This was to become one of the most important changes within the history of the footplate
grades, which resulting in many loco-men being forced out of the industry.
Above
Taking water at Brighton loco shed
MR. GRIFFITHS: The claim I am submitting on behalf of my Society is for a
Productivity Payment for all Footplate Staff. In this connection, I am referring to all
Drivers, Firemen and Second Men-by Second Men, I mean the man who assists the
Driver on a diesel or electric traction unit.
It was the strongly-held view of my organisation that this application should be
conducted separately and apart from any discussion of the question of manning of the
new forms of traction. Nevertheless, we have agreed with the Railways to a relaxation of
the Manning Agreement which was reached in 1957.
At a later stage in my argument I would like to enlarge on our opposition to the
extension of single manning. Meantime I would say that for the information of the
Court, I have set out in Appendix "A". to my statement particulars of the present
arrangements so far as the manning of diesel and electric traction is concerned.
May I at this point take the opportunity to express regret in regard to the unofficial action
taken by members of my Society on certain sections of British Railways. That action was
determined by the considerable delays which have taken place up to date; and I would
strongly emphasise that it is due simply and solely to the continued and strenuous efforts of
my organisation to restrain the feelings of the men that the successive outbreaks have not
been more wide spread or prolonged than in fact was the case.
It is also regretted that we find ourselves as a Society obliged to submit our claim to this
Court of Inquiry. It is our view that had reasonable consideration been given by the
Railways to this matter, it could have been settled a long time ago.
Here I would outline the history of events leading up to the present situation which has
necessitated our approach to the Minister.
We reaffirmed this view at a further meeting of the Productivity Council held on 28th
September, 1962, and at a later meeting held on 26th October, 1962, it was agreed that a
joint Sub-Committee be set up to consider the question of incentive schemes for Freight
Trainmen. This Sub-Committee agreed that proposals to amend and extend the
experimental schemes should be discussed with the Trade Unions.
On 23rd January, 1963, at a meeting with representatives of the London Midland and
Western Regions, proposals by Management were discussed which provided for bonus
payments of up to £1 per day. I would stress that these proposals were not coupled to the
question of the manning of locomotives.
Details of these Regional Schemes are attached for information as Appendix "B". We
informed the Railways on 4th February, 1963, that we would accept them provided that
their assurances in respect to "no redundancy", given in connection with the schemes
introduced in 1961, were reaffirmed.
No assurances were given concerning the question of redundancy and consequently no
agreement was reached on the proposals; but when they were last discussed on
marshalling yards-I will refer later to the anomalies arising from this.
In a letter dated
review the 1957 Manning Agreement, and at a meeting with the Board held on
After very careful consideration, my Society submitted counter-proposals in a letter
dated
forms of traction.
On
member s in regard to the piecemeal introduction of bonus schemes.
We asked for a meeting to consider this matter, and to discuss an immediate productivity
payment based on the proposals put forward in January 1963.
We again wrote to the Railways on 17th July, 1964, asking for an early meeting to
discuss our claim. The meeting took place on 11th August, 1964, when it was agreed that
a further meeting be arranged.
When we met the Board on 30th September, 1964, they proposed that the application
should be coupled to the question of the manning of the traction involved.
Many discussions have taken place since that date; but the foregoing, Sir, is a brief
history of our claim, giving rise to the present difficulty.
I would like now for a moment to refer to the position in relation to manning, and to
explain how the various types of locomotives are manned. When working a train with a
steam locomotive, the unit is, of course, double manned. However, with the introduction
of the new forms of traction, agreement was reached (as set out in Appendix "A") that
certain trains could be single manned.
We have now reached the stage that if the Railways' proposals are accepted, there will
come a time when Drivers will have insufficient practical knowledge to work their trains
with any degree of safety.
I would explain that with respect to steam locomotives, a man starts his career as a
Cleaner; he is promoted to Fireman and eventually becomes a Driver.
During his period as a Cleaner and Fireman, he absorbs the knowledge of the locomotive
in the theoretical sense and he also learns the practical aspects relating to his future
position of Driver; he is, as it were, conditioned for his future responsibility as a Driver.
Under the Railways' proposals, however, concerning the new forms of traction, he would
receive theoretical training and be given experience as a supernumerary to the official
Footplate crew-and this would not give him all the experience necessary to the safe
working of his train.
The Management themselves have said that there will be very little training during the
night hours (a position which I will deal with later). It is in respect of the night hours,
foggy weather and similar conditions, that a man really needs the most experience. This
he gets when a reasonable number of trains are double manned.
It will be seen from Appendix "A" that at the moment the Manning Agreement does
provide for a large number of single manned turns of duty; and if the proposals put
forward by my Society during the recent negotiations with the Railways are accepted, a
further substantial number of turns could be single manned.
Our proposals, which we feel should be the absolute maximum so far as the, relaxation
of the present agreement is concerned, are set out in Appendix “C”.
I say "absolute maximum" from the viewpoint of safety in particular. I am also
concerned m regard to the excessive demands which the Railways' proposals will
Impose upon the Driver.
It will be noted from our suggestions that we are prepared to agree to an extension of the
aggregate mileage limitation in connection with diesel or electric locomotives which
work passenger trains (including parcels and empty stock).
We are prepared to agree to a limitation of 250 miles as against the present 200 miles m
respect of the aggregate duration of driving single-manned; and to a non-stop distance of
125 miles as against the present 100 miles.
With respect to fully-fitted freight trains, we have indicated our agreement to the
extension of the aggregate mileage limitation from 150 miles to 175 miles and of the
non-stop running distance from 75 to 90 miles. '
So far as diesel and electric multiple units are concerned we have agreed to extend the
aggregate mileage limitation from 200 to 250 miles and the non-stop running distance
from 100 to 125 miles
For this type of traction we have agreed to a relaxation on certain night turns, i.e., those
trams scheduled to finish between midnight and 2.0 a.m., and trains scheduled to
commence between
PHOTOGRAPHER UNKNOWN
Above
A scene at Brighton loco sheds, showing the transition from steam to diesel
All loose-coupled trains are at present double-manned. But we have agreed to these
trains being single-manned in cases where the aggregate running time is not more than
100 miles or seven hours per turn of duty, and subject to the non-stop running time not
exceeding 2 1/2 hours.
