Management Impose Transfer & Promotion Policy on Stations

Management Impose Transfer & Promotion Policy

  • Displacements to Higher Grade Cover Down and Substantive Positions will be based on what saves LU the most money - Preferences will be ineffectual unless you volunteer to move more than 30 mins.

  • No agreed appeals process against Unfair Moves

  • Promotional Process remains Unacceptable

One of the agreed outcomes of our strike action in the summer of 2015 was that a new transfer & promotion policy would be negotiated between the TUs and LU. Those negotiations have achieved some significant progress. In particular RMT has been successful in squeezing agreement from management that no sideways displacements will take place. Their original proposal was that many members would be transferred up and down a line as many as five times before getting their substantive location.

LU is calling its proposal an interim Transfer & Promotion policy (ITP) although they expect it to run for 3 – 5 years. Given how important this policy is for station members of RMT and the agreement made back in 2015 to negotiate the agreement, it is totally unacceptable for management to now impose their own terms.

There is nothing in LU’s proposed policy that improves arrangements for staff when compared with the old policy. Although we have been able to remove some unacceptable elements from the new policy it remains, overall, a significant deterioration on the old one.

RMT has argued from the outset that displacements of cover down or over establishment members should be based on a nomination process. We did not chose to be changed from one grade to another and we certainly have not chosen to have our locations changed. It is typical of LU’s belligerent approach to industrial relations that they are now ignoring their obligation to negotiate a policy and will impose their own arrangements.

Apart from the failure to base new FftF locations on nominations, RMT also said we could not agree a transfer policy that does not set out how an appeals process will work. LU say we’ll talk about that separately. However, one thing that is clear from three years of talks about FftF is this: Unless we have agreements clearly written and signed by management they will seek to impose their own terms. In fact, as with the T&P, even when there is an agreement they are not honouring what was written down and signed.

We must have a clear appeals process in place before further displacements are issued. LU is refusing this and continues to issue displacement notices on a monthly basis. Many members who originally were allowed to remain at their pre FftF locations as cover downs have never needed to appeal their outcomes but will now be issued with moves with as little as four weeks notice. Caring responsibilities and other factors are not being taken into account and these members are not being given enough time to effectively challenge such moves.

Promotions will be rare going forward, unless LU accepts the need for more staff in all grades, but even then a promotion policy that gives preference according to assessment score is not acceptable. One or two marks in an assessment can be a very subjective way of deciding who gets to move first. RMT believes the most transparent way of ordering waiting lists is date of application followed by seniority.

RMT negotiators have consistently told management that imposing unacceptable arrangements can only lead to further disputes with the company. The RMT National Executive will now be considering these latest developments alongside other the chronic staff shortages, work-life balance issues and other aspects of the implementation of FftF.