London Underground Ltd

We note the resolution from our London Transport Regional Council and share our Regional Council’s concerns.

We instruct our London Underground representatives to not take part in case conferences where there is a breach of procedure and the Employing Manager is not present.

We note that this document adds further evidence to support our belief that London Underground is planning a wholesale attack on jobs and conditions, under the pretext of new technology such as driverless trains, smartcard ticketing and automated maintenance. We reaffirm this union’s view that new technology should be used to complement staff, improve services and increase safety – not as a pretext for cutting staff and cutting corners.

It appears that LUL have now decided that they will choose who can and can not be a local rep. Management have refused to recognise Industrial Relations rep Jason Moriarty. An email was sent to Management at Stratford from Employee relations stating "I am of the view that he can not be rep again" and "There is no recognition rights for RMT at north Greenwich."

This is of course nonsense as there has been an RMT IR rep at North Greenwich since it opened and the collective bargaining agreement is very clear about who can be a rep.

An important message from RMT to London Underground passengers.

During the Olympics London Underground has been counting volunteers among the number of safety-trained staff needed legally to keep Tube stations open, putting everyone concerned at risk. See overleaf to see how YOU can help us to stop this abuse.

During the Olympics, London Underground has been using volunteers to help out with the additional crowds using the Tube.

As part of the Operational Effectiveness programme LUL have introduced a number of changes to Rules. These changes were discussed through the machinery until finally being exhausted at Safety Forum level. LUL chose to push through the majority of these changes.

These Rules were introduced as OSN101 in September 2011 in a booklet titled ‘Getting ready for the Olympics’. Among these changes was an instruction which allows for a Train Operator to set their train back by one car or less after a platform overrun or in the event of a SPAD.

As part of the Operational Effectiveness programme LUL introduced a number of changes to Rules. These changes were discussed through the machinery until finally being exhausted at Safety Forum level. LUL chose to push through the majority of these changes.

These Rules were introduced as OSN101 in September 2011 in a booklet titled ‘Getting ready for the Olympics’. One of these is a change to Rulebook 8 Section 2.1 which determines how a platform is given an ‘A’ Category.

As part of the Operational Effectiveness programme LUL introduced a number of changes to Rules. These changes were discussed through the machinery until finally being exhausted at Safety Forum level. LUL chose to push through the majority of these changes. These Rules were introduced as OSN101 in September 2011 in a booklet titled ‘Getting ready for the Olympics’.

Leaflets have been created to give advice to London Underground drivers on what actions to take when Incident Customer Service Assistants (ICSAs) are working on platforms carrying out SATs.

RMT believes that ICSAs are not adequately trained to carry out this safety related role. Their deployment on the paid side of stations also breaches a casualisation agreement reached between the RMT and LUL in 2008.

You can download the leaflet below. Local Reps should also have copies to distribute. For more information speak with a local rep or get in touch with us.

This article is about an important Employment Tribunal decision regarding a claim of disability related discrimination. The claimant, a London Underground ticket office worker, won the tribunal and following appeal.

"Appeal by Respondents against ET's findings on disability related discrimination, reasonable adjustments and unfair dismissal. No error of law found in ET's reasoning or decisions on these claims. Given their findings of fact, they were held to be entitled to find in the Claimant's favour and their judgment was held to be sufficiently reasoned. Appeal dismissed."

Continue reading to see the case in full.