Clauses (iii), (IV) and (v) of our proposals on loose-coupled trains, concerning manning
during night hours, physical needs break, and coupling and uncoupling, are, of course, in
line with the arrangements governing other trains worked by locomotives.
It is my desire to deal with the question of productivity and to refer to the Railways’
proposals at the Sub-Committee meeting held on 6th of this month, concerning the
extension of single manning.
I would like to explain why we feel that our proposals should be the maximum of any
extension of the Manning Agreement.
Firstly, with regard to (1), the limitation of aggregate duration of driving single-manned
per turn of duty, and (2), the limitation of continuous duration of driving single-manned.
It will, of course, be appreciated that the limitation is varied in accordance with the
speed of the train. This is accepted by the Railways in so far as their own proposals vary
in this regard.
On passenger trains (including parcels, empty stock and multiple unit trains) we feel that
250 miles or 6 hours per turn of duty, and 125 miles or not more than two hours' non-
stop running time, is the absolute limit under which a man should be called upon to work
single manned.
We also feel with respect to fully-fitted freight trains that the aggregate duration should
be limited to 175 miles or six hours per turn of duty, and 90 miles or two hours' non-stop
running time. Freight trains should be limited to an aggregate of 100
miles or seven hours per turn of duty, and a non-stop running time of 21/2 hours.
So far as hours are concerned there is very little difference between either of the
proposals, but whilst we suggest mileage limitations of between 100 and 250 miles,
depending on the type of train, the Railways are seeking between100 and 350 miles.
We are also maintaining that non-stop distances should be limited to between 90 and 125
miles, depending on the type of train, whereas Management desire a limit between 100
and 175 miles.
Loose coupled trains will, of course, limit themselves in regard to non-stop running
distance, because of the slow speeds of these trains. However, when a man is required to
drive a train above the limitations proposed by us, we maintain he should be provided
with a second man.
Many hours were spent in producing the present agreement, one of the ttributes of which
is the limitation on the mileage or hours demanded of a Driver working on his own.
ALAN BARTLETT COLLECTION
Above
Redundant steam locomotives in Montpelier Sidings, Brighton
We are talking here of a man who is expected to drive a huge and expensive piece of
equipment at speeds of up to 100 m.p.h.-or, in the case of the slower trains, with
extremely heavy loads. He is expected to drive in all types of weather and run his train
to time. We contend that with the heavy concentration required, it is too much to ask a
man to accept such a great responsibility outside the limitations we have suggested. To
sit at the controls for a distance of up to 350 miles, concentrating on signals, gradients,
speed restrictions and the like, including the controlling of the "dead man's pedal", is too
much to ask of anyone man.
It has been said that the Second Man has very few duties to perform when there is no
steam heating on the train. Here I would beg to differ. The Fireman or Second Man is a
second pair of eyes to the Driver; he assists in the observation of signals and is in fact far
more important to the safe working of the train than the Guard.
You know, Sir, that the weather in this country is not all that we desire; we are subjected
to frequent falls of heavy rain and snow; it is by no means always a fine clear sunny day;
we have heavy fog in the winter, apart from many very misty days or nights at all
seasons of the year. When the weather is not clear a Train Driver, unlike a lorry or bus
driver, who either travels at a crawling pace or does not travel at all, is required to run at
exceptionally fast speeds peering into the blackness of the night (or day if foggy
conditions prevail). This takes a heavy toll, and believe me has a tremendous
psychological effect. Only the man who travels over long distances in the conditions
prevailing in this country can really give a true picture of what is involved.
I have had personal experience of working over long mileages and can assure you of the
very great help and satisfaction obtained by a Driver from having a second pair of eyes
to assist him In his arduous and most concentrated duties.
Concerning the important matter of the duration of rostered turns: we contend that eight
hours en a train is more than enough when travelling single-manned.
Here again the heavy physical and mental demands which I have just outlined apply with
equal force. Incidentally, may I remind the Court that the principle of the eight-hour day
has been in operation since 1919 so far as my members are concerned.
The present agreement gives adequate provision in regard to the duration of turns as
rostered. Rosters conform to the eight-hour principle, though in exceptional cases the
Diesel Headquarters Committee (set up under Clause 6 of the 1957 Manning
Agreement) can agree to their being extended beyond this period. Indeed, we have been
party to agreeing many turns of this kind in Circumstances which have warranted such a
course of action.
The proposals put forward by the Railways in this connection come in fact very near to
where we would like to be in the interests of all concerned. I suggest that agreement
could no doubt be reached in this connection.
On the limitation of night hours of duty, my Society and membership feel very strongly
so far as any proposal to amend the Manning Agreement is concerned.
The relevant clause was one of the most important of any in the 1957 Agreement and it
was framed after much investigation in the light of medical evidence.
It was established that a man is at is lowest ebb during the hours in question and our
submission is that it is unfair ,and indeed does not contribute to safe working, to run
trains during the night hours with only one man at the front end.
The Management maintained that their evidence now differs from the information in
their possession in 1956 and 1957. It has in fact been stated that a man who is regularly
rostered on shift work is not affected by tiredness during the night time.
Even if we accept this contention (which we do not), it has to be emphatically stressed.
that a Driver works Irregular shifts, and his case, in this respect, as indeed many others,
has nothing in common with that of regular shift workers m outside industry.
PHOTOGRAPHER UNKNOWN
Above
The new B.R. Type 3 diesel locomotive, later becoming a class 33
His work is not on the shift basis as generally understood namely 6 0 a m
Footplate staff are booked for duty commencing literally at any minute of the twenty-
four hours, and often seven days per 'week. Thus there is no regular pattern m the normal
sense of shift work.
