Catering Manager sacked for telling Passengers the truth

[ringi]

This is clearly a case for an ET, RMT even thinking about a strike confirms my view that we will never get the railways sorted out until someone takes on the RMT and defeats them once and for all.

Why should the paying public have to put up with strikes when there is already a reasonable legal process in place to sort disputes like this? I would expect the RMT to fund his case instead of just trying calls strikes to score points.

This is one of the reasons I supported the Cambridge Gilded bus system……

 

[Wolfie]

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.

This is the quote I find fascinating...

And even the source of the original complaint, passenger David Beaumont, says he supports Doughty.

"I find it hard to believe a member of staff can simply be dismissed for telling the truth to insistent passengers like myself in such circumstances," he tells the Edinburgh News.

"The target of my complaint was the people responsible for the chaos, not the guy placed in the awkward position of breaking it to a train load of annoyed passengers, a job that he did incredibly well."

my underlining

An ET, faced with that quote, and I assume Mr Beaumont would be called as a witness or at least supply a witness statement would find it very hard indeed to support the employer's actions....

This is clearly a case for an ET, RMT even thinking about a strike confirms my view that we will never get the railways sorted out until someone takes on the RMT and defeats them once and for all.

Why should the paying public have to put up with strikes when there is already a reasonable legal process in place to sort disputes like this? I would expect the RMT to fund his case instead of just trying calls strikes to score points.

You are Boris Johnson and I claim my £10...

Despite that I sort of agree.. just so long as there is provision for draconian punishment against cavalier management - by that I mean that if their actions are found to be wrong by an ET they should immediately be sacked!

Methinks incidentally, that you don't have the first scooby about what TUs are for! Despite all of the efforts of succesive Tory Governments industrial action is itself a legal activity...

 

[Chrism20]

I find it difficult to believe that if the passengers were up in arms as reported and bringing staff to tears that there was only one complaint.

If that is to be believed who reduced the member of staff to tears? If someone is creating that much you can bet your bottom dollar they will also have complained.

Out of curiosity when did this actually happen?

According to reports the boiler fault had not just occurred and was a known issue. Every EC set will visit KGX at least once a day how many times over the few days running up to this has the same passengers had the same reason for lack of catering said to them. I know that some may think that's a bit far fetched but a fortnight ago I was on the RBL set three times in four days so it can happen!

 

[Flamingo]

I find it difficult to believe that if the passengers were up in arms as reported and bringing staff to tears that there was only one complaint.

If that is to be believed who reduced the member of staff to tears? If someone is creating that much you can bet your bottom dollar they will also have complained.

Out of curiosity when did this actually happen?

If someone is creating that much, they have probably committed a public order offence...

 

[Chrism20]

If someone is creating that much, they have probably committed a public order offence...

Yes, this is very true.

 

[ringi]

You are Boris Johnson and I claim my £10...

Despite that I sort of agree.. just so long as there is provision for draconian punishment against cavalier management - by that I mean that if their actions are found to be wrong by an ET they should immediately be sacked!

In any company I have worked for no managers would keep their jobs if they lost two ET. However in any sensible company, there are many reviews before allowing a case to go as far as an ET. Losing an ET is such bad publicity for a large company that they try very hard not to do so.

I would not object to large companies having to pay a large fine (on top of any compensation to the worker) every time an ET found that the employee’s case was clearly correct.

If that fine was then used to create a fund to provide advice to employees wishing to take cases to ETs so much better.

 

[Jonfun]

This is clearly a case for an ET, RMT even thinking about a strike confirms my view that we will never get the railways sorted out until someone takes on the RMT and defeats them once and for all.

Why should the paying public have to put up with strikes when there is already a reasonable legal process in place to sort disputes like this? I would expect the RMT to fund his case instead of just trying calls strikes to score points.

Do you not have a union at your workplace?

Will you be saying the same when your children are on the dole because they've been sacked because their manager had a grudge against them but there's noone willing to stand up and say, this is wrong? Them having to make a choice between signing on the dole or working in a poorly paid, zero hours job because there were no unions to stop them imposing unfair contracts?

 

[mrmatt]

Do you not have a union at your workplace?

Will you be saying the same when your children are on the dole because they've been sacked because their manager had a grudge against them but there's noone willing to stand up and say, this is wrong? Them having to make a choice between signing on the dole or working in a poorly paid, zero hours job because there were no unions to stop them imposing unfair contracts?

I think ringi's point is that the RMT should be helping his case at an ET, not calling for strike action (which is disproportionate given there is an independent process for dealing with these kind of incidents).

 

[Clip]

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

.

Yes, in March. This is February and all they are allowed to do at the present time is to contact staff regarding TUPE and uniform sizes and such like. To infer that they are directly influencing current management in policies and procedures is absurd.

 

[A-driver]

I think ringi's point is that the RMT should be helping his case at an ET, not calling for strike action (which is disproportionate given there is an independent process for dealing with these kind of incidents).

