To: GSM Rickmansworth
Re: Collective Grievance on behalf of all RMT & TSSA

At our Level 1 meeting on 11.8.10, to discuss the proposed rosters for Rickmansworth group as drawn up under the COO process, the TU side stated that we will submit a collective grievance. I am now writing to you in accordance with the LUL grievance procedure to outline the terms of this grievance.

Our members are not satisfied that there has been proper consultation or negotiation as you stated at the outset of the consultation period (L1 meeting 14.7.10) that you would not consider any changes to the overall staffing levels on the group. Further, our members have not all been able to take part in the consultation exercise as the release from duties given to the TU reps has been insufficient.

Rickmansworth group has 12 stations spread over a larger geographical area than any other group. Mr Bruver (TSSA L1 Rep) and I were released for four days each and it has been possible to speak to only a few members at each location.

This problem has been compounded because management has twice raised the possibility of alternative proposals. Firstly, your predecessor as GSM at Rickmansworth, told a group of staff on 21.7.10 that he had an alternative roster proposal that would save every full-time position on the group. When questioned by the TU side he told us that there would be no alternative proposals and that the TU side was told to consult solely on the rosters as provided in writing at that point. This was confirmed in an email from him on 22.7.10. In spite of this you have raised further ideas for amending the rosters that were provided to the TU side for consultation at the L1 meeting on 11.8.10. You have refused to release the TU reps to consult on these amendments.

As a result of the conduct of management during this consultation process and the inadequate time provided to the TU side to consult, our members feel there has not been a proper consultation and negotiation concerning the staffing levels and rosters proposed by LUL.

It has not been possible, in the time provided to us, to conduct a detailed examination of the impact of the proposed rosters at each location. However, members have raised a number of points that apply to the proposals made:

The net loss of positions on the Rickmansworth Group as a result of the proposed rosters will be about 21 assuming the same reserve to rostered ratio as at present. At present we have stations unmanned on a regular basis and a further reduction of staff will inevitably result in more incidences of unmanned stations.

Every station on this group, except Amersham, will be staffed by a supervisor working alone throughout the traffic day apart from four hours during the morning peak. This will result in a significant increase in the amount of lone working by supervisors. The suggestion that supervisors will be required to work alone in the ticket hall rather than from a secure office location is not acceptable to our members.

Our members do not feel they will be able to properly manage our busier stations during the evening peaks with only a station supervisor on duty. Station staff on the Rickmansworth group often provide assistance with train incidents and regularly secure points, provide assisted dispatch and communicate with train operators. It will not be possible to maintain a safe and secure station while also carrying out such duties. The reduction of staff at Amersham will also leave the supervisor unable to perform the range of duties that are presently undertaken.

These reductions in staffing levels will also impede our members in assisting both the public and the BTP in relation to anti-social or criminal behaviour on our stations. Members have recently been instrumental in apprehending an assailant armed with a knife at Rickmansworth. The staff involved would no longer be working at that location at that time under your proposals.

Members believe that the new rosters will have a seriously detrimental impact on customer service. The proposed reduction in staff numbers will make it difficult for members to provide ‘world class customer service’. Our members have a pride in both London Underground and Rickmansworth Group and continually ‘go the extra mile’ to help with lost property, customer enquiries and all manner of problems encountered by passengers.

In particular, the reduction of ticket office window service will be detrimental to the customer service we are able to provide. There are many incidences of windows closing just as off-peak starts contained in the BNS on which the rosters are based. At many stations on the Rickmansworth group this is the busiest time of the day for the ticket offices as customers are often unfamiliar with London Underground and need help with ticketing.

Members on this group enjoy a good relationship with regular customers and there are widespread concerns that the detrimental impact of the proposed rosters, on customer service, will have an inevitable Impact on such relationships.

Members are demoralised and angry about the Impact that displacements will have on staff on Rickmansworth group. We estimate that 27 out of 113 positions on the group will be displaced. Those displaced into Zone 1 could face huge increases in travelling time to and from work including the use of staff taxis when working extreme turns. Many of our members have moved their homes to this area because they believed their positions on our group were secure. Members feel that LU is displaying a contemptuous attitude towards its staff. This feeling is exacerbated by the slow drip of partial and sometimes misleading information from LU about its plans for displaced staff.

Members have noted that the proposed rosters do not comply with the Framework of agreements, schedule No. 9 - Rostering Parameters, which states that: Rosters and any changes to them must comply with the following parameters:
1.1 Minimises the unsocial aspects of shift working whilst incurring no extra cost to the Company.
1.3 No deterioration in safety for customers or staff recognising the Safety Critical work hour’s requirement specified in Note 2 of Schedule No. 3 Paragraph
1.4 Agreed by appropriate proportion of staff participating in the roster.
1.5 No deterioration in customer service.

Yours,

Jared Wood (RMT)
Nigel Bruver (TSSA)