It is natural for a man to be tired during the hours from
unnatural for him to be "on top of the world” during these hours however much sleep he
may have enjoyed during the day. I say "enjoyed'" but in fact everyone who has tried it
knows that it is difficult to sleep during the daytime, particularly If (as is the usual case)
there is noise from children and other sources which are not normally so evident at night
time.
Frankly, there is no stronger point of disagreement between my Society and the Board
than exists over our firm contention that in general it is unjust and unsafe to single-man
trams during the night period in question.
The Board at various meetings have maintained that it is the Second Man who would be
overcome by tiredness before the Driver. This view we are totally unable to accept. Both
men of course should be, and are, alert as it is possible to be. We say that as no man
under the special circumstances I have indicated in relation to the Footplateman's way of
life, can be 100 per cent during the night hours~ we must maintain the confidence of the
train crews and. the travelling public alike by retaining the principle of double manning
during the night hours.
This is our grave concern, and there is no question of our seeking to retain men who are
not needed.
Concerning the physical needs break, the present agreement provides for a 30-mmute
break between the. third and fifth hours of duty. Having regard to all that is involved
when driving single manned, we maintain it is essential that the principle underling this
arrangement should continue in operation.
It is not unreasonable to ask to be provided with toilet facilities during, the specified
period; nor for a man to be given an adequate break of 30 minutes for this purpose and to
allow him to take his meal.
The Railways' present proposals, as set out in the document attached to the R.S.N.C. Sub-Committee Minutes of the Meeting held on 6th September, could form a basis of
agreement. However, in order to control the position at headquarters' level, all
exceptional cases (including the turns which can be rostered 10 minutes before the third
hour or 10 minutes after the fifth hour) should be subject to agreement between the
headquarters of the Region and the Trade Unions.
On this understanding my Society is prepared to agree to a relaxation of the present
arrangements, and we will assist in every way we can.
The Railways have said that where it can be proved that P.N. Breaks rostered outside of
the limits can be brought within the third and fifth hours, they will make the necessary
alterations; and we for our part maintain that in this modern age it should be possible for
the Railways to devise a rostering arrangement which would bring almost all Physical
Needs Breaks within that period.
It should not normally be necessary for the Trade Union to advise the Railways as to
how to re-roster their diagrams. I would, however, say that of course we are quite
prepared to co-operate where appropriate, and in cases 'where it is considered
impracticable to roster a break between the third and fifth hours of duty, the turn in
question could be the subject of an early meeting at headquarters' level. On this latter
point we feel very strongly, because where authority is given to the local people to
administer an agreement such as is suggested in the Railways' proposals, they are in fact
prone to take the easy way out, and in connection with this matter would be inclined to
roster many P.N. Breaks to commence before the third hour or to terminate after the
fifth.
As an example of this, the Board are allowed, in accordance with Statutory Instrument
1962 No. 183, to utilise young persons on night duties.
The exemption from the appropriate provisions of the Factory Act relating to the
employment of young persons at night was based on the premise that such persons
would only be rostered on night duty in cases where it was impracticable to run the
service and cover all the turns of duty by adult staff.
Our attention was, however, drawn to the fact that these young people were, contrary to
this principle, being rostered on night duty on a very large scale; and it was necessary for
us to meet the Board with a view to their instructing their local people to adhere to the
spirit and- Intention of the arrangement in question.
The Board have produced isolated rosters in which it would be impracticable to provide
a break between the third and fifth hours. We maintain that these rosters should not be
taken in isolation; we say they should be examined with other rosters in order to
ascertain whether or not they could suitably be amended.
May I add that the Southern Region Electric Drivers were given the facility we are here
seeking, long before the present
Manning Agreement was introduced; and they do not appear to have experienced any
difficulty in that connection.
Before dealing with the further items referred to in the Annexure, I should t this point
emphasise that it is the opinion of my organisation that the majority of the Railways’
proposals are essentially bound up with the question of rostering.
We feel that the diagram department is inadequate; that in this modern age a more
intelligent approach could be made in this regard.
The whole of Section "A" of the Annexure could be adequately covered by more
intelligent rostering if taken in conjunction with the proposals put forward by my
Society.
A Driver working single-manned for a distance of 350 miles would require a payment
equal to 24 hours for that particular duty. On the other hand, if that journey were worked
in two stages by two successive Drivers, they would each require payment equal to
12 1/2 hours, and the cost to the Railways for that same mileage would be 25 hours' pay.
(That is, of course, based on the proposals set out in Appendix "D" to the Minutes of the
meeting held on 6th September last.)
Surely, in a case of that description, in which the saving is only in the region of an hour
or so, the Railways do not seriously insist on a Driver undergoing the extreme pressure
of covering a distance of 350 miles in one day, possibly five or even six days a week.
We read in the daily press of the absenteeism in the coal mines. This is a feature which is
not at the moment prevalent on British Railways so far as Footplatemen are concerned.
However, if we adopted the Railways' proposals on mileage limitation, the strain and
effort required would, in our submission, be well-nigh unbearable for the men involved,
and I am confident that they would develop an outlook which does not exist amongst
these most conscientious men today.
Turning now to the matter of locomotives running light; in our view the agreement
presently obtaining gives the Railways all the scope that is desired or is necessary.
It is, of course, sensible and appropriate to provide a Footplateman to perform footplate
duties, and we can see no reason for extending the agreement.
The proposals put forward by the Board give too much scope to the people responsible
for local arrangements, who would undoubtedly take undue advantage of the position.
It has been suggested that where the journey of a locomotive running light comprises
part of train or trip working, the Second Man could be a Guard or Shunter. May I
therefore draw attention to the fact that under such an arrangement it would be possible
to utilise men from either of the two last-mentioned grades, both outside the Footplate
line of promotion, on a journey of, say, a distance of up to 40, 50 or even more miles.
