10th December 2007
If you want to be updated by text simply email your mobile number to us.
On the 30th November 2007 we again met with East Midlands Trains and a representative from Railway Pensions Management.
The discussions continue to be positive and the company have agreed to obtain estimates from Pensions management reflecting members pensions had a pensions restructuring premium not been applied. So that the effect on individuals and the total cost can be obtained.
Obviously this will take time to compile and we have agreed to meet again in January.
On the 19th November 2007 we met with East Midland Trains to discuss the dispute.
The discussions were positive and various ways were discussed as to how resolution to the dispute maybe progressed.
Another meeting has been arranged for Friday 30th November 2007 for the company to respond to the issues raised.
We intend to report to the Executive Committee in the December session on the progress made.
Whilst meaningful talks are on going the current action will remained suspended.
The Executive committee would like to thank all our members who have given 100% support during this dispute.
We believe that it is due to the solidarity shown by you all that we are now able to enter into these discussions.
Reduced return due to post disruption
86.9% in favour of industrial action.
Ballot result: Yes 73 No 11
Strike Dates:
25th October
1st November
8th November
15th November
22nd November
29th November
We now hope that MML will stop their PR campaign and enter into meaningful negotiations with us before industrial action is necessary
You would have all received a letter from Midland Mainline management, which raises some interesting questions. Mick Whelan (ASLEF District Organiser) replies here to set the record straight and clear up some of the distortions and half truths.
Dear Colleagues
In the company's letter to all MML Drivers dated the 1st October 2007 appended is information on the history of Drivers pay, it is a shame that this could not have been provided when repeatedly requested by your representatives?
In this document the company seek to explain their perspective on the on-going situation.
The company produce a copy of unagreed minutes that paraphrase the discussion held on 20th August 2007 where we fail to agree on their interpretation of the 2001 pay deal.
They do not seek to explain that we have been seeking relevant information on the application of various pay deals since the start of the year and it has taken until the 20th August 2007 to produce some letters from 2001.
It was also pointed out to the company had they had the courtesy to copy ASLEF into the relevant correspondence in 2001 as the deal was subject to agreement by the SSRA this issue would have been dealt with contemporaneously and any opportunity for misunderstanding precluded.
The District Organiser did in fact meet with the Managing Director G. Raven and HR Director P. Mason where a number of statements were made on both sides.
The basis of the failure to agree and the situation involving two retired drivers who had pensions issues not directly related to the 2001 pay deal were naturally highlighted as not part of the item under discussion as they were being dealt with elsewhere.
As with the meeting of 20th August 2007 it was recognised that because of the percentile involved it was likely that a pensionable restructuring premium may have been involved but there are no minutes, notes or correspondence in relation to this or its application.
Because of the lack of documentation it was recognised that no parties had any documentation other than the few words in clause 5 of the 2001 pay deal and that the correspondence demonstrated Mr Mason's belief on how the deal was to be applied but was not captured anywhere else.
Quite rightly it was highlighted that our representatives had been reporting to the members and the length of time it had taken to deal with the problem and this had naturally reinforced the perception that people had been disadvantaged.
We agree and are quite clear that the nicely underlined passage is what we are seeking to redress and that is what the ballot is about:
We wish to make it clear the only issue which has been the subject of the failure to agree and the avoidance of dispute is the application of the 2001 pay deal towards past service for pensionable pay. No other issue has been raised in the failure to agree.
The first part of the answer is correct pay discussions can very protracted and lots of different views and proposals are discussed.
The next response that 2001 was no different is not correct as this was the deal that the first document had to be withdrawn as MML had inserted a clause that had neither had been discussed or agreed in relation to Sundays which led to the deal having to be subsequently signed off by the then GS.
Such behaviours of bad faith were also carried out in relation to the 2004 pay deal that had been agreed by your representatives and ratified by the executive committee only for the first time in the history of this trade union reneged on by MML and unknown elsewhere in the industry.
The definitions are correct and you only have to look at the table now provided by the company to see the increases in the all service element in every year from 1997 to 2007 apart from 2001 even though the wording in the 2001 pay deal is the same as other years?
So why was the 2001 deal different in terms of my pension?
The answer of the percentile is correct and would have included changes to pensionable pay but where is this agreement on a new second restructuring tier and nothing to apply to the all service element and what reason would our representatives at the time have to deny that such talks took place, if the company can put clauses in a document that were not discussed or agreed is it not possible that they are also incorrect about this?
Obviously our belief is no and we regret having to ballot for an industrial resolution is we are proud of our strength but only use it as a last resort but difficult decisions have to be made with the forthcoming franchise change and the difficulty in addressing such issues at a future date.
Not now ! Why has it been so difficult to get the requested information ?
Why did the company never advise ASLEF of the agreement of the SSRA or copy us into the correspondence?
The letter from pensions management to our members months after the the December 2000 agreement in August 2001 months after the ballot would not have struck a chord with the untrained and of course was only produced to ASLEF in 2007.
We have never claimed to have signed paperwork that contradicts anything but have been seeking documentation of the agreement and discussion they say took place, but equally cannot produce?
How were they transferred under TUPE? No
Did the appropriate machinery talks take place? No
Could the outcome of this affect future harmonisation talks, possibly.
You are not by the pensions issue under discussion but who knows what future issues where drivers may be required to stand together to protect an individual or each other in future in the long and proud tradition of unity we have always enjoyed.
We will also confirm that no such discussions have taken place and are interested where such rumours originate from and why?
In conclusion we are a democratic trade union that will abide by the will of its members but are only as strong as the mandate we receive.
We never seek action lightly and there is no gain for ASLEF as an organisation other than at all times to seek to protect the rights, terms and conditions and deferred wage (pensions) of our members at all times.
Please contact your District Organiser, Executive Committee Member or Company Council with any questions or queries at anytime.
Mick Whelan
District Organiser
ASLE&F
| District Organiser | |
| Mick Whelan | 07796696450 |
| Executive Committee Member | |
| Dave Calfe | 07710820408 |
| Company Council | |
| Rebekah Peterson | 07811209269 |
| Andy Botham | 07712834034 |
Download Q&A Document