SPECIALLY MONITORED DRIVERS

A report by Andy Reed
– ASLEF’s National
Organiser – and
Nigel Gibson - EC
member for District 5
SPECIALLY MONITORED
A TOTALLY DISCREDITED
have received little or no training in these procedures. Their
only contact with it has been to see it wrongly and arbitrarily
applied to their former colleagues – and they continue to
distort it. SMD is resented because it is mis-applied either
through ignorance of the rules, or because managers fail to
grasp the complexity of our jobs.
It is part of the trend in our industry that sees managers
content so long as they have filled in the paper work.
Nothing else seems to matter.
ADDITIONAL MONITORING: WHAT
DOES IT MEAN?
How often do you hear of a colleague who has had ‘points’
placed on their SMD/E record - and then they have been told
that their ‘action plan’ will consist of ‘additional monitoring
over a specified period’. It sounds good – but what does it
mean in practical terms? In our experience it means that
there will be no corrective training or assistance: but there
will be plenty of hounding of the drivers using the OTMR
print-outs.
Then there is the question of how long it takes for a record
to be clear. It takes longer for points to expire than a cowboy
in a third-class Western. In some cases a few points may
disappear in a year or so, or maybe not. If you’re lucky
enough to survive the next 5 years without a major incident
they might all be removed. You never know.
But you can be sure than once you have another next
minor incident, the whole circus will start up again. We know
of category ‘A’ drivers who have spend almost half their
career with arbitrary points hanging over their heads – firstclass
drivers whose careers then depend on having a
friendly local manager.
And then there is another danger lurking around the corner
for even our most conscientious drivers – the dreaded SPAD.
Neither of us has been able to understand why it is that if a
‘Network Rail’ ‘multi-SPADed’ signal is not passed at danger
for five years, it is removed from the list of ‘multi-SPADed’
signals – but any of our members unfortunate enough to
have a SPAD are subjected to elongated periods of
monitoring - and their records are virtually blemished for the
rest of their career. Is there any consistency here?
We also question the need to encompass the apparent
Care and Support Systems (CSS) as part of the overall
SMD/E package. If it were really about ‘care and support’
then those issues would be addressed completely independently
of any SMD/E process.
It is quite wrong that issues of a personal or medical
nature should be confused with driver competency. On the
other hand, ASLEF does recognise that the companies are
merely working with the current ‘Approved Code of Practice’
(ACoP) which lays down ground rules in rather general
terms.
HOW DO WE IMPROVE SMD
PROCEDURES?
So what is ASLEF doing to try to inject a positive, decent and
consistent approach to these issues? First, the union is
convinced that any system that is concerned with monitoring
0611b Aslef journal 21/10/06 20:49 Page 12
needs to concentrate its attention on the
question of competency. This is the key. Both
the Executive Committee and the Officers – of
whom we are a part - believe there is a need to
work with other industry stakeholders to address
these matters.
ASLEF originally set about addressing the
concerns of our members during the latter
part of 2005. That was when the Executive Committee
rejected the SMD/E package presented to it by Central
Trains. This was done to bring matters to a head: they had
had enough.
Since then the Executive – along with the National
Organiser – has worked to develop a way forward with
representatives from all sectors of the industry. At the EC
meeting in July this year Andy Reed was able to report that
fruitful discussions had taken place with senior representatives
of the National Express Group (NEG) - and that a
working group was to be formed to consider SMD and its
workings in some detail.
We’re also pleased to say that the National SPAD Focus
Steering Group has agreed that the NEX group (which
involves NEX, ASLEF and Andy Waters from Halcrow) will
now lead serious discussions for the industry. It is our
intention, so long as these talks have a positive outcome, to
amend the ACoP. It is also good news that, after some
pressure from the union, First Great Western has also agreed
to meet us to discuss the operation of SMD’s.
It is always the ASLEF way to work in our industry to
produce detailed best practice for the people we represent.
We don’t favour the broad sweeping statements so prevalent
of other unions in the industry. We want agreements on
SMDs that will be precise, consistent and aimed at
eliminating problems – not penalising scape-goats. They
should be concerned with the retention of competency – and
not the removal of it.
OVER TO YOU
If you have views on how SMD policies should be shaped in
the future, please air them in the Journal. The email is
journal@aslef.org.uk or you can write to the Journal editor at
head office. We look forward to hearing from you – and we’re
sure we will!