Quite apart from the fact that a Shunter may not be experienced in working one
particular section of line, it is just not sensible on general grounds to have such an
arrangement. We could and would get to a position in which men in one grade would be
performing the duties of another grade for which they may not be qualified either by way
of training or even in the physical
sense from a main-line point of view.
The Railways may say (as indeed they have done during negotiations) that to bring a
locomotive to a depot after a journey, it would be necessary for them to provide a brake
van for the Guard if their proposals are not accepted. We cannot accept that this would in
fact be necessary in the majority of cases. To explain this more fully: it is the intention of
the Board to close the majority of depots as we know them today. They intend to have a
minimum number of depots supplemented by booking on and off points. These points
will, in most cases, be adjacent to the Marshalling Yards where the locomotives will be
stationed.
It therefore follows that with proper rostering the trains can commence and terminate
where the locomotive is berthed.
Any amendments to the present agreement must essentially be designed for the future-
when the Railways are fully electrified or dieselised-and I am sure the Board will agree
that this is so.
It will therefore be appreciated that the greater part of light engine working, so far as the
actual working of trains is concerned, will be negligible; and where it is necessary to use
a locomotive from one of the main depots? there will be sufficient men in the line of
promotion to accompany the Driver to the traffic yard.
The utilisation of the men in the line of promotion to Driver will serve two purposes;
firstly, they will man the light engine as men who are properly qualified to do so and,
secondly, it will assist in giving them experience m the light of their future employment
as Engine Drivers.
We fully agree with the Board's proposals regarding locomotives working rafts of
vehicles on or across main lines, and would have no objection to discussing, any
particular case with the Region.
The Board's proposals in regard to the manning of Station Pilots are also acceptable to
my organisation, and this again applies to the proposals on Dock Working, which are in
line with the present arrangements.
With reference to coupling and uncoupling, and to steam heating apparatus: here again
we have no quarrel with the Railways.
On the latter subjects. It would obviously be impossible for a Driver to attend to the
steam heating apparatus and drive his train at the same time.
I need say no more on either of the two points as we fully concur m this section of the
Board's proposals.
It will be noted in Clause 5 (c) of the Annexure to the R.S.N.C. Sub-Committee Minutes
of 6th September, under the heading of Staffing Arrangements, that provision is made for
the protection of -the position of Firemen and Cleaners, arising from the introduction of
a relaxation of the Manning Agreement.
We have maintained that such provision should also include men who are surplus to
requirements, arising from modernisation and associated developments.
The introduction of new forms of traction, the speeding-up of trains, the increased
loading of trains, are all factors which contribute to redundancy, and in many cases it
will be too difficult to differentiate as between one case of redundancy and another.
Furthermore, the closing of depots and transfer of work from one depot to another is
causing great hardship to our members.
The wholesale closure of depots is now taking place, and having regard to the
Withdrawal of services, men are experiencing extreme difficulty in travelling to work at
their new depot.
Difficulty also constantly arises in obtaining housing -accommodation at the new depot
or Signing-on point, resulting in men with 30 and 40 years' service finding it necessary
to leave the service.
We must retain the younger men and the only way to do this is to guarantee their future
position in the line of promotion. The next three items, namely, Rates of Pay and
Compensating Arrangements; Incentive Schemes; and Increased Mileage Payments, are
all related items and I would prefer to deal with them collectively and following a
general reference to the question of Productivity.
We accept that Productivity Payments must, of course, be related to productivity. But we
submit also that Footplate Staff have already been contributing to increased productivity
for a long period of time-and will continue to do so with the faster timings and more
economical rostering-but no additional payment has been forthcoming on a national
basis.'
When the present Manning Agreement was introduced, no additional payment was
introduced by way of productivity payment, although the savings to the Railways must
have amounted to many millions of pounds per annum.
When Mr. Guillebaud and his Committee conducted the exercise which resulted in the
1960 rates of pay agreement, they carefully examined all grades, taking into
consideration the type of. work and responsibility of the men concerned. As a result they
decided-quite rightly-that the Driver's work and responsibility merited his being placed
in the highest category of Conciliation grades.
However, we now have the invidious position in which men with a basic rate of some £5
per week less than that of a Train Driver are receiving as much or, in some cases, more
wages for an 8-hour day than the Driver.
The majority of men in the line of promotion, and certainly all Drivers, have years of
service behind them; they are doing responsible and arduous work, have a wealth of
experience and knowledge, and conform to a rigid medical and practical examination.
Yet in many of the other grades men are receiving bonus payments after a very limited
time in the service, and in the majority of cases these men do not require the same
medical' standard as a Driver and are not required to have the technical knowledge arid
the experience required of a Driver.
In the Footplate grade itself we have anomalies; a Driver could be reduced in grade to a
Shunting Driver, and such reduction could actually result in a substantial increase in
earnings by way of bonus payment.
We have drawn the Railways' attention to cases in which a man could work an express
passenger train in foggy conditions and receive only a nominal extra payment of 2s. by
way of mileage, whilst on the following day he could be employed on shunting duties
and receive upwards of 18s. as an additional payment.
There can be no doubt that quite apart from the proposals on Manning, Footplate Staff
have in no small way contributed to increased productivity, and continue to do so.
In 1964 the Railways had 9,633 locomotives; they expect in the near future to work all
trains with a fleet of 5,375 diesel or electric locomotives.
They cannot do this without the full co-operation of Footplate Staff, who are required to
learn how to drive these new forms of traction and be repaired to perform minor repairs
(they get no extra payment for this additional knowledge).
To run the Railways with a limited fleet as envisaged, they must increase the load and speed of the train; again a case in which a Driver receives 'no additional payment in respect of the additional loading and speed,
The Railways now run 1,100 "Company" freight trains' a week-350 more than a year ago. These trains carry complete train-loads of individual customers' products and 1,000 of them have a payload of 500 tons each.
Last year there were about 150 trains a week carrying petroleum products; today there are well over 300 of these trains carrying full loads. Payloads on these trains amount to as much as 1,200 tons a train.
