Catering Manager sacked for telling Passengers the truth

[Oswyntail]

....Without having the full facts it's impossible to reach a fully informed conclusion.

And, at a single stroke, you have wiped out 90% of the threads on here

 

[A-driver]

I think that this is an interesting case and one to follow. I have noticed problems with this kind of thing lately that bringing a company into disrepute, whilst against our contracts, is easily done without intention to do so.

Recently a driver on my route was spoken to by managements due to an announcement he made which a member of NR staff put in a complaint about. He was running a fast train from London to peterbourgh-first stop was somewhere like Hitchin or biggleswade. He was routed onto the slow at worker green and the signaller contacted him to apologise for the wrong route and informing him he would be let back out at Stevenage North. This obviously cost time as instead of thundering through at 100mph he went down to 75 then 40 at Stevenage. He made an announcement apologising for the delay and stating (100% truthfully) that it was down to signallers error. A complaint was put in and he was told not to make announcements blaming companies or individuals for delays again (it wasn't a disciplinary, just a chat with his DM). This isn't the first time that this kind of thing has happened and we often hear of driver being asked not to blame late running East Coast trains for delays to our trains for similar reasons.

The issue that I have is that I have never officially been told not to give the truth in announcements like this and so telling the truth in slightly too much detail, completely unintentionally and with all best intentions of giving the passenger as much info as possible, could land you in a position of facing a disciplinary for bringing a company into disrepute.

I know we only have a small insight into this incident however it seems that all this guy did was tell passengers the true reason for the change of food which is very worrying.

I suppose it leads to more generic announcements which so many hate blaming issues and delays on things like 'an operating incident', 'earlier delays', 'congestion' and 'a problem under investigation'.

 

[Chrism20]

Complimentary Food in First Class is subject to availability. If it's not available, but the accommodation is, do not expect anything from Customer Relations either.

It is subject to availability so they can effectively give you nothing, however Holiday Inn Express got into a lot of bother a while back for their prolonged use of complimentary considering there is no option to purchase without the complimentary so now they have to say breakfast is included for everyone which now means they have to provide - different industry but same use of 'Complimentary'. It's only a matter of time until someone challenges EC on that one.

The one thing that is definitely correct in that article is that ECs catering loadings are almost always wrong and given the length of time they have done it now it shouldn't be that far out as frequently as it is.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Stagecoach haven't taken over yet. How can people possibly be suggesting that they are somehow responsible?

They're buying the company, I'm sure they're influencing things already. Either that or a manager in EC HR wants to make a name for himself with Mr Souter.

Funny that people mentioned the Lymington station master. South West Trains- themselves not completely unused to making things up in litigation- issued a press release after he withdrew his ET claim calling him a "Walter Mitty" character and a "fool".

It'll be interesting to see what happens next.

 

[Greenback]

If the facts are as reported, I think it would be almost impossible to make a dismissal stick in law. There must be more to the story.

 

[A-driver]

They're buying the company, I'm sure they're influencing things already. Either that or a manager in EC HR wants to make a name for himself with Mr Souter.

Funny that people mentioned the Lymington station master. South West Trains- themselves not completely unused to making things up in litigation- issued a press release after he withdrew his ET claim calling him a "Walter Mitty" character and a "fool".

It'll be interesting to see what happens next.

They are not 'buying' the company.

They will have hardly any involvemt yet, not in these such areas anyway.

 

[Tetchytyke]

They are not 'buying' the company.

Intercity East Coast Ltd are taking over East Coast Main Line Ltd.

As Greenback says, on the face of it it is disgraceful but it will be interesting to see what else comes out in the wash. I suspect not that much that wasn't reported, but we'll see.

 

[Greenback]

Speculation that the change in franchise operator has something to do with things isn't really helpful. Yes, it;s possible that some enthusiastic manager is trying to impress the people who will be their new boss, but we aren't likely to find out if it's true or not.

There are so many things that could contribute to the decision, and we don't know anything about any of them.

I'll say again, that if things were as straightforward as has been reported, I'd say this was an open and shut case for unfair dismissal at a tribunal.

