ASLEF District Line action

Why only ballot Acton? Surely if this is a network wide issue then all ASLEF drivers and RMT should of been balloted

I understand the individual had three safety related incidents, was called into an interview (without Union representatives) and was warned that another incident would put them in breach of the agreed SPAD Policy. A Management suggestion of taking alternative employment or facing ‘the inevitable’ fourth incident and instant CDi was met with agreement with the individual to take alternative employment. This is against the said agreed SPAD Policy.

What percentage of District drivers are based at Acton?

I didn't realise it was that many

Now escalating to Earl’s Court:
www.aslefdistrict8.org/single-post/2018/03/27/Earls’-Court-ballot-for-strike-action

Only Acton Town drivers will be striking on Friday, as the Earl's Court ballot failed to gain the required majority:


Travel advice for District Line customers ahead of planned strike

In the past when a driver on a manual line had numerous SPADs they were sent to an ATO line, most commonly the Victoria as it struggles to get enough drivers due to it being completely subsurface apart from Northumberland Park. Seven Sisters was akin to a Siberian Gulag - the place where the exiles were sent - until they opened Brixton depot which has proved even less popular than Seven Sisters and now that is the new "Gulag".

So why wasn't the driver offered a transfer? We're short of drivers on the Central Line and are cancelling trains

Also the safety issue is nonsense, if you SPAD you get tripped and pull up in a heap, you can't move the train until you've reset the tripcock, etc. so its not as if you're going to be running into the back of the train in front

The situation was he (is it a he?) had three SPADs in 11 weeks, management said if he had a fourth SPAD he'd be sacked and he should agree to a move back to stations. Had an ASLEF rep been present at the time they would have told them that management was giving him incorrect information. They lied and now they're trying to cover themselves. The press/media/public are accepting their story and blaming the union for a situation that was created by management ignoring agreed procedure. Again.

Irrespective of the severity of the incidents, the agreed Policy is “normally after 4 such incidents”.

Precisely why the dispute exists.
Union thinks “normally after 4” is not classed as 3.

While I agree three SPADs in 11 weeks is a lot the driver would have undergone at least two months actual driving training with an Instructor Operator and they wouldn't have been let out on their own unless the trainers thought they were capable. After each SPAD there should have been a "corrective action plan" and if necessary they could have been sent back for further training.

And as I mentioned if they were completely unable to drive on a manual line the usual procedure is to send them to an ATO line where there's a lot less chance of them having a SPAD.

The interview where they were told that four SPADs and they'd be sacked should never have happened without union representation. Management took advantage of the driver's inexperience and used that against them

I was under the impression that you 'normally' get sacked after four SPADs.
Is it so, or not?

By "some" I presume you mean just the Uxbridge ones .