The Railways have introduced "Export Express" services, giving a "next day" delivery to
the major ports.
They are quickly developing "Car Carriers"; at present these carry full loads of 75 motor
vehicles, It is the intention to introduce trains of this type with a carrying capacity of 125
motor cars, travelling at speeds of up to 75 miles per hour.
This is true productivity, separate and apart from any reference to the Manning
Agreement.
Productivity is based on output. If a man involved in a bonus scheme in a factory
produces more than the "norm" he receives a higher payment. If a platelayer exceeds a
certain quota, he receives additional payment. In fact, a platelayer in a normal working
week can increase his earnings by over £3 per week and receive a higher payment than a
Fireman who may have many years' service and experience behind him.
Again we have referred the Railways to other anomalies such as Fitters' Mates, who in
some cases can receive, without overtime, a higher payment than a main-line Driver.
I am sure this is a position which would not be tolerated in outside industry, either by the
management or by the men. Here you have a skilled Driver, who has been in the service
for many years; he is required to reach a very high eyesight and general physical
standard, have a wealth of knowledge with respect to the traction he drives and the roads
over which he travels, and he must be prepared to work in all types of weather
conditions. Yet a man could come I almost "off the street" and without overtime receive
higher pay than such a skilled key worker. '
Engine crews are working to capacity; they are not wasting time going back to the shed
to prepare and dispose of the engine to anywhere near the extent which applied in the
case of the steam locomotive. For the major part of a Train Driver's turn of duty
he is engaged on productive work; he should be paid accordingly.
It has been said by the Management that they cannot accept that the earrings of a
particular grade can be compared with the earnings of another grade, I agree with that; I
do not agree, however, that a Train Driver with all his responsibility and knowledge,
coupled with his contribution to productivity, should be earning no more than a man in a
much lower grade. Such a position is frankly untenable.
Guillebaud classified Drivers; he recommended that Train Drivers should receive more
than Shunting Drivers. This classification was introduced; but now, instead of receiving
16s. per week less, a Shunting Driver can in fact earn £3 or £4 per week more than a
Train Driver.
At a Sub-Committee meeting of the British Railways Productivity Council held on
document it was stated as a result of investigations that it was usually evident that
substantial improvements in freight train timekeeping, earlier release of locomotives to
depot, quicker clearance of running lines, and reduction in marshalling time, could be
achieved. These are brought about not by the faster working of the staff but by ensuring
that they are more continuously employed and ineffective work reduced.
The report lays great stress upon timekeeping, and states that the proposal for incentive
schemes combines the aspects of timekeeping and labour performance so that
timekeeping represents two-thirds of the total shunting performance and labour
performance the balance of one-third.
The point I wish to make here is that it is not the shunting staff who alone contribute to
timekeeping although it is the shunting staff who receive the additional payment.
Another point I am stressing concerns the reference to timekeeping which represents
two-thirds of the shunting performance; surely the same must apply to the actual train
running,
If the Train Driver through his -skill and knowledge did not run his train to time there
would be disorganisation in the shunting yards. In addition, if there is a quicker turn-
round in the marshalling yards it follows that there is less wastage of time in respect to
train running, and therefore greater productivity.
Above
Electic Diesel locomotive, class 73 locomotive
At a meeting of the Productivity Council held on 28th July, 1961', example were given
of work study schemes which had produced considerable savings.
In example 1 there was a saving of some 270 staff. The scheme produced a net saving of
£90,000 per annum after paying a bonus to the remaining staff amounting to £94,000
which gives an average weekly bonus of over £2 per week to each man.
Example 2 showed a saving of 85 men, the remaining staff receiving £23,000 by way of
bonus with a net saving of £24,000 to the Railways; the staff here again receiving almost
£2 per week by way of bonus.
Example 6 was very interesting; it showed a slight increase in tonnage handled and
carted by fewer staff. A Train Driver gets nothing for increased tonnage handled, and so
far as cartage is concerned, if a diagram is re-rostered to enable the Driver to work 100
miles instead of 65 miles, he receives an extra 1s per day under the present mileage
agreement.
On the other hand the staff involved in the scheme set out in the example enjoyed the
benefit of over 50s. per week in increased earnings (this was four years ago, and the
rates have probably increased substantially since then).
In table 9 on page 35 of the recent Report on the Development of the Major Railway
Trunk Routes it is anticipated that a train running at 60 m.p.h. today will be travelling at
70 m.p.h. in 1984. Trains which now run at 30 m.p.h. (and these represent one-third of
the total number of trains) will run at 50 m.p.h.-an improvement of 66 2/3 per cent on
the timing. Eleven per cent of the total number of trains which at present run at speeds
below 20 m.p.h. will be increased to 35 m.p.h. which represents an improvement of 75
per cent in timing.
On this basis a Driver at present working a train over a distance of 60 miles, could in
fact, when his train is speeded up, work 105 miles. For this increased mileage he would
receive the princely sum of 1s. 6d. under the present Mileage Agreement.
The Management have said, at recent Productivity Council Meetings, that the greater
power of the diesel and electric locomotives is being exploited to increase train loads. It
has been stated that these new forms of traction have brought about considerable
economy in operating costs and have provided increasingly accelerated services over the
last five years.
Special emphasis has been placed on the excellent co-operation from the staff and Trade
Unions, especially in connection with the retraining of Footplate Staff.
Great stress has been laid upon the important role which Liner-Trains will play in the
future of British Railways-a Driver working one of these important trains over a distance
of say 130 miles would at the moment only receive an additional
payment of 2s. 6d.
It is our submission that the facts speak for themselves-and they are facts which are
causing a tremendous amount of unrest among my Society's member grades. These men,
conscious as' they are that productivity per man has considerably increased and will
continue to increase, find this feature going unrecognised so far as they are concerned,
whilst at the same time they are surrounded by staff in other grades, doing less
responsible work, who are recompensed for higher productivity.
