Last Friday (22 January), RMT reps Janine Booth and Malcolm Taylor attended a meeting with London Underground management to discuss our concerns about Mystery Shopper Surveys (MSS) and Staff Information Surveys (SIS).

We still fundamentally object to anonymous informants compiling reports on staff, but with management dogmatic about continuing with this practice, RMT is determined to stop managers abusing the surveys, and to secure protection for staff. At Friday's meeting, we got agreement from management for some important changes and protections. The company will now draft guidelines to managers, and will consult RMT on the contents before distributing them, with a target date of the end of this week.

There are several issues in the report below, but the three key points are:

• Some of the more offensive wording will be changed.
• Managers will no longer circulate survey reports, either around the group by email, or by displaying them on noticeboards.
• You can challenge inaccuracies.

RMT submitted 23 points of concern. These are listed below (in italics, together with management's response. Please use this information to prevent abuses of the survey in your area, and to inform your group's staff of their rights.

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.

LUL response: Noted.

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.

LUL response: Most customer service organisations use these surveys. They help us to improve our standards, and therefore to achieve the CSS bonus (alhtough the scores do not actually count towards the bonus).

Union response: We do not accept that these surveys improve standards, and moreover, are concerned that some managers use them not for this purpose but as a stick with which to beat staff. We do not recognise benefits from the surveys that can not be obtained from other assessment methods listed, and particularly object to the continuing use of private contractors when duty managers - part of whose role is staff assessment - have their jobs under threat.

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.

LUL response: Staff side can request reports from the Customer Insights Team to the Strategy and Development Forum.

Union response: We also need the Customer Insights Team to report to the S&D Forum whenever they are planning new initiatives, rather than go ahead with them, leaving the union to find out 'on the ground' once the new initiative is already in place.

LUL agreed.

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

LUL response: No.

THE CONTRACT

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

LUL response: GFK.

6. How was this particular company chosen?

LUL response: By competitive tendering. Three other firms submitted bids.

Union response: We would like to know the criteria under which the bids were judged.

LUL response: We will consider giving the unions this information and get back to you.

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

LUL response: No. It is commercially sensitive.

8. Under what conditions can the contract be terminated?

LUL response: We're not telling you. It is commerically sensitive.

STAFF INFORMATION SURVEYS

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

LUL response: MSS had become too big. So we divided it into two parts - MSS now surveys assets; SIS surveys staff.

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

LUL response: Covered by 9 above.

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

LUL response: Covered by 9 above.

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.

LUL response: We will investigate any such incidents where you can give us dates and details.

Note to reps and members: Please report any incidents such as this, both at local level and to your RMT Stations and Revenue Council reps.

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

LUL response: There is a process within the contract. Scores can be readjusted.

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.

LUL response: Since April 2009, surveyors have carried GPS tracking equipment, so we know where they have been!

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.

LUL response: Agree that managers should check survey results for issues such as this before taking them up with staff. This will be included in managers' guidelines.

Note to reps and members: Please report any incidents such as this,both at local level and to your RMT Stations and Revenue Council reps.

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

LUL response: Agreed to remove the current wording re cleanliness of uniform, and replace with 'meets standard', 'partially meets standard' and 'does not meet standard'. Also accept RMT's point that a uniform that is clean at the start of a duty can become dirty or dissdevelled as a result of duties undertaken eg. going in machine rooms, and that this should be taken into account.

Refused RMT's request that the criterion 'smiled' should have '(if appropriate)' added, as management believe that smiling is always appropriate. We disagree.

CIRCULATION OF SURVEY REPORTS

17. Survey reports from which individuals can be identified should NOT be 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.

LUL response: Agreed. The survey company should email the results to the Line Performance Manager and copy in the relevant GSMs only. The GSM may then pass on the report only to the DSM who will be dealing with it. The practice carried out on some lines/groups of posting reports on noticeboards, and of emailing them to Supervisors, or to all DSMs, will stop.

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).

Anyone with access to such information will be required to sign a confidentiality agreement. We would like to see the minutes of the Hammersmith level one meeting where this was raised.

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

LUL response: Agreed.

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.

LUL response: Agreed. See response to 17 above.

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

LUL response: Agreed.

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?

LUL response: Agreed. this will be included in the managers' guidelines, with examples.

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

LUL response: Positive feedback should be given where results are good.

Note: These surveys are covered by the Market Research Society (MRS) Code of Conduct. We will post this Code on this website soon.