Below is a copy of the joint collective grievance raised by SAMF's across the network and managements response.

Collective Grievance.

"We are raising a collective grievance regarding the ticket office accountancy system used by London Underground. It has become clear that there are systemic failings in this system and as Ticket Office staff we are being put in a position where these failings are resulting in dubious credits and debits on our individual accounts.
Working with a flawed system which can trigger these false accounts is a cause of constant worry and stress. It is clear that the system being used has resulted in approximately £800000 worth of debits across the network. It is also apparent that the concept of individual accountability for our accounts is unfair due to the failings in the accounting system; the fact that the safe deposits are ‘blind’ amounts of cash and the fact that the deposited bag is opened and handled by employees of the cash counting house. The fact that this can then lead to disciplinary action being taken is totally unjust and unacceptable."

Managements Response

RE: Collective Grievance – London Underground Ticket Office Accountancy System.

At the last Stations Functional Council Meeting held on the 26 November 2009, your staff side colleagues raised a collective grievance on behalf of a number of ticket sellers and detailed the areas that they believe staff have concerns in.
The six points presented by your staff side colleagues, as part of this collective grievance, are listed below:
1. Individuals are held accountable for the revenue taken by them but they don’t know how much they have banked
2. There have been six CDI’s for failure to account but they are blind accounting
3. Individuals should be aware of how much they are accounting for as some of this could be for tickets issued incorrectly
4. Natural justice is not being done as staff are being asked how much did you bank when they are told of a discrepancy 3 months later
5. The (POMs) do not communicate with each other; there is a systematic failure of POMs
6. £800k has been lost by the business

In considering the above, I have reviewed the outcome of a number of meetings including the Stations Functional Revenue Forum, Stations Functional Council and the minutes from the Ad-hoc Directors meeting held on the 3 June 2009.

I will now take this opportunity to formally respond to each point in turn:
1. Individuals are held accountable for the revenue taken by them but they don’t know how much they have banked
I find that this concern was raised at the ad-hoc directors meeting where Penny Hazel responded that “we currently have not far short of 2300 people licensed to work as Ticket Sellers. The vast majority of them have no problems in applying the appropriate procedures and behaviours in place to protect them, their colleagues and customers. Where instances of abuse are found, they are dealt with seriously”.

2. There have been six CDI’s for failure to account but they are blind accounting
I find that this concern was raised at the ad-hoc directors meeting where Penny Hazel responded that “LU does not dismiss people lightly or in great number, however we do take action where it is necessary and justified. The Company is not in a position to return to manual balancing, largely due to the impact on Customer Service. I am satisfied with the procedures and performance of the cash processing centres and I am confident that the change to one Revenue Control team last year means there is now a dedicated team to ensure fair and consistent management of Ticket Office performance”.
3. Individuals should be aware of how much they are accounting for as some of this could be for tickets issued incorrectly
I find that this concern was raised at the ad-hoc directors meeting where Penny Hazel responded “the rationale for the use of ESAF allows Ticket Office staff to dedicate their time to Customer Service. A return to staff manually balancing accounts at the end of their shift would significantly reduce window availability and not value time for our customers or our colleagues. The percentage of loss we experienced in the previous system was not significantly different from that we currently experience”

4. Natural justice is not being done as staff are being asked how much did you bank when they are told of a discrepancy 3 months later

I find that this concern is also recorded in the minutes of the ad-hoc directors meeting as part of the opening statement made by staff side.

When an error is identified on an account, the investigating team spend a considerable amount of time looking back at the transactions that occurred on that day to ascertain if there is a data entry error that could account for that missing money. This investigation process can take several weeks before the centurion manager receives a report regarding the discrepancy relating to a particular individual.

5. The Passenger Operated Machines (POMs) do not communicate with each other; there is a systematic failure of POMs
I find that this concern was discussed at the ad-hoc directors meeting. The minutes of the ad-hoc directors meeting reflect that discussion took place and that Staff Side confirmed that they had not come across any discrepancies with PDQ transactions, only cash. They believed ESAF was not adding up correctly and there could be the possibility that there wasn’t actually any real money missing. I further note that since that meeting, you have not provided any specific examples of unexplained discrepancies.

6. £800k has been lost by the business
I find that this concern was raised at the ad-hoc directors meeting where Penny Hazel responded “that the scale of loss across the network must be seen in context of the amount of money that the organisation deals with. The common measure for this is the percentage of loss, which over recent times has been held at a very low level. Having sought further information from TOCs and other commercial companies our result is at the better end of performance. Many organisations balance the risk of such loss against the cost of prevention in deciding how they deal with this matter”.

Having considered the six points raised by your representatives on behalf of the staff who have submitted this collective grievance, I find that all of the points raised have already been addressed and responded to at the ad-hoc directors meeting on 3 June 2009.
At the Stations Functional Council (SFC) meeting of 26th November 2009 you enquired whether there would be a right of appeal if you were unhappy with the outcome.
As you are aware, the procedure and machinery does not make provision for collective grievances of this nature. However we agreed to deal with the matter at Stations Functional Council level within the existing machinery. At the time of our discussion at SFC on 26 November 2009 we were of the view that should you be unhappy with my response then there was another level to escalate this to. However, having now investigated the concerns raised by your staff side colleagues, I find they are identical issues to those previously raised at the ad-hoc directors meeting of the 3rd June 2009 only reworded. Therefore an appeal is not appropriate as these issues have already been addressed at the highest level within the machinery.
Yours sincerely

Phil O’Hare
General Manager
Piccadilly line