No wonder therefore that discontent runs high in this state of affairs, which is one that in
the interests of all concerned should be rectified forthwith. In the 1965 Edition of the
British Railways Year Book the Board underline the question of Productivity on the
Railways during the last year or two. I would like to take this opportunity of quoting
extracts from this book.
"The trend towards ever-rising annual deficits was reversed in 1963 when the working
deficit fell to £82 million-an improvement of £22 million on the previous year. The
welcome progress towards solvency continued in1964 with a further reduction of the
working deficit to £67' million." This noteworthy improvement was achieved largely
through savings in working expenses, in spite of rising prices for most purchased
commodities and the effect of two staff pay increases. In 1964, however, there was,
additionally, a significant increase of £5 million in gross revenue." Working expenses
fell by about £27 million over the two-year period, equivalent to £61 million if wage and
price increases are discounted. The principal elements of this saving were:
a) £21 million reduction in the cost of train working, largely from the displacement of
steam by diesel and electric traction and the more productive use of locomotives,
carriages and wagons.
b) £28 million reduction in the cost of all forms of maintenance, because of the reduced
size of the rolling-stock fleet and the increased use of labour-saving equipment and
techniques,
c) £12 million reduction in other costs, mainly through the closure of many terminals
and higher productivity at those remaining open."
We are further informed from the same source: "Punctuality continued to improve, and
by September 1964 was substantially better than in 1962. Towards the close of the year a
number of factors impaired the high standards reached, but this was a temporary setback.
The changeover from steam to diesel and electric traction continued, resulting in higher
average speeds and shorter journey times. The proportion of coaching train miles run by
diesel and electric traction rose to 87 per cent.
Striking progress was made in the acceleration of passenger trains; the summer timetable
for 1964 recorded 526 trains booked to make start-to-stop journeys at 60 m.p.h. or more,
including 25 averaging 70 m.p.h. or over.
This compares with 200 in the summer of 1962. The fastest scheduled run, introduced in
the winter 1964 timetable, is that of the 07.45 Euston to Liverpool train which covers the
61 miles between Nuneaton and Crewe at an average speed of 76 m.p.h., start-to-stop.
"The principal routes to benefit from the accelerations were the East Coast main line
between London, the North-East and Scotland (where reductions in journey times of up
to 63 minutes were achieved, and an hourly-interval 60 m.p.h. service was introduced
between King's Cross and Newcastle); Paddington and South Wales with savings of up
to 58 minutes; Plymouth and the North-West (up to 65 minutes); while the introduction
of a high-speed electric multiple-unit service between London and Clacton, Frinton and
Walton cut up to 28 minutes from the journey times on this comparatively short route.
"The proportion of freight-train mileage worked by diesel and electric power nearly
doubled in the two years, reaching 46 per cent during 1964.
In order to take advantage of the higher speeds and heavier loads now attainable, as
many trains as possible are run either fully or partially power-braked. Helped by the
growing proportion of brake-fitted wagons as older, non-fitted wagons are withdrawn,
the booked weekly mileage of fitted and partially fitted trains rose to 59 per cent of the
total.
Among these are the 'Company' trains-block trainloads for individual firms of which by
the end of 1964 over 850 were booked to run each week. Cement, chemicals, motor cars
and oil products are being carried in this way; one oil train regularly hauling a gross load
of 2,000 tons between Southampton and Birmingham is currently the heaviest train in
the country."
All these developments-increasing the speed of trains, increasing the load, etc.-are
factors which improve productivity, and from the fact that the Driver is involved in this
intensified working, it follows that he contributes to the said improved productivity in no
small way.
At
At
months.
Since July 1963 the number of Drivers has been reduced from 34,163 to 30,601; a
reduction of 3,562; in the same period the establishment of Firemen and Cleaners has
decreased from 28,744 to 19,299, a reduction of 9,445.
A proportion of these reductions may have arisen as a result of loss of work, but we
contend that the bulk of this saving on staff has been brought about by increased
productivity. The Railways will not accept that a Productivity Payment could be made
on so-called past productivity. We maintain that this is not simply past productivity, but
very much continuing and intensified productivity; we make the further point that we
have been seeking the establishment of a productivity payment on a national basis since
1961.
With regard to the savings on staff prior to the original submission of application, I
would take the opportunity of drawing attention to the numbers of Footplate Staff on
British Railways in 1957 when the present Manning Agreement was introduced.
There were 83,157 Footplate Staff on the Railways at that time-there are less than
50,000 now.
Surely some form of recognition should be given to productivity as developed in the
past, as well as to the future productivity, particularly having regard to the fact that b
onus schemes for certain other grades have been in existence for some time.
In five years' time over 11,000 Drivers will have left the service by way of normal
retirement.
We do not have details of the ages of these men, but if we say one-fifth of them will
retire in the next year, there would be, assuming that our proposals for extension of single
manning were adopted, an almost immediate saving of 2,200 Firemen’s positions, making a
saving of over £2 million per annum.
When we thus estimate a saving representing £1,000 per annum in respect of Firemen’s
positions, we are quoting a modest figure, because one must in addition to earnings take
into account the following in the case of each position saved:
National Insurance contribution; Annual Leave payment; Bank Holidays (these three
items alone amount to almost £2 per week); Clothing; Sick Pay; Pensions; and all other
items which involve the Railways in administrative costs in respect to each individual
member of the staff.
The present establishment of Firemen and Cleaners is approximately 19,300 and a large
percentage of these would, of course, disappear following amendment of the Manning
Agreement.
A number of Drivers' positions would also be absorbed.
If therefore we take a modest estimate of 12,500 of these positions, the Railways would
save overall more than £250,000 per week, or over £13 million per annum.
We were advised by the Chairman of the Board in May that the cost of Productivity
Payments to Footplate Staff would be £3 million per year. If our proposals, as set out in
Appendix "D", were to be accepted, the cost might increase to approximately £4 million,
giving a total saving of £9 million by way of a relaxation of the Manning Agreement
alone. '"
Thus, if this saving is taken into consideration along with the other contributions to
Productivity which are made by Footplate
Staff, our proposals in relation to additional payments are on a very modest scale indeed.
