|
Post by tony4387 on Feb 4, 2018 10:50:47 GMT
Is it just me or does anybody seem confused by the way Sullivan numbers there fleet
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2018 11:31:06 GMT
Apparently originally NP said 'we have got no work for you so go SM.' However very recently they said 'OK you can stay but only if you come onto a GAL contract and not stay on the First contract' so I assume some drivers just wanted to stay instead of travelling to SM for every start of shift. This all smacks a feeling of very unsportsmanship behaviour, and doesn't sound legal either?? I wonder if Go-Ahead did this to put other operators off from bidding for their work in future ... Will be interesting to see what happens when the 231 and 491 move to Metroline in the summer. The last part of the post by grubbysa is true. When Go-Ahead lost the 19 and 249 to Arriva, drivers were given the choice to move, but very few drivers wanted to move over to Arriva, creating a huge surplus of drivers and leaving Arriva with some recruitment to do. The surplus drivers moved all over GAL, to C, NP, Q and other garages. I was told that Go-Ahead pay the most out of the London bus companies, but now Sadiq Khan has implemented that equal pay deal, I’m not sure if that’s still true. However, when Metrobus won the X26, I was told quite a lot of drivers wanted to come over from Quality Line, and I sorted out the new driver's locker keys before they arrived on April 15. The amount of drivers coming over were known however well in advance. In the case of NP’s 299 drivers, as mentioned above, 14 were originally intended to come over, but I can only assume the 7 drivers who didn’t go to SB preferred to stay at GAL, and maybe found work on the 153 rota. Any drivers surplus might have been loaned out to other garages until the 214 or another route enters NP in the next few months. I'm not entirely convinced that the 7 all wanted to stay at GAL at the last minute, they must've been talking about it but when it came to the deadline didn't put their names down, but another factor must've been that they lived a bit too far from South Mimms, which I understand is just outside the London boundary, but don't quote me on that because I'm only assuming this. All drivers who are affected by a route loss at GAL are given the option to move, but quite a lot of drivers when it comes to that decision prefer to stay with the company, so I don't think there's any unsportsmanlike behaviour here. That's the problem when you hear things from one place but don't know the official story! Other people can exaggerate and you know no better.
|
|
|
Post by BusesInLondon on Feb 4, 2018 17:23:17 GMT
The last part of the post by grubbysa is true. When Go-Ahead lost the 19 and 249 to Arriva, drivers were given the choice to move, but very few drivers wanted to move over to Arriva, creating a huge surplus of drivers and leaving Arriva with some recruitment to do. The surplus drivers moved all over GAL, to C, NP, Q and other garages. I was told that Go-Ahead pay the most out of the London bus companies, but now Sadiq Khan has implemented that equal pay deal, I’m not sure if that’s still true. However, when Metrobus won the X26, I was told quite a lot of drivers wanted to come over from Quality Line, and I sorted out the new driver's locker keys before they arrived on April 15. The amount of drivers coming over were known however well in advance. In the case of NP’s 299 drivers, as mentioned above, 14 were originally intended to come over, but I can only assume the 7 drivers who didn’t go to SB preferred to stay at GAL, and maybe found work on the 153 rota. Any drivers surplus might have been loaned out to other garages until the 214 or another route enters NP in the next few months. I'm not entirely convinced that the 7 all wanted to stay at GAL at the last minute, they must've been talking about it but when it came to the deadline didn't put their names down, but another factor must've been that they lived a bit too far from South Mimms, which I understand is just outside the London boundary, but don't quote me on that because I'm only assuming this. All drivers who are affected by a route loss at GAL are given the option to move, but quite a lot of drivers when it comes to that decision prefer to stay with the company, so I don't think there's any unsportsmanlike behaviour here. That's the problem when you hear things from one place but don't know the official story! Other people can exaggerate and you know no better. To quote Dean: "Go Ahead dropped the number of TUPED drivers". We dont know where these drivers went at Go Ahead, but that did mean there were less drivers moving over to Sullivans Buses than previously anticipated, which created problems.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Feb 4, 2018 17:27:22 GMT
That's the problem when you hear things from one place but don't know the official story! Other people can exaggerate and you know no better. To quote Dean: "Go Ahead dropped the number of TUPED drivers". We dont know where these drivers went at Go Ahead, but that did mean there were less drivers moving over to Sullivans Buses than previously anticipated, which created problems. I think Dean should be consulting a solicitor about it.
