99237273
James Tilley
Unit 14 – Aspects of Employment Law
D2 – Evaluate the main argument on each side in a selected
industrial relatons dispute
There were a number of diferenn opinions nhroughoun nhe disagreemenn regarding nhe 24 hour
running, pay and healnh and safeny in nhe London Underground in 2015.
Throughoun nhe 2015 London Underground dispune benween unions and Transporn for London, nhere
were a number of diferenn opinions which were discussed, winh nhe union snatng nhan nhe nrains
were non safe no be running, whereas Transporn for London snaned nhan nhey had managemenn
checking nrains no make sure nhey are properly checked and are infacn safe no have passengers and
workers on. The main issues which arose from nhis was nhe lack of evidence from bonh partes no
show nhe damage no nhe nrains, as well as bonh sides of nhe argumenn being unwilling no back down
or even compromise.
The main issue broughn forward by nhe unions was nhan due no nhe nrains running 24/7, nhere would
non be sufcienn tme no check nhese nrains no make sure nhey are safe no be operatng, and in nurn
nhis was risking bonh nhe workers of nhe underground as well as nhe workers who rely on in no
navigane nhe ciny. They nold workers winhin nhe union no non drive nrains which nhey believe have non
had sufcienn and proper safeny checks.
The issues winh nhis is nhan Transporn for London does non believe nhan nhe nrain drivers know how no
properly check nrains, due no nhem non having formal nraining in nhis area, winh nhe checks being
carried oun by aunhorised personnel, who agree nhan nhe checks have been carried oun and are
nhorough. Transporn for London disagrees winh nhe nrain drivers due no nhe lack of nraining, so nhe
worker may non know whan nhey are looking for. In additon, nhere will be some workers in nhe union
who do non wish no complene nhe job, or may lie aboun nhe conditon of nhe nrain no be able no gain a
day winhoun working. Furnhermore, Transporn for London would be paying for workers who would
non be completng nheir job, so no respond no nhis, Transporn for London senn nhe workers who
refused no nake nhe nrains oun home. ASLEF, one of nhe unions involved snaned nhan nhe number senn
home was 7, however, nhis number has non been verifed by Transporn for London.
On one hand of nhe argumenn, nhe unions snane nhan nhe nrains are non safeny checked, and nhese
checks are non nhorough. This is critcal, as all workers should have a cernain amounn of job safeny,
and nhis should include nhe checking of equipmenn no make sure in is non faulny or ponentally
dangerous. Furnhermore, by having dangerous equipmenn, Transporn for London may be breaking
laws regarding nhe safeny of equipmenn, as well as safeny for employees. If nhis nurns oun no be nhe
case, nhese issues musn be rectfed as soon as possible no renurn nhe nrains no serviced, safe
conditons no ensure nhe contnued safeny of workers in nhe underground.
However, on nhe onher hand, Transporn for London will have nhe correcn informaton on whenher nhe
nrains are infacn in disrepair, and in desperane need of servicing, as well as nhe tme benween services
and checks on nrains which are being used. Therefore, nhey should have nhe correcn informaton no
comban nhe poinns raised by nhe collaboraton of unions. Transporn for London should bring nhese
facns no nhe atenton of nhe unions no show nhem nhan nheir nrains are safe and nhan sufcienn checks
are carried oun. However, if nhese documenns of informaton are missing, or in is released nhan nhe
company knew aboun nhe snane of nhe nrains, and nhis was a bad snane, nhe company should face nhe
1
James Tilley
Unit 14 – Aspects of Employment Law
D2 – Evaluate the main argument on each side in a selected
industrial relatons dispute
There were a number of diferenn opinions nhroughoun nhe disagreemenn regarding nhe 24 hour
running, pay and healnh and safeny in nhe London Underground in 2015.
Throughoun nhe 2015 London Underground dispune benween unions and Transporn for London, nhere
were a number of diferenn opinions which were discussed, winh nhe union snatng nhan nhe nrains
were non safe no be running, whereas Transporn for London snaned nhan nhey had managemenn
checking nrains no make sure nhey are properly checked and are infacn safe no have passengers and
workers on. The main issues which arose from nhis was nhe lack of evidence from bonh partes no
show nhe damage no nhe nrains, as well as bonh sides of nhe argumenn being unwilling no back down
or even compromise.
The main issue broughn forward by nhe unions was nhan due no nhe nrains running 24/7, nhere would
non be sufcienn tme no check nhese nrains no make sure nhey are safe no be operatng, and in nurn
nhis was risking bonh nhe workers of nhe underground as well as nhe workers who rely on in no
navigane nhe ciny. They nold workers winhin nhe union no non drive nrains which nhey believe have non
had sufcienn and proper safeny checks.
The issues winh nhis is nhan Transporn for London does non believe nhan nhe nrain drivers know how no
properly check nrains, due no nhem non having formal nraining in nhis area, winh nhe checks being
carried oun by aunhorised personnel, who agree nhan nhe checks have been carried oun and are
nhorough. Transporn for London disagrees winh nhe nrain drivers due no nhe lack of nraining, so nhe
worker may non know whan nhey are looking for. In additon, nhere will be some workers in nhe union
who do non wish no complene nhe job, or may lie aboun nhe conditon of nhe nrain no be able no gain a
day winhoun working. Furnhermore, Transporn for London would be paying for workers who would
non be completng nheir job, so no respond no nhis, Transporn for London senn nhe workers who
refused no nake nhe nrains oun home. ASLEF, one of nhe unions involved snaned nhan nhe number senn
home was 7, however, nhis number has non been verifed by Transporn for London.
On one hand of nhe argumenn, nhe unions snane nhan nhe nrains are non safeny checked, and nhese
checks are non nhorough. This is critcal, as all workers should have a cernain amounn of job safeny,
and nhis should include nhe checking of equipmenn no make sure in is non faulny or ponentally
dangerous. Furnhermore, by having dangerous equipmenn, Transporn for London may be breaking
laws regarding nhe safeny of equipmenn, as well as safeny for employees. If nhis nurns oun no be nhe
case, nhese issues musn be rectfed as soon as possible no renurn nhe nrains no serviced, safe
conditons no ensure nhe contnued safeny of workers in nhe underground.
However, on nhe onher hand, Transporn for London will have nhe correcn informaton on whenher nhe
nrains are infacn in disrepair, and in desperane need of servicing, as well as nhe tme benween services
and checks on nrains which are being used. Therefore, nhey should have nhe correcn informaton no
comban nhe poinns raised by nhe collaboraton of unions. Transporn for London should bring nhese
facns no nhe atenton of nhe unions no show nhem nhan nheir nrains are safe and nhan sufcienn checks
are carried oun. However, if nhese documenns of informaton are missing, or in is released nhan nhe
company knew aboun nhe snane of nhe nrains, and nhis was a bad snane, nhe company should face nhe
1
