Here is the list of issues that RMT has sent to management for discussion at our forthcoming meeting about Staff Information Surveys ("mystery shoppers"). Thanks to all the RMT reps who contributed to the compilation of this list ...

GENERAL

1. RMT restates our view that all assessment of staff should be carried out by accountable employees of London Underground Ltd. We object to the contracting-out of anonymous surveys of staff.

2. We would like to know why London Underground considers these surveys to be necessary given the other means it uses to monitor and assess staff eg. Competence management, P&D, continuous development, customer feedback, day-to-day working with staff, etc.

3. We understand that the Surveys are managed by the Customer Insights Team. As this is a body with no trade union representation, we believe that it should report regularly to a body that does have trade union representation eg. Company Council or appropriate functional councils.

4. RMT repeats our request that these Surveys be suspended pending discussion of the important issues we are raising.

THE CONTRACT

5. What is the name of the company that carries out Staff Information Surveys?

6. How was this particular company chosen?

7. We would like to have a copy of the contract between that company and London Underground.

8. Under what conditions can the contract be terminated?

STAFF INFORMATION SURVEYS

9. Why the change from Mystery Shopping Surveys to Staff Information Surveys?

10. Other than the change of name, what else changed with the move from Mystery Shopping Surveys to Staff Information Surveys?

11. SIS seems to rate only staff. What happened to rating of the station itself eg. leaflet availability, cleanliness etc?

ACCURACY OF SURVEYS

12. We have received several reports of inaccurate surveys:
eg. Greenford group: a score recorded for staff appearance at a time/location where no staff were actually on duty.
eg. Euston: a zero-score recorded for platform PAs because the surveyor was on the wrong platform.
eg. Balham station receiving 100% score for its PA announcements whilst the PA was faulty.

13. We would like to know how the Survey company accounts for these inaccuracies.

14. We would also like to know what measures London Underground takes to investigate whether these arise from fraudulent action on the part of the Survey company eg. not actually attending the station but submitting a report anyway.

15. Managers should check the accuracy of reports before sending letters to staff falsely accusing them of not meeting performance standards. Some examples of where this has apparently not happened:
eg. a part time CSA, rostered at Hammersmith, got a letter saying he had not met his targets while working at Turnham Green; he has never worked at Turnham Green.
eg. a member of staff who works at Turnham Green received three letters stating that had not met the targets on three different occasions, despite not being on the station when the SIS surveys took place.

SURVEY CONTENTS

16. We would like to go through each of the questions/criteria on the survey with management and discuss our concerns about:
- the appropriateness of the issue eg. the survey scores smiling, but smiling may not be appropriate in many circumstances
- the wording of the question/criterion itself
- the scoring system: the rating available to surveyors and the worded responses that they generate eg. the description of staff as “slightly scruffy, untidy or unclean”
- the objectivity or subjectivity of the scoring

CIRCULATION OF SURVEY REPORTS

17. Survey reports from which individuals can be identified should NOT distributed among staff. Only the staff member him/herself, his/her union representative and the manager(s) responsible for his/her performance should be able to view it. Such information should not be circulated or displayed to anyone else, in any format, including print and email.

18. Staff on alternative duties should not be utilised to deal with and compile survey information. This has happened on at least one group (Hammersmith).

19. Staff should be advised of their right to receive copies of reports about themselves.

DEALING WITH THE RESULTS

20. If a GSM does not deal with any issues personally and feels that further investigation is needed, s/he should only pass the information to the appropriate DSM and instruct him/her to discuss the issue with the member of staff individually.

21. The means by which staff can appeal against any report on them should be fair, and should be made known to all staff.

22. Consideration should be given to the conditions under which staff are working:
eg. If a survey reports that a member of staff gave poor information, management should review how effectively information is passed to staff on that station.
eg. If a PA is difficult to hear, is it because of faulty equipment?
eg. If staff are not as bright-eyed and bushy-tailed as they should be, could this be because of inappropriate rosters, or excessive allocation of extreme duties to that person, etc?

23. Staff believe that there is inconsistency from managers in giving credit for positive scores.