Railway strike threats

Industrial relations will need to be given greater priority

Aballot held by the RMT union, covering 40,000 staff employed by Network Rail and 15 train operating companies, ended on May 24 with the result expected to be known the following day (as this issue of RAIL went to press).

It was widely predicted that there will be support for strike action, although a two-week notice period is legally required before that can take place, which will prevent disruption over the Jubilee weekend when high demand for rail travel is expected.

Contingency planning is taking place with an emphasis on maintaining freight distribution, given the increased importance of rail freight in the retail supply chain. In the passenger market, working from home can be expected to return for travel to work journeys, with discretionary travel curtailed and greater use of private cars.

An absence of signallers and control staff will have the greatest potential impact on network operations, but the transfer of activity to the Rail Operating Centres (ROCs) and a decline in the number of power and traditional mechanical signal boxes means far fewer people are needed to keep the core network open.

Many staff employed at the 12 ROCs earn six-figure salaries, and it seems unlikely that a complete withdrawal from work will take place given the managerial and supervisory nature of much of the activity.

At these locations, signallers using IECC [Integrated Electronic Control Centre] technology operate from workstations that cover large geographic areas, which can be worked by supervisors who may well not be RMT members. The TSSA union has promised backing for industrial action but will need to hold a ballot to make that a reality.

Although the trade unions choose not to reflect on the vast improvement in railway pay that has taken place, it is worth looking at some past statistics. I refer to the circular advising the decision of the Railway Staff Conference in October 1965, where agreement was reached between the British Railways Board and the three rail unions about pay levels to apply from that month.

The highest-paid special category A and B supervisors, who would cover the shift-based deputy chief controllers, was £1,420 per annum. At today’s value, taking inflation into account, this is the equivalent of an annual salary of £24,805.

A power box signalman (as then described) would earn £880 per annum - the equivalent of £18,155 in 2022, after average inflation of 5.45% annually. This was the same basic pay as a fully qualified train driver. It was the highest rate available to hourly paid staff.

In this period, senior executives occupied roles in the Industrial Relations department and there was constant dialogue with trade union leaders. This led to changes in working practices, under a pay and efficiency agreement in 1968 which did much to abolish past demarcation with the amalgamation of many grades.

It is evident that this style of management is absent at present, with complaints that trade union leaders are not even trying to negotiate any revised terms and conditions of work and have moved directly to strike action that has a politicised tone to it.

“Changes to working practices have been included in past franchise bids without a strategy to engage with the staff affected.”

It is not a one-sided position either - changes to working practices have been included in past franchise bids without a strategy to engage with the staff affected.

An example has been committing to drivercontrolled operation and the abolition of guards trained in safety-critical duties. The changes have proved impossible to implement, largely because of public sentiment in favour of staff being available on trains and continuing trap-and-drag incidents on station platforms.

Turning to the current situation, there are three elements to the dispute: opposition to compulsory redundancy; pay not keeping pace with inflation; and changes to terms and conditions (particularly for pensions).

Past calls for voluntary redundancy have usually resulted in a high take-up, given that there is an ageing workforce and that generous severance payments are offered, combined with a worthwhile pension being available to many individuals.

For those displaced who wish to remain, it has always been the practice to offer training to undertake new roles, and it does not seem a big concession to agree that there should be no compulsory leavers.

Linking pay to inflation has been the basis of many past agreements. But the circumstances are very different, with 9% annual inflation being reported in April this year compared with 2.1% the previous year.

RMT negotiations on behalf of ScotRail staff reveal that a 2.2% pay increase has been offered by the now nationalised employer, which has been firmly rejected. Although no formal industrial action has been instituted, traincrew are refusing to work overtime or rest days on which the timetable is dependent.

This has come about because driver training was suspended during the COVID lockdown, with the result that a significant vacancy gap has been created, as well as further resource issues as a result of a lack of route learning.

ScotRail has instituted an emergency timetable in an attempt to ensure that advertised services run. But up to a third of trains have been cancelled, particularly in the evening when final departures from major centres can be as early as 1900.

Very clearly, increasing pay by 9% is not feasible, given the effect it would have on the need for more financial support from government. Industry opinion is that a ceiling of 3% is likely to be the highest offer made.

A practical solution might be that as high inflation has a greater impact on lower-paid staff, an overall pot could be made available that provides a more substantial award to the least well-paid by cutting back the increase to higher earners.

The main contention so far, as terms and conditions are concerned, is the final salary Railway Pension Scheme, which is organised into individual company sections (many of which have substantial deficits in terms of future liabilities to members compared with the value of fund assets).

Switching to a money purchase approach, where a future pension is based on value of personal contributions made with an agreed employer contribution, has been widely adopted by other employers but without defined benefits.

There is little prospect that existing members of the RPS will be denied future benefits. But new starters may be dependent on a money purchase scheme supported by their employer.