But if the rest of the workforce feel strongly enough about this to loose their pay over then why should they not be able to choose to withdraw their labour in protest? It is likely to have a faster response than going through the courts? After all, the vibe amongst the rest of the staff will be that if it can happen to this guy then why not any of them as well?

 

[Tetchytyke]

To infer that they are directly influencing current management in policies and procedures is absurd.

It'll be the first TUPE in history where the new owners are not in discussion with the old owners if that's the case.

I think ringi's point is that the RMT should be helping his case at an ET, not calling for strike action (which is disproportionate given there is an independent process for dealing with these kind of incidents).

Employment Tribunals have the power to force a company to re-employ a dismissed employee, but it is extraordinarily rare for them to do so. They usually only award compensation and that compensation is usually pegged to the amount of lost earnings.

It is for the members of the RMT to decide if strike action is "disproportionate" or not. If they vote to lose a day's pay for their colleague then there must be a very strong feeling of injustice and/or a feeling that they will be next.

I know it's popular to claim the RMT call the boys and girls out at the drop of a hat, but they don't. People don't vote for strike action lightly. It is very expensive.

 

[A-driver]

It'll be the first TUPE in history where the new owners are not in discussion with the old owners if that's the case.







Employment Tribunals have the power to force a company to re-employ a dismissed employee, but it is extraordinarily rare for them to do so. They usually only award compensation and that compensation is usually pegged to the amount of lost earnings.



It is for the members of the RMT to decide if strike action is "disproportionate" or not. If they vote to lose a day's pay for their colleague then there must be a very strong feeling of injustice and/or a feeling that they will be next.



I know it's popular to claim the RMT call the boys and girls out at the drop of a hat, but they don't. People don't vote for strike action lightly. It is very expensive.

Like all re-franchises on rail they will be holding TUPE talks with unions and current management at the moment but will not have any influence on this kind of HR policy yet. They certainly wouldn't have had any input on an internal issue like this one.

 

[ringi]

But if the rest of the workforce feel strongly enough about this to loose their pay over then why should they not be able to choose to withdraw their labour in protest? It is likely to have a faster response than going through the courts? After all, the vibe amongst the rest of the staff will be that if it can happen to this guy then why not any of them as well?

Because as a tax payer I may choose to vote to withdraw all funding from the railways....

Likewise commuters may go out of their way to get jobs that don't require them to put up with the actions of the RMT....

 

[A-driver]

Because as a tax payer I may choose to vote to withdraw all funding from the railways....



Likewise commuters may go out of their way to get jobs that don't require them to put up with the actions of the RMT....

What have either of those points got to do with anything though?!

If enough tax payers vote to withdraw all railway funding then what is the issue? Chances of it ever happening are almost zero!

And if all commuters wish to find work or ways of avoiding the railways then so be it, didn't make any difference to rail staff choosing to withdraw their labour in a dispute with management...

Your post seems ridiculously irrelevant!

 

[Tetchytyke]

Because as a tax payer I may choose to vote to withdraw all funding from the railways....

"I pay your wages so you're not allowed to do anything I disagree with".

If staff are choosing to go without pay because of a dispute with management then something has gone badly wrong with that relationship.

 

[Wolfie]

Because as a tax payer I may choose to vote to withdraw all funding from the railways....

Likewise commuters may go out of their way to get jobs that don't require them to put up with the actions of the RMT....

Strike action in public services is not and never will be illegal - get used to it! Indeed, I would be unsurprised - if the Tories were get re-elected and try to impose their latest draconian proposals on curtailing strikes - if the Courts to strike them down as in violation of basic human rights.

God forbid that you should be inconvenienced in the slightest by a group of workers exercising their fundamental principled right to withdraw their labour. Perhaps one day you might wish for a group to support you in such a way... don't bleat when you are left out to dry!

 

[Geezertronic]

I'd like to find out whether the RMT have actually helped the person first and followed whatever due process applies first. Are they helping the person?

 

[Wolfie]

Of course they are...despite the popular myth unions don't just call a strike ballot over the slightest thing.

There would be a LOT of talks before industrial action is even considered!

What he said!

I'd like to find out whether the RMT have actually helped the person first and followed whatever due process applies first. Are they helping the person?

I would have thought, if they are proposing strike action on his behalf, that the answer is blindingly obvious:roll:... the threat of strike action is intended to help him...

 

[A-driver]

I'd like to find out whether the RMT have actually helped the person first and followed whatever due process applies first. Are they helping the person?

Of course they are...despite the popular myth unions don't just call a strike ballot over the slightest thing.

There would be a LOT of talks before industrial action is even considered!

 

[Geezertronic]

So when is the ET hearing that I presume the RMT are helping the employee with which will prove either way if the employee has a case? Surely no IA should be taken until the due process has been followed?

Seems to me that until that process is followed, no strike action is warranted?

 

[A-driver]

So when is the ET hearing that I presume the RMT are helping the employee with which will prove either way if the employee has a case? Surely no IA should be taken until the due process has been followed?



