RMT Executive decisions

Decisions of RMT's Council of Executives, and of RMT's General Grades Committee (the section of the Council of Executives which deals with industrial matters for railway and other non-shipping grades)

Signals Grade Progression - Dispute Resolved as LU Agree to RMT Demands

That we note that London Underground has agreed to our demands, and that members who achieve the appropriate qualifications will now receive the substantive grade and rate of pay.

We congratulate our branch, representatives and members on their resolve in pursuing this issue through grievances, negotiations and an industrial action ballot to a satisfactory outcome.

We therefore cancel our industrial action ballot.

Retirement at 65 - Does LU Comply with the Law?

RMT General Grades Committee decision:

We note our Regional Organiser’s report that London Underground appears to be in compliance with age discrimination legislation. We instruct the General Secretary to obtain legal advice to confirm this.

We also note our Regional Organiser’s recommendation that our membership database be equipped to ‘flag up’ members six months before their 65th birthday and send them a letter outlining their rights. We refer this suggestion to Council of Executives.

RMT Rejects Below-Inflation EDF Powerlink Pay Offer

We note that EDF has made an offer to settle the Wages and Supervisory Grades pay claim for 2011 of:

  • Year 1 with effect from 1st April 2011 an increase in basic salaries and associated allowances of 4.5%
  • Years 2 to 5 inclusive with effect from 1st April each year from 2012 to 2015 an increase in basic salaries and associated allowances of the published June RPI figure plus 0.25%
  • The next review date will be the 1st April 2006

London Underground Job Cuts Deepen Inequalities

RMT General Grades Committee decision:

We note the report on the equality strand of the review of London Underground’s OSP (job cuts). We endorse the detailed critique of the job cuts’ impact on equalities, which can be found on file. This critique highlights that London Underground:

  • calculates station staffing levels without considering the needs of equality groups
  • uses methods for collecting information, categorising passenger journeys and assessing data which are deeply flawed and fail to account for equality issues

Review of Industrial Disputes

RMT and London Underground agreed in May to an independent review of industrial disputes on the company. This review will be carried out by a professor of industrial relations. If reps or branches have information or views you would like to feed into this review, please email me j.booth@rmt.org.uk. RMT's General Grades Committee discussed the terms of reference of the review, and adopted the following report:

Referring to Decision Gww 14 June 2011, we have considered the draft terms of reference of the agreed review of industrial disputes between London Underground and RMT.

Northumberland Park IT Disciplinary Dispute Reaches 'Satisfactory' Conclusion: Industrial Action Ballot Cancelled

RMT General Grades Committee decision:

That we note the report from our Regional Organiser. We note that the outcome of the disciplinary process was that our members were issued with 52-week warnings to run from the date of the alleged offence, and that as this was in 2008, the warnings have now expired.

LU Station Staff: Framework Agreement

RMT General Grades Committee decision:

That we note the correspondence from London Underground, which unequivocally confirms that the company has finally accepted that Version 22a of the Stations Framework Agreement is the agreed Framework which applies to station staff and that its Version 24 has not been agreed and does not apply.

Still Battling to Get Uniform Cleaning Vouchers Restored

RMT General Grades Committee decision:

That we note the correspondence from Gerry Duffy, London Underground Employee Relations Director, dated 15 June 2011. We further note that at the Company Council meeting on 14 April, RMT tabled the issue of LU’s withdrawal of uniform cleaning vouchers, and management stated that should we wish to have the vouchers restored, the company would restore them. Following GGC decision G576 of 11 May 2011, we wrote to LU advising that we wish the vouchers to be restored as soon as possible. We are therefore disappointed that Mr Duffy has now written to us, after some delay, advising that rather than restore the vouchers immediately, he intends to convene a meeting of the Uniform Sub-Committee to discuss this matter further.