 

[khib70]

Intercity East Coast Ltd are taking over East Coast Main Line Ltd.

As Greenback says, on the face of it it is disgraceful but it will be interesting to see what else comes out in the wash. I suspect not that much that wasn't reported, but we'll see.

So, you take pains to point out that there is more than one side to a story, then proceed to diseminate complete speculative hogwash based on no evidence at all.

I think we all know by now about your obsessive anti-private sector fixation, but you can't just hijack every story to have ill-informed digs at TOCs which don't suit your agends.

 

[PauloDavesi]

And, at a single stroke, you have wiped out 90% of the threads on here

Sorry

 

[swt_passenger]

They are not 'buying' the company.

Not normally the case with the usual franchise system, but in this particular scenario, i.e. taking over from DOR, they really are buying the existing company. I can't easily find it in this forum although it was mentioned in one of the other threads about ECML; but this point is definitely explained in the DfT publications regarding the new franchise:

The Rail Franchising Competition Guide5 sets out the Government’s intended process for franchising. However, the circumstances of ECML’s current public ownership (i.e. it is not a franchise) mean that we have adopted a different approach to the procurement. The East Coast train assets will be transferred through a sale and purchase agreement for the share capital of ECML between DOR and the successful bidder. This sale and purchase agreement will be completed prior to the Franchise Agreement being signed by ECML.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/252853/icec-prospectus.pdf

 

[A-driver]

Intercity East Coast Ltd are taking over East Coast Main Line Ltd.



As Greenback says, on the face of it it is disgraceful but it will be interesting to see what else comes out in the wash. I suspect not that much that wasn't reported, but we'll see.

Yea, but they aren't buying it like you stated...

 

[Chrism20]

I'll say again, that if things were as straightforward as has been reported, I'd say this was an open and shut case for unfair dismissal at a tribunal.

Without a doubt.

Based on what has been reported it wouldn't get any further than the ET1 form as no company lawyer worth their salt would take it on.

I showed the article to my boss this morning and the first thing he said was "No chance, what else has happened here?". And that was from a man who used to teach HR and has a PHD in it.

 

[TheEdge]

We don't know if the dismissed operative had a history of disiplinary offences.
If that was the case, is it really surprising that his employment was terminated?

Without having the full facts it's impossible to reach a fully informed conclusion.

Even then, telling passengers the reason for a lack of advertised service doesn't really seem like a sackable offence.

 

[D1009]

I recognise the guy, always very cheeky when I've been on the trains, but very good natured.

Chances are if he's cheeky to people on the trains, he's also a thorn in the side towards the management. Newspapers print stories like this to sell newspapers, not necessarily tell the whole truth, and particularly when the whole truth is not known.

 

[bairy]

The issue that I have is that I have never officially been told not to give the truth in announcements like this and so telling the truth in slightly too much detail, completely unintentionally and with all best intentions of giving the passenger as much info as possible, could land you in a position of facing a disciplinary for bringing a company into disrepute.

As a passenger I would much rather hear "we're late, someone made a mistake and s/he says sorry for it" than "we're late, I can't say why"

 

[bb21]

Stagecoach haven't yet had anything to do with the day-to-day running of the franchise, so please tell me how they should be responsible for this whole episode in non-emotional language please.

Even if it turned out that some over-zealous individual was doing so to please incoming management, how is this Stagecoach's fault?

They are certainly no angel, and I have no wish to defend the founder of the group, but the opportunist attacks towards them regardless of the circumstances are truly embarrassing imo.

The issue that I have is that I have never officially been told not to give the truth in announcements like this and so telling the truth in slightly too much detail, completely unintentionally and with all best intentions of giving the passenger as much info as possible, could land you in a position of facing a disciplinary for bringing a company into disrepute.

That's the tricky bit. Passengers claim that they want to be informed at all times, but telling them all the details is not always the most appropriate course of action. It is a difficult balance to strike.