|
|
|
Post by BusesInLondon on Feb 4, 2018 20:50:11 GMT
To quote Dean: "Go Ahead dropped the number of TUPED drivers". We dont know where these drivers went at Go Ahead, but that did mean there were less drivers moving over to Sullivans Buses than previously anticipated, which created problems. I think Dean should be consulting a solicitor about it. We dont know how early Sullivan Buses were told though... We dont know the full story.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Feb 4, 2018 21:17:44 GMT
I think Dean should be consulting a solicitor about it. We dont know how early Sullivan Buses were told though... We dont know the full story. Obviously we only know as much as has been reported but it does sound like something was seriously amiss.
|
|
|
Post by schedcomp on Feb 5, 2018 20:34:57 GMT
We dont know how early Sullivan Buses were told though... We dont know the full story. Obviously we only know as much as has been reported but it does sound like something was seriously amiss. As far as I'm aware, drivers under TUPE can change their mind right up to the night before. This is part of the legislation so like it or not, it is what it is. Operators are always in for a surprise with transferring driver numbers. Company A could say that 12 drivers will move across to company B but find that on the day only 6 move. Alternatively 18 may move. If 6 come company B may be short of drivers however if 18 come they may not have created enough 'other company style duties' to meet the old companies T's & C's.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Feb 5, 2018 20:58:34 GMT
Obviously we only know as much as has been reported but it does sound like something was seriously amiss. As far as I'm aware, drivers under TUPE can change their mind right up to the night before. This is part of the legislation so like it or not, it is what it is. Operators are always in for a surprise with transferring driver numbers. Company A could say that 12 drivers will move across to company B but find that on the day only 6 move. Alternatively 18 may move. If 6 come company B may be short of drivers however if 18 come they may not have created enough 'other company style duties' to meet the old companies T's & C's. Well I'm no expert on the subject but my understanding is that if company A TUPE staff they have no option but to go or terminate their employment and that the totals have to be submitted to company B by a certain deadline? Obviously if anybody does decide at the last minute to terminate their employment rather than go to company B then not much can be done about it but I can't see how company B can be expected to take more staff than they were expecting?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2018 1:47:28 GMT
The TUPE rules apply to anyone working the majority of their time on the contract. I think this is around 60%.
If you are identified with a particular route you don't have a lot of choice about moving. It will depend on the rotas at the garage.
|
|
|
Post by schedcomp on Feb 6, 2018 20:09:16 GMT
As far as I'm aware, drivers under TUPE can change their mind right up to the night before. This is part of the legislation so like it or not, it is what it is. Operators are always in for a surprise with transferring driver numbers. Company A could say that 12 drivers will move across to company B but find that on the day only 6 move. Alternatively 18 may move. If 6 come company B may be short of drivers however if 18 come they may not have created enough 'other company style duties' to meet the old companies T's & C's. Well I'm no expert on the subject but my understanding is that if company A TUPE staff they have no option but to go or terminate their employment and that the totals have to be submitted to company B by a certain deadline? Obviously if anybody does decide at the last minute to terminate their employment rather than go to company B then not much can be done about it but I can't see how company B can be expected to take more staff than they were expecting? My comments are based on what I have been told by friends in the industry. Some companies have been told that x numbers of drivers are due and yet on the day y number comes across and it can be higher than that originally notified. The taking over company then has to deal with it. I also noted another post. Whilst companies can force drivers to leave with a lost route they may not adopt this approach, as they may have a driver shortage on other routes to address. However if they have already suffered tender losses and have a surplus of drivers, may need to 'encourage' drivers to move with a lost route to the new operator.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Feb 7, 2018 6:09:15 GMT
Well I'm no expert on the subject but my understanding is that if company A TUPE staff they have no option but to go or terminate their employment and that the totals have to be submitted to company B by a certain deadline? Obviously if anybody does decide at the last minute to terminate their employment rather than go to company B then not much can be done about it but I can't see how company B can be expected to take more staff than they were expecting? My comments are based on what I have been told by friends in the industry. Some companies have been told that x numbers of drivers are due and yet on the day y number comes across and it can be higher than that originally notified. The taking over company then has to deal with it. I also noted another post. Whilst companies can force drivers to leave with a lost route they may not adopt this approach, as they may have a driver shortage on other routes to address. However if they have already suffered tender losses and have a surplus of drivers, may need to 'encourage' drivers to move with a lost route to the new operator. My comments are based on what a former work colleague who had direct experience of TUPE told me. With the seemingly never ending shortage of drivers I would think many operators would want to hang on to their drivers and just slow down or even stop recruitment when a route is lost?
