bargaining would be good.' Mr Crow of RMT also indicated that his union would formulate a demand for a national pay framework later in the year.
The intervention of the SRA
In another twist to the disputes, the SRA announced in March that taxpayers are to fund some of the losses caused by industrial action on the railways. In an attempt to head off growing unrest and high pay claims at a time of intense cost-cutting in the sector, the SRA told TOCs that it would cover losses caused by 'unreasonable' claims by the unions. The SRA would not compensate all future strikes, but operators will have a new clause inserted in their contracts entitling them to be covered when they have 'taken all reasonable steps to avoid the industrial action and ... to mitigate its effects'. The new rules were introduced in time for the RMT’s three days of strikes over the role of the guards in March and April. This dispute is deemed 'unreasonable' because operators and the SRA claim it is Railway Safety (now RSSB), not train companies themselves, that must rule on the union claim for guards to help drivers to protect trains. As a result, millions of pounds of subsidy previously earmarked for rail improvement projects would go direct to the companies as compensation.
The RMT reacted with anger to the offer of funds from the SRA, which has covered losses in strikes against South West Trains and Arriva Trains Northern on an ad hoc basis. 'The government cannot pretend we have a bargaining relationship with these privateers and then use the SRA to do their strike-breaking dirty work for them. The cash this government is throwing at these all-but bankrupt operators would better be spent on improving the railways,' said Mr Crow.
Commentary
Industrial disputes appear endemic in a sector that was fractured by privatisation and remains under-funded. Both main unions are concerned about widening pay differentials for staff doing the same job in different companies. The RMT is also worried about the widening pay gap between its members and drivers, and the alleged downgrading of the role of the guards. For their part, the companies are under mounting pressure to cut operating costs. The SRA has reportedly asked Virgin, for example, to cut the cost of running its services by GBP 300 million, mainly by lower spending on marketing and reducing the number of staff on trains. The SRA’s scope to provide subsidies has been hit by falling revenues and higher network costs yet, at the same time, Virgin’s own revenues have been affected by disruption and delays to the upgrade of the west coast mainline.
The unions’ complaints about pay differentials reflect a broader concern within the trade union movement about 'two-tier' workforces, where workers are paid different rates for doing the same job (UK0302107F). The current organisation of the rail industry has encouraged the use of 'pattern-bargaining' tactics, where successful industrial action against one employer sets the benchmark to be pursued against others, so involving a series of localised disputes. The widening of strike action across the industry reflects a growing feeling that coordinated action is necessary to eliminate perceived injustices over differential terms and conditions and, more fundamentally, to restore some order to industrial relations in the sector. To this end, employers and the government might do well not to reject the unions’ demands for a return to a national framework out of hand. (J Arrowsmith, IRRU)