In the particular case you mentioned, I would consider it a bit unprofessional from the driver, even with the best intentions at heart. I don't think publicly undermining a colleague is on. (Yes, I know not a "colleague" officially speaking, but still so in many, most I would bet, people's eyes.) We all make mistakes, and none of us would like these mistakes to be aired in front of the general public, if possible. Mistakes can be dealt with in line with internal procedures.

I know we only have a small insight into this incident however it seems that all this guy did was tell passengers the true reason for the change of food which is very worrying.

I am most intrigued that some staff were reduced to tears. This suggests that either there were more to his "explanation" or that there were some very unreasonable passengers onboard, or a combination of both.

I suppose it leads to more generic announcements which so many hate blaming issues and delays on things like 'an operating incident', 'earlier delays', 'congestion' and 'a problem under investigation'.

Sometimes stating the facts without pinning down the blame may be the best way forward. For example, in the case you quoted, a simple "We're travelling on the slow lines and may be delayed by a few minutes." should suffice. Passengers are given sufficient information, and no blame is attached to anyone, as there could be all sorts of reasons why the train is routed onto the slows.

But announcements is an art, not an exact science. Most passengers claim that they want to be kept informed of the details, but what they mean is probably "a sensible reason which we do not see as a brush-off but not all the details". What is considered a brush-off will vary considerably in different areas and with different clientèle.

As a passenger I would much rather hear "we're late, someone made a mistake and s/he says sorry for it" than "we're late, I can't say why"

Not if the perpetrator is pinned down, however "We may experience some delays due to an error, and we apologise about the inconvenience." would be an OK announcement in my eyes. It would seem sincere enough to most people, and the signaller would not be hung out to dry.

 

[Greenback]

There was too much blaming of other companies in the early days of privatisation. It's a bit of a thin line between telling the truth and just trying to blame someone else and a lot will depend on the interpretation of the individual receiving the message.

I've had my share of silly management instructions. But you have to go along with them if you don't want to find yourself in hot water. If the dismissed chap had been told to use some sort of management approved phrase instead of using the words he chose, it may have contributed to his dismissal.

It's all speculation again on my part though.

 

[MSC54]

Nothing to do with Stagecoach/Virgin.

What your not being told is that he was sacked along with one other a year ago for something very similar. He was reinstated the other wasn't. What was said is the key here and theres so much those articles haven't explained.

There is a procedure to follow if the main boiler fails. The Chef being sick was an added last minute complication. If the Chef had been there and you can't provide hot breakfasts because the boiler is broken why can you provide hot sandwiches? Nobody has been told exactly what happened but told to vote Yes for action and were given a bit of RMT paper slagging off a manager to convince us.

 

[Chrism20]

I am most intrigued that some staff were reduced to tears. This suggests that either there were more to his "explanation" or that there were some very unreasonable passengers onboard, or a combination of both.

Yes I said the same last night. Irate passengers = response from staff = more irate passengers = abrupt response from staff = complaint = investigation etc

Nothing to do with Stagecoach/Virgin.

What your not being told is that he was sacked along with one other a year ago for something very similar. He was reinstated the other wasn't. What was said is the key here and theres so much those articles haven't explained.

There is a procedure to follow if the main boiler fails. The Chef being sick was an added last minute complication. If the Chef had been there and you can't provide hot breakfasts because the boiler is broken why can you provide hot sandwiches? Nobody has been told exactly what happened but told to vote Yes for action and were given a bit of RMT paper slagging off a manager to convince us.

If he was reinstated and given a warning which has expired EC will be on dodgy grounds as that cannot be taken into consideration - very similar to a case I have on my desk right now actually where branch management have gone way too far.

If the warning isn't spent then unfortunately if it is deemed serious enough and classed as gross miscounduct they can dismiss.

What has been said is key here and I am guessing from what you have posted the there is more than "Sorry there is no cooked breakfast this morning due to the Chef being ill and a faulty boiler, we do however have a choice of panini as a replacement, please accept our apologies". Saying that (which is the truth) probably wouldn't even get you a 'tea and biscuits' chat whereas becoming argumentative with the irate passengers certainly would.

