Moving forward on the railway – integrated industrial relations and the public interest
Moving forward on the railway – integrated industrial relations and the public interest
A report for ASLEF by K D Ewing
Institute of Employment Rights 1 May 2003
INTEGRATED INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST
i
Contents iii
Foreword
v
Executive summary
1
chapter one
Introduction
6
chapter two
Collective bargaining procedures before privatisation
11
chapter three
Collective bargaining procedures after privatisation
18
chapter four
The drive for national standards: the supply of skilled labour
25
chapter five
The Strategic Rail Authority and collective bargaining
32
chapter six
Collective bargaining procedures in other countries
37
chapter seven
The case for integrated bargaining on Britain’s railways
43
chapter eight
Conclusion
49
appendix one
The ASLEF Charter
50
appendix two
The ASLEF Charter in operation
58
appendix three Railway negotiating procedures
This report was commissioned by ASLEF. Keith Ewing is President of the Institute of Employment Rights, and Professor of Public Law at King’s College London. He wishes to thank Rachel Aldred, Brian Bercusson, Sian Cartwright, Carolyn Jones, Tim Finch and Sabine Trier for their invaluable assistance and advice in preparing this report. Appendix three was prepared by Rachel Aldred of the Labour Research Department, and material from that paper has been integrated into chapter two of the report. Responsibility for any errors or omissions lies solely with the author.
ii
MOVING FORWARD ON THE RAILWAY
Foreword This report by Professor Keith Ewing, President of the Institute of Employment Rights and Professor of Public Law at King’s College London, outlines the fragmented and disjointed way in which industrial relations is conducted on Britain’s railways. It also confirms the depressing and disturbing outcome – this approach has done nothing to improve the industry’s image as a modern employer with modern employment attitudes. Nor has fragmentation brought any tangible benefits to those who work in the industry or to those who want to use the services provided. Indeed, it could be said that the current archaic and disjointed arrangements have taken the industry back to the Victorian days of employment relations. As a result, huge swathes of key issues are overlooked. The present fragmentation of industrial relations has singularly failed to deliver improved safety, health and welfare for those who work on the railways. There has been an equally profound failure to ensure that the industry is representative of the community it serves. Instead, the current disjointed framework has only served to reaffirm the view that the railways are being run in a way that is self-serving rather than in a way which ensures that they are a key provider of the nation’s transportation needs and a vital contributor to Britain’s economic and social wealth and well-being. This report also shows how unions and their members have been excluded from the consultation process and how the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) has moved away from its brief, defined in the Transport Act 2000, to such an extent that its actions could be open to judicial review. The issue? The SRA does not see unions as stakeholders and is prepared to interfere in industrial relations while disclaiming responsibility for the latter. Professor Ewing raises key questions as to whether this approach is legal and, crucially, whether such an approach is in the public interest. I believe that the choices are now clear – a national industrial framework which ensures that the industry evolves back to being a service provider and is run in the public interest with a focus on the user – or continued fragmentation, the strengthening of shareholders’ bank balances and the exclusion of the views of those stakeholders who represent members who work daily on the railways. I believe that any industry – be it public or private – will only move forward with confidence if it takes people with it and if it can demonstrate good employment practices which are the result of an inclusive process of dialogue on the major issues which affect the industrial relations agenda. This piece of authoritative research, together with the views of other respected commentators from within the world of industrial relations, now quash the argument that the status quo is the ideal and one which has delivered a better industrial relations agenda and improvements in the industry. I believe that the report also demonstrates that the current fragmentation of industrial relations is a time bomb that the industry can ill afford to ignore. Such an approach would be catastrophic, not only for the tens of thousands who have given
INTEGRATED INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST
iii
many years of loyal and dedicated service to the rail industry, often on low pay, but also for the travelling public who, ironically enough, are very often treated in the same way as the people working on the railways. This report is a must for all ASLEF members, railway workers and for management within the railway industry. It provides the basis for a serious discussion so that we can move towards a relationship of joint goals and aspirations that are shared by many who have profound affection for the railways and who want to deliver a transportation model, which has at the very core of its values, delivery of a public service, by public servants who are themselves truly valued. Mick Rix General Secretary, ASLEF
iv
MOVING FORWARD ON THE RAILWAY
Executive summary Introduction Since privatisation, industrial relations in the railway industry have deteriorated, with adverse consequences for the travelling public. There has been a disintegration of the collective bargaining structures and with it the ending of the disputes procedures which previously operated in the industry.