When we agreed to an extension of single manning as set out in my Appendix "C", we
did so on the basis of the additional payments referred to in my Appendix "D", and not
to the payments as set out in Appendix "D" to the Minutes of the R.S.N.C.
Sub-Committee meeting held on 6th September.
In this latter connection it must be noted that the Railways have now withdrawn the offer
if no agreement is reached in respect to manning during the night hours, and have
substituted a vastly reduced offer of additional payments as set out in Appendix "C" to
the Sub-Committee Minutes of 6th September.
They have also indicated that the proposed improvements in Drivers' rates of pay (Sub-
Committee-Appendix "A" and Appendix "B") are withdrawn if a relaxation in manning
during night hours is not accepted.
It should be noted also that the difference between the two offers put forward by the
Railways in respect to additional payment bears no relation to the additional savings
which would accrue if there was a relaxation in manning' during night hours.
There is in fact no foundation for such a large reduction and in any event the original
offer does not meet the problem so far as my Society is concerned, having regard to the
extent to which we are prepared to give in relation to the relaxation of the Manning
Agreement.
Our proposals give the Management the scope they are seeking particularly bearing in
mind the requirements for the constant training of potential Drivers.
Finally, I respectfully emphasise that in the course of these long-drawn and difficult
negotiations, my Society has in fact moved a tremendous way in seeking to reach
agreement with the Board; notably, following our recalled delegate conference on
August 10th, we have abandoned our insistence on discussion of productivity payment
as an issue separate and distinct from the amendment of the Manning Agreement. We
still think that we were entirely right in our previous attitude on this question, and that
we were fully justified in seeking a payment based purely on the existing and mounting
increase in the productivity of our member grades.
Nevertheless, I repeat that we moved from that position; and we have shown ourselves
willing to countenance a considerable increase, highly lucrative to the Board, m !he
proportion of single manning in return for a productivity payment on a Just and adequate
scale.
Unfortunately we have been unable to reach agreement with the Board even on this new
basis. They have not, in fact, shown a
readiness to match our own proved willingness to move.
The issue is before this Court today because the Board are not prepared to meet us on the
principle 'of night manning-highly important to us for reasons which I have indicated-
nor do they seem willing to concede to their Footplate Staff a due and proper share in the
benefits accruing from increased productivity.
In concluding my opening statement, in which I have endeavoured to set forth the
considerations involved in this dispute I would respectfully and most earnestly ask the
court to find in favour (a) of our contention respecting retention of the principle of
double manning during night hours; (b) of the provision, on a fair and adequate scale, of
a productivity payment to our member grades; and (c), of a reduction in the Board’s
proposed limit on the amount of driving single manned per turn of duty.
It is our very sincere hope that as a result of the deliberations of the Court a satisfactory
and enduring solution may be found to this unhappy dispute.
APPENDICES SUBMITTED TO THE COURT
"A" Diesel and Electric Manning Agreement-Memorandum of Agreement dated
"B" L.M. Region: Incentive Bonus Schemes-Freight Train and Trip Working.
"C" A.S.L.E.F. proposals-Diesel and Electric Manning Agreement.
"D" Scale of Mileage Payments: Railways' Proposals-A.S.L.E.F. Proposals.
EXTRACTS FROM THE FINDINGS OF THE COURT
"The two main issues with which the negotiations leading to the setting up of this Court
of Inquiry have been concerned are the revision of the Manning Agreement reached
between the former British Transport Commission and A.S.L.E. & F. and N.U.R. on
footplate staff."
* * '* * *
Freight trains not fully fitted with automatic brakes "The 1957 Agreement provided for
single-manning only on freight trains which were fitted with automatic brakes
throughout. A.S.L.E. & F. had originally pressed for this restriction to be maintained.
Their view was that the safety of single-manning on 'loose-coupled' freight trains (i.e.
trains without automatic brakes on all wagons) was not established, and referred to the
greater danger of such trains becoming uncoupled in the middle while in motion: to
avoid this required greater skill on the part of the driver. The Board's view was that the
second man on the cab did not materially help the driver in his task of handling loose-
coupled trains. By 6th September, however, A.S.L.E & F. were prepared to agree to such
trains being single-manned in certain cases dealt with below ....I conclude that this is a
point on which the parties should find it fairly easy to reach agreement, and I agree that
there is no reason why loose coupled trains as such should not be single-manned.
Total length of driving turns
"Under the 1957 Agreement, the limits on the total length of a single-manned driving
turn (i.e., including rest breaks etc.) were 200 miles or six hours for passenger trains and
150 miles or six hours for fully-fitted freight trains. In May, 1965, the Board proposed
that turns should -be limited by time only, not mileage, but, for the sake of reaching
accommodation with the Unions, were prepared by 6th September to introduce mileage
restrictions. The proposed limits were 350 miles or six hours for express passenger trains
and freight trains permitted to run at over 50 m.p.h.; 250 miles or six hours for stopping
passenger trains; and seven hours with mileage limits of 100, 200 and 250 miles for
different classes of slower freight trains. A.S.L.E. & F. were broadly in agreement with
the proposed limits on hours (except that they wished to retain the limit of six hours on
all fully-fitted freight trains), but sought lower mileage limits: 250 miles on express
passenger trains, 175 miles for fully-fitted freight trains, and 100 miles for other freight. . . . '
"This was one of several points on which it seemed likely on 6th September that
agreement could have been found by further negotiation. For my part, I think the Board’s
proposals are reasonable as they now stand.
