Management has applied their new policy to both the recent Operations Review and the reorganisation of Trust Delay Attribution staff and it now looks like we are about to face similar problems with regard to our Competency Assessor members as a result of Line Managers assuming the responsibility for assessment decisions.

The background is that at national level consultation the company gave an assurance that theywould comply with the PTR&R arrangements in terms of these reorganisations. However, with regard to displaced staff working out of grade, the wording of their consultation memorandum was as follows:

"…it is acknowledged that employees may be offered a job at a lower grade as an alternative to redundancy.

Ordinarily, we would look to place individuals no more than one grade lower than their substantive grade"

Displaced members have subsequently found themselves in the position of facing redundancy because even where there are no other positions available, management are refusing to allow them to apply for positions for which they are qualified but which are more than one grade below their current grade unless the individual is prepared to accept the rate of pay for the post.

The company has justified their policy by quoting Schedule "A" (Notes for Guidance) of the PTR&R arrangements, part of which states that:-

"….factors which may be taken into account in determining what constitutes an offer of suitable alternative work in relation to the employee concerned are the skills of the employee, the nature of his previous work, the earnings in his new job compared with his previous earnings ………"

The union has made it clear to management that "Schedule A" was drawn up to protect the employee in terms of what is suitable alternative work, not to be used by management in this way. A further meeting with the company will take place later this month and your representatives will continue to pursue the issue, in addition to problems concerning relocation payments.

I also have to report that Network Rail has stated that they wish to establish a JWP to look at the PTR&R arrangements as a consequence of the recent age discrimination legislation I have responded that whilst the union is willing to consider entering into such a working party there is a need to consider terms of reference. The company has also not given any indication as to the overall size of the JWP.

I have also pointed out that until now there has only been discussion on the current position of the PTR&R at the National Operations Council. This union therefore believes that as a first step, before a JWP is convened, there should be a joint Maintenance & Operations Principles meeting. I am currently awaiting a response from management.

I shall, of course, keep you advised of all further developments.

Yours sincerely

Bob Crow
General Secretary