RMT has listed 15 reasons why we object to LUL's plan to impose a £5 minimum Oyster top-up at its ticket offices. But as well as our objections to the policy itself, we also object to the manner in which LUL has pursued this. We believe that London Underground has not listened thoroughly to concerns about the £5 minimum, and that in order to do so, it should call off the trial planned to start on Sunday 1 March.

LUL's document that settled last year's 'casualisation' dispute included this commitment from LUL management: "We confirm our proposal that a Working Group be set up to examine and consider ticket offices in the context of the wider marketing and ticketing strategy as raised by the TUs." Following a small number of meetings last summer, this Working Group has not met since the Mayor's confirmation that the plan to close 40 ticket offices had been scrapped. This Working Group should continue to meet, and no new policy - such as this trial - should proceed without discussion at this Working Group.

When it did meet, the Working Group established a principle that there should be a 'level playing field' between ticket offices and other ticket-selling outlets, ie. that LUL ticket offices should not be disadvantaged by, for example, discounts being offered via other outlets only. The plan for a £5 minimum only at ticket offices clearly contradicts this principle.

LUL management announced this new policy at the Stations and Revenue Council meeting on 11 December 2008. The unions recorded a 'failure to agree'. The issue should then have been discussed at an ad hoc Director's meeting. However, before the Director's meeting was held, and without even informing the unions, LUL organised a 'trial' of the £5 minimum at five stations: London Bridge, Bond Street, Liverpool Street, Gloucester Road and Earl's Court. The first that staff or unions knew of this was when local management newsletters announced the commencement of the trial on Sunday 1 March. It is totally unacceptable for management to go ahead with implementing a policy before the machinery of negotiation has been exhausted.

We believe that LUL should consult passenger groups before going ahead with this trial. This new policy worsens the service to our passengers, and will have a negative effect on LUL's public relations. We believe that the press will be keen to expose and condemn LUL's reduced customer service.

We also believe that staff are under no obligation to participate in this trial, given:
- LUL's failure to carry out proper negotiation and consultation;
- the risk of abuse and assault arising from the policy;
- staff's professional commitment to providing world-class customer service; and
- our right not to collaborate in the future abolition of our own jobs.