Length of continuous driving single-manned"As against present limits on continuous
driving single-manned of 100 miles or two hours (average speed 50 m.p.h.) for
passenger trains and 75 miles or two hours (average speed 37t m.p.h.) for fully-fitted
freight trains in the 1957 Agreement, the Board proposed limits of 175 miles or 2t hours
(average speed 70 m.p.h.) for passenger trains and freight trains permitted to run at over
50 m.p.h., and 125 or 100 miles and three hours (average speeds 42 and 33 m.p.h.) for
slower freight trains. A.S.L.E. & F. thought the absolute limits on the driver's capacity
were 125 miles or two hours for passenger trains (average speed 62t m.p.h.), 90 miles or
two hours (average speed 45 m.p.h.) for fully-fitted freight, and 2t hours (without
distance limit) for other freight trains. '
"Here again there was comparatively little difference between the parties, and I would
regard the Board's proposals as reasonable.
Night manning
"At this point we come. to the core of the dispute. Under the 1957 Agreement there is no
single-manning between
starting after
wholly removed: and their acceptance as an interim measure of the A.S.L.E. & F.
counter-proposal to shorten the 'proscribed hours,' for multiple-unit trains only, to 2 a.m.
to
September 1965, of a much lower scale of mileage payments."
* * * * *
": .. I recognise, and I think the Board also recognises, the very strong feelings which the
footplatemen have on this issue.
They have had relatively little time to accustom themselves to the measure of single-
manning which was introduced in 1957, especially as the proportion of locomotives to
which the Agreement applied was comparatively small at that time and has increased
steadily since then, and to remove the restrictions completely could at this stage provoke
great unrest. I therefore suggest that this part of-the 1957 Agreement should remain
unaltered for the time being save in two ways:
(a) as A.S.L.E. & F. have suggested, multiple units finishing their journeys up to
and commencing after
single-manned;
(b) where more economical rostering could be achieved by permitting single-manning
for workings terminating up to, say, 1.30 a.m. (
after
committees at regional headquarters, any relaxations, of course, being subject to
agreement by both sides.
However, the Board should keep the matter under review and should seek more definite
evidence on the effects of fatigue during the night hours and the ways in Which drivers
may be helped to overcome it; while the Unions should also reconsider their attitude on
this matter with a view to agreement on removing the restrictions within the next year or
two."
* * * * *
Physical heeds break
"I find the Board's proposals not unreasonable: there seems little opportunity for abuse
of a discretionary period as short as 10 minutes outside the normal limits, but anything
over this limit should not be left to the discretion of the people responsible for rostering
but should be agreed by the joint regional committees.'
* * * * *
Total duration of single-manned spells
"My own view is that there must be some flexibility in the arrangements in the interests
of efficiency, but I suggest that all rosters over eight hours should continue to be agreed
with the Unions (by the regional manning committees, not nationally as at present).
While rosters of up to 8 hours 15 minutes do not seem unreasonable departures from the
eight-hour limit, I do not see why the onus should be wholly on the Unions to show that
re-rostering could avoid the need for them. But I would also stress that the regional
committees must be made to work by both side."
Redundancy . . '
"The Board gave a full assurance not only that no footplate staff surplus to requirements
as a result of the revised Agreement would be made redundant but that none would be
moved from his present depot against his wishes. If footplate staff wished to move to
another depot (e.g. to improve prospects of promotion to driver), they would benefit
from the provisions of current redundancy arrangements. In addition, to encourage
retirement of drivers so as to provide openings for firemen, drivers over 60 years of age
at depots where firemen were surplus to requirements m consequence of single-manning
would be allowed to retire under the redundancy procedure. Over·11,000 drivers were
due to retire in the normal way over the next five years and this would make it
comparatively easy to absorb surplus footplatemen. A.S.L.E. & F. were satisfied with
these arrangements, although they pointed out that closure of depots would cause some
added hardship to footplatemen as they would either have to move their homes or travel
long distances.
"The Board also gave assurances that the earnings of footplate staff affected by the
revised Agreement would be safeguarded .... "
* * * * *
Conclusion-productivity payments . . .
"Undoubtedly footplate staff have been increasingly gainfully employed in recent years.
Between 1957 and 1964, the ratio of loaded train miles to numbers of footplatemen
increased by over 35 per cent. Footplate staff have shared in national wage increases, but
they have also seen the introduction of incentive bonus schemes to' other conciliation
grade staff (of whom some 30 per cent are now covered) and have felt aggrieved that the
Board have not found it possible to reward their effort in a similar way."
* * * * *
"The Board said that they were prepared to accept the changes which were already
capable of agreement and to pay for them.
Clearly, the retention of restrictions on single-manning reduced the savings Which the
Board could expect to make, and this led them to reduced their offer on pay and mileage
allowances. But the reduction of 50 per cent m additional mileage allowances was quite
unacceptable to the Unions. The Board themselves said in evidence that this reduced offer
was ‘a compromise, a poor one, a bit illogical and a bit unjustified .by any standards.'
"Given the changes in manning to which the unions seemed prepared to agree at this
juncture, what is their just price?
"The Board have found it 'impracticable' to give me a full breakdown of the savings to
be expected from amending the 1957 Agreement. Precise calculations of savings and
costs are essential to determine productivity payments and I would stress the difficulty of
forming a conclusion without adequate figures."
* * * * *
" ... the Board appear to have underestimated the savings. They stated that without
restrictions on night manning, these would amount to £30 million over 'the next five
years or £6 million a year on average. A.S.L.E. & F. 'put. them at nearer £9 million a
year, and the Board's figures do need re-examination.
"I am ... of the opinion that, so far as mileage payments are concerned, the Board’s
higher offer should stand, as should their offer of increased rates of pay, for firemen to
which no strings were 'ever attached. But the Board's offer at a late stage in the
negotiations, to adjust the wage rates of first and second' year drivers should remain in
suspense until restrictions on night manning are finally removed.
"I would suggest that the parties should resume negotiations on this basis: one further
meeting should be enough to carry them through."For the future I have recommended
that the final removal of restrictions on single-manning at night should follow in
a year or two at most. I note the Board’s intention to negotiate without delay for the
further development of incentive schemes for the footplate staff on local freight working
who are unable to benefit from mileage allowances to any great extent: this seems
necessary."