 

[SouthStand]

Why is it a boiler anyway? Surely cooked breakfasts would use some sort of oven or grill?

 

[Chrism20]

Why is it a boiler anyway? Surely cooked breakfasts would use some sort of oven or grill?

The food will be cooked in an oven but an EHO would have a field day if they didn't have hot running water to clean work surfaces and utensils etc.

From the reports this was how I read it.

 

[Daz28]

If he was reinstated and given a warning which has expired EC will be on dodgy grounds as that cannot be taken into consideration - very similar to a case I have on my desk right now actually where branch management have gone way too far.

Not at all. Previous disciplinary record can always be taken into consideration. If someone was guilty of gross misconduct, dismissed, reinstated on appeal with a final written warning and then had a repeat offence just over a year later, then a tribunal could easily conclude that it was a fair dismissal.

 

[Chrism20]

Not at all. Previous disciplinary record can always be taken into consideration. If someone was guilty of gross misconduct, dismissed, reinstated on appeal with a final written warning and then had a repeat offence just over a year later, then a tribunal could easily conclude that it was a fair dismissal.

Getting a tribunal to agree based on expired warnings is not as easy as it sounds. If we are talking days over the expiration date maybe but the employer would have to prove that their conduct had not improved over the period. There would need to be documentation, records of discussion, evidence of further training and coaching and one incidence of telling a customer the alleged truth would be laughed out. The employer would then need to fully explain and justify why they have bipassed stages of their disciplinary procedures and went straight to dismissal. If his warning is spent and his conduct since has been good they would struggle to dismiss based on what's reported if it is a single offence since the last warning.

But of course we have very little of the story and no doubt there was more dialogue with the customers than this which has resulted in this outcome.

 

[timbo58]

I think most passengers are reasonably happy even with a 'I don't know whats going on but I'm still here and the moment I find out I'll let you know'.

They really only want to know how it's going to affect their (overall) journey, it doesn't really matter to them who's to blame IME.
Never worth attempting humour over the PA, with 500 people on board one is guaranteed not to have a sense of humour.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Not at all. Previous disciplinary record can always be taken into consideration. If someone was guilty of gross misconduct, dismissed, reinstated on appeal with a final written warning and then had a repeat offence just over a year later, then a tribunal could easily conclude that it was a fair dismissal.

Rubbish. If the warning is expired, it is expired. The unions would have a field day if that was used as an excuse.

Had performance not improved to a satisfactory level, then the contract would be terminated prior to the expiration of the warning.

However we do not know the full facts in this case.

 

[ge-gn]

It's the Daily Mail and their source appears to be the RMT union. That guarantees we are reading less than ten percent of the whole story. If the union believe he has been unfairly sacked why don't they help him with the costs of going to tribunal where the truth can come out...

Anybody else thinking of the Lymington 'Station Master' story a while back and its eventual outcome?

47513

Unfortunately the incumbent government has put in place such draconian anti union laws that this man will be unable to take his employer to tribunal unless his can himself stump up a not inconsiderable amount of money.

 

[londonbridge]

AOL money report here:

http://money.aol.co.uk/2015/02/12/r...id=maing-grid7|ukt2|dl2|sec1_lnk1&pLid=329087

Haven't looked at the reports quoted earlier in the thread so don't know if this adds anymore to the story or not.

 

[Greenback]

Unfortunately the incumbent government has put in place such draconian anti union laws that this man will be unable to take his employer to tribunal unless his can himself stump up a not inconsiderable amount of money.

The fees were intended to deter frivolous claims, but I do believe they are too high. I haven't seen anything that says someone's union can't pay the fees, though.

Can the losing side be ordered to pay costs as in court cases?

 

[Chrism20]

AOL money report here:

http://money.aol.co.uk/2015/02/12/r...id=maing-grid7|ukt2|dl2|sec1_lnk1&pLid=329087

Haven't looked at the reports quoted earlier in the thread so don't know if this adds anymore to the story or not.

Looks like it is pretty much word for word