Industrial relations problems The highly integrated collective bargaining system operating before privatisation has given way to a multiplicity of non-cohesive and incoherent local bargaining arrangements at enterprise or company, rather than industry, level. The new collective bargaining procedures have weak dispute resolution procedures, and have produced fragmented bargaining outcomes on pay and other terms and conditions of employment (including working time and maternity arrangements). The disintegration of collective bargaining machinery has given rise to a number of industrial relations problems. These include unacceptable pay differentials, a skills and labour shortage, and poor staff morale leading to preventable trade disputes. Industrial action is now higher than when the railways were publicly owned. Despite the decline in the number of days lost through industrial action generally, the railways account for a higher proportion of the days lost than they did in the past.
The emergence of national standards A number of initiatives are now underway to address some of the problems in the industry by the adoption of integrated national strategies and integrated national standards, in some of which the trade unions have been included. There are now a number of national initiatives designed to address the skills and training problems in the industry, with the Rail Industry Training Council proposing ‘industry based initiatives to overcome acute problems of labour supply’. There amendments to the working time directive should lead to legislation imposing a national minimum standard on drivers’ hours which will go some way to deal with the problem of chronic reliance of overtime in the industry. There are indications that the Strategic Rail Authority is de facto imposing a national standard in terms of the permitted levels of drivers’ pay. In pursuit of this policy the SRA has vetoed a number of collective agreements.
National standards and integrated bargaining In line with the practice in other European countries, there is a need to
INTEGRATED INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST
v
reinforce the initiatives in the direction of national standards by the development of integrated national bargaining on pay and other terms and conditions of employment. Integrated national bargaining would help restore stability and continuity of service to the railways for the travelling public, as well as predictability and certainty for franchise holders and their successors. Integrated national bargaining would bring fairness and equity to the workplace. It would help to ensure that railway workers are paid because of what they do rather than who they do it for. Although there are fears that integrated national bargaining would lead to a national railway strike, such fears are misplaced in the light of current legal restrictions on the right to strike.
A model agreement In order to restore an integrated industrial relations system, the Strategic Rail Authority should take the initiative to bring employers and trade unions together with a view to negotiating a national agreement. Once a new procedure has been established, all train operating companies and all freight companies would be obliged to comply with the relevant collective agreements. Such a duty should be a franchise condition. An integrated new procedure should be universal (apply to all workers in the industry), comprehensive (apply to all terms and conditions of employment), and responsive (provide a forum for raising any matter relating to the employment relationship). A new agreement would contain a dispute resolution procedure that would provide a framework for the peaceful settlement of disputes within the industry as a whole. National bargaining would not preclude company bargaining on appropriate issues.
Conclusion There is a need for modern collective bargaining structures to provide a solid and stable base for the railway industry. The disintegrated and fragmented arrangements now in place have failed the people who work in the industry and the people who travel on the trains. An integrated railway needs integrated collective bargaining.
vi
MOVING FORWARD ON THE RAILWAY
This publication was commissioned from the Institute of Employment Rights by the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen. The information was collated and prepared by Keith Ewing who is Professor of Public Law at King’s College London and President of the Institute of Employment Rights.
“It is important for the whole industry that industrial relations should develop in a context of partnership to deliver the most effective outcomes.” Strategic Rail Authority The Strategic Plan 2003, p 88
“Once again, ASLEF members are finding that the Strategic Rail Authority is damaging the proper conduct of our industrial business. The Sunday Telegraph reported last month that the SRA is prepared to ‘hold the employers’ coats’ if they take on the unions over pay, and even that it will indemnify operators against any losses they may have as a result of their intransigence leading to industrial action.” M D Rix, General Secretary ASLEF The Loco Journal, December 2002 Institute of Employment Rights 177 Abbeville Road London SW4 9RL 020 7498 6919 fax 020 7498 9080 office@ier.org.uk www.ier.org.uk Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen 9 Arkwright Road London NW3 6AB 020 7317 8600 fax 020 7794 6406 www.aslef.org.uk ISBN 0 9543781 1 3