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Feb 7, 2018 6:58:29 GMT
As far as I'm aware, drivers under TUPE can change their mind right up to the night before. This is part of the legislation so like it or not, it is what it is. Operators are always in for a surprise with transferring driver numbers. Company A could say that 12 drivers will move across to company B but find that on the day only 6 move. Alternatively 18 may move. If 6 come company B may be short of drivers however if 18 come they may not have created enough 'other company style duties' to meet the old companies T's & C's. Well I'm no expert on the subject but my understanding is that if company A TUPE staff they have no option but to go or terminate their employment and that the totals have to be submitted to company B by a certain deadline? Obviously if anybody does decide at the last minute to terminate their employment rather than go to company B then not much can be done about it but I can't see how company B can be expected to take more staff than they were expecting? There shouldn’t be more, once the list of staff is issued (and there are defined timelines in the legislation), can’t randomly add more. TUPE rarely applies to small routes as very unlikely staff are allocated majority of their time to that route and not allowed to compulsory TUPE someone who only does that duty as a minority of their role.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Feb 7, 2018 7:44:47 GMT
Well I'm no expert on the subject but my understanding is that if company A TUPE staff they have no option but to go or terminate their employment and that the totals have to be submitted to company B by a certain deadline? Obviously if anybody does decide at the last minute to terminate their employment rather than go to company B then not much can be done about it but I can't see how company B can be expected to take more staff than they were expecting? There shouldn’t be more, once the list of staff is issued (and there are defined timelines in the legislation), can’t randomly add more. TUPE rarely applies to small routes as very unlikely staff are allocated majority of their time to that route and not allowed to compulsory TUPE someone who only does that duty as a minority of their role. That's what I thought. I can understand how there would be fewer staff than expected TUPEing, ie some decide not to go and find employment elsewhere instead, but not more.
|
|
|
Post by VWH1414 on Mar 27, 2018 19:21:10 GMT
Four ex TT DNs have been acquired and will take fleet numbers E45-48 as reported on the Sullivan Buses website I can confirm 2 are DN33778/33779 from these pictures: Former DN33778 - www.flickr.com/photos/50741124@N02/41055101591/in/feed - Credit RML2419 Former DN33779 - www.flickr.com/photos/50741124@N02/41055124211/in/feed - Credit RML2419 I can see it being DN33776-33779 being in the fleet judging by the fact DN33778/33779 are in the fleet, however I guess we'll have to wait and see Honestly I expected it to be some of these acquired for the 626, I can see TPL926/927 being withdrawn which will sadly end Trident President operation in London EDIT: Quick search of lvf confirms its DN33778-33781
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2018 10:39:18 GMT
Four ex TT DNs have been acquired and will take fleet numbers E45-48 as reported on the Sullivan Buses website I can confirm 2 are DN33778/33779 from these pictures: Former DN33778 - www.flickr.com/photos/50741124@N02/41055101591/in/feed - Credit RML2419 Former DN33779 - www.flickr.com/photos/50741124@N02/41055124211/in/feed - Credit RML2419 I can see it being DN33776-33779 being in the fleet judging by the fact DN33778/33779 are in the fleet, however I guess we'll have to wait and see Honestly I expected it to be some of these acquired for the 626, I can see TPL926/927 being withdrawn which will sadly end Trident President operation in London EDIT: Quick search of lvf confirms its DN33778-33781 I also expect ELV5/ELV6 leaving so the VLE status is narrowing down to 4 vehicles however the 626 report said that its buses from Route 626 will work the commercial routes
|
|