Seems to me that until that process is followed, no strike action is warranted?

Why should they wait a possibly lengthy time and pay a large sum of money for an ET when they can just withdraw their labour in protest? Strike won't happen without significant support.

 

[Geezertronic]

Why should they wait a possibly lengthy time and pay a large sum of money for an ET when they can just withdraw their labour in protest? Strike won't happen without significant support.

An ET will prove beyond doubt whether the employer was correct in their actions or whether the employee has a case. Withdrawing labour without allowing this process to occur is not an appropriate course of action in my opinion - there are far better causes to withdraw labour such as pay & conditions where there is no alternative and where the majority if not all employees are directly affected. The alternative in this case is the due process of an ET. Whether that takes time or not, it should be the proper process to follow and presumably if the employee wins then compensation is awarded?

 

[Oswyntail]

Why should they wait a possibly lengthy time and pay a large sum of money for an ET when they can just withdraw their labour in protest? Strike won't happen without significant support.

If the ET is likely to support their member, they have nothing to lose by waiting. On the other hand, if they believe the ET will find against said chappie, then they seem to be using strike action to defend wrongdoing. And, of course, significant support does not mean someone is right or the case is just.

 

[A-driver]

If the ET is likely to support their member, they have nothing to lose by waiting. On the other hand, if they believe the ET will find against said chappie, then they seem to be using strike action to defend wrongdoing. And, of course, significant support does not mean someone is right or the case is just.

An ET will prove beyond doubt whether the employer was correct in their actions or whether the employee has a case. Withdrawing labour without allowing this process to occur is not an appropriate course of action in my opinion - there are far better causes to withdraw labour such as pay & conditions where there is no alternative and where the majority if not all employees are directly affected. The alternative in this case is the due process of an ET. Whether that takes time or not, it should be the proper process to follow and presumably if the employee wins then compensation is awarded?

Quite simply, should the membership decide that they support their colleague enough and feel strongly about this issue, industrial action will be quicker than an ET and send a clear message to management that staff are not happy with their actions.

And strike action would only be considered if talks break down (that dosnt mean if he isn't re-instated necessarily).

 

[Geezertronic]

Quite simply, should the membership decide that they support their colleague enough and feel strongly about this issue, industrial action will be quicker than an ET and send a clear message to management that staff are not happy with their actions.

And strike action would only be considered if talks break down (that dosnt mean if he isn't re-instated necessarily).

Seems to me to be a "toys throwing out of pram" response, possibly because the union believes that the employee won't win at an ET, either that or are not prepared to fund the price of legal advice for the employee which is probably worse.

I would have thought a win at an ET would be more damaging to the employer than a strike so if talks have broken down, the next course of action would be an ET which, if the union and employee are confident of winning at, should be the next course of action

 

[Clip]

It'll be the first TUPE in history where the new owners are not in discussion with the old owners if that's the case.

I didn't say they wouldn't be just that the notion of them influencing anyone at EC with how to manage staff is ludicrous.

 

[Tetchytyke]

If the ET is likely to support their member, they have nothing to lose by waiting. On the other hand, if they believe the ET will find against said chappie, then they seem to be using strike action to defend wrongdoing. And, of course, significant support does not mean someone is right or the case is just.

People don't go on strike action for dismissed colleagues where they perceive the management to generally act in a just and fair way. Strike action is very expensive.

As I said just before, an ET is unlikely to give the bloke his job back, and the financial compensation is usually based on loss rather than punishment too. There are countless cases where people do not get their jobs back, even where an ET orders the employer to reinstate, because the employer can ignore the ET order. Go google "Yunus Bakhsh" to see what I mean; Northumberland NHS Trust simply waited him out, forcing him into years of legal action, and they ended up paying him money rather than reinstating him even after an ET ordered reinstatement.

I would imagine that the trade union will also be taking legal action.

I wouldn't have much faith in the ET process. To say you can only strike once an ET finds against an employer is ridiculous.

 

[Geezertronic]

To say you can only strike once an ET finds against an employer is ridiculous.

To say you should strike when due process has not been followed is also ridiculous and proves the unions are no better than the employers when bullying to get their own way is concerned

 

[A-driver]

To say you should strike when due process has not been followed is also ridiculous and proves the unions are no better than the employers when bullying to get their own way is concerned

Why should they not be able to 'bully' management over a cause that the staff believe so strongly in? If staff feel management are being that unfair and threatening their own livelihoods and are prepared to loose pay over this then why should they not be able to choose IA rather than pay for, wait for and allow an employer to ignore the findings of an ET?

 

[TheEdge]

I'm sorry but all these people saying this isn't something worth striking over are missing the point.

Not only does it seem that management at EC have been incredibly unreasonable but it sets a precedent not only for EC but also for the industry. If EC can sack a catering manager for telling passengers about an equipment failure or staff illness can EC sack a guard for explaining a train is cancelled due to the driver phoning in sick or sack a driver for explaining a train is delayed due to an engine fault? And if EC can do it what stops other TOCs doing it?