Catering Manager sacked for telling Passengers the truth

[Geezertronic]

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?

Why don't the unions do their job in a way that doesn't affect their other members or the public? It's not as if this is about pay & conditions which, in my opinion, is a valid reason for a strike if all other avenues have been exhausted?

The fact that the employer could ignore the ET in this instance is a guess on your part jut as is the assumption that the unions do not believe the employee has a valid case is a guess on my part. Fact is the ET process is there for a reason. If the employee wins, they get compensated. If the employee loses, egg on face for the union.

 

[47513 Severn]

Interestingly in the case of the tube driver dismissed after failing two breath tests the RMT are pushing for an Employment Tribunal and claim TFL are refusing to comply. Surely if the employee initiates a tribunal TFL would have to participate and abide by the decision?

"The union remains available for talks, at [conciliation service] Acas if necessary, and, as we have already stated, we are ready to abide by any decision made at an employment tribunal and cannot understand London Underground's reluctance to agree to that course of action," said Mick Cash.

See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-31372269

Looking at a few union websites it seems there is no restriction on them paying tribunal fees for their members and most state that they would do just that in the case of a dispute.

Getting back to the original topic, I remain convinced that there is much more to it. Reports on here of 'cheeky banter' from the guy suggest that this may not have been the first complaint and there may well be a history to it. Unfortunately the union knows that once they have got their ridiculously one sided claims into the media the damage is done regardless of the truth, while the employer remains bound by confidentiality rules. People will blindly believe what they read if it suits their own agenda and we all hate nasty bosses stamping on the poor downtrodden working man don't we...

47513

 

[A-driver]

Has a strike even been officially balloted? Or are papers reporting it as a threat, in which case consider that any union talks have a strike threat ultimately...

 

[Robertj21a]

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?

Because that is what most other people would consider to be reasonable, sensible and the appropriate way forward ?

 

[A-driver]

Because that is what most other people would consider to be reasonable, sensible and the appropriate way forward ?

Would they? Really? Or just those not in a union?...

 

[Tetchytyke]

My own trade union will support me with legal fees should I ever need to bring an Employment Tribunal claim.

I think Aslef Shrugged's recent blog post explains much of why I am cynical about any management claims of wrongdoing and why I do not believe the ET is always the most appropriate way to get a just outcome.

Employers will rarely get a reinstatement order and, when they do, they can choose to ignore it anyway. Look at London Underground refusing to agree to reinstate the driver if he wins his ET.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Why don't the unions do their job in a way that doesn't affect their other members or the public?

Because those methods don't affect the employer either.

Causing inconvenience to third parties is always regettable- I regret that my own strike action inconvenienced my customers- but that's not my problem. It's the employer's problem. That's the whole point of strike action.

 

[Hellfire]

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.

As many have said, we only get part of the story. But, if an enthusiastic manager, dismisses a man with 14 years service without just cause, then said enthusiastic manager is going to end up in front of an employment tribunal with egg on his face.

Frankly, I don't believe the bare facts as stated in the papers. No company is going to dismiss an employee without going through the agreed procedures. The financial cost will be high as will the reputational damage. I look forward to the Tribunal.

 

[Wolfie]

Because that is what most other people would consider to be reasonable, sensible and the appropriate way forward ?

I find your assertion fascinating and await the evidence... YOUR beliefs are not necessarily, no matter how convincing you find them, correct - particularly when it comes to mapping those beliefs to others!

Of course, were I cynical I could "fix" your comment...

"Because that is what most Tories who hate the TUs and have loaded a large up-front fee onto ETs would consider to be reasonable, sensible and the appropriate way forward?"

 

[Geezertronic]

Because those methods don't affect the employer either.

Causing inconvenience to third parties is always regettable- I regret that my own strike action inconvenienced my customers- but that's not my problem. It's the employer's problem. That's the whole point of strike action.

In a case of a strike ballot, would the employees get additional information than us outside the business so they could make an informed decision whether to strike or not? Just strikes me (no pun intended) that the employees could be fed some union propaganda as a purpose to strike when the facts of the case could be different?

 

[A-driver]

In a case of a strike ballot, would the employees get additional information than us outside the business so they could make an informed decision whether to strike or not? Just strikes me (no pun intended) that the employees could be fed some union propaganda as a purpose to strike when the facts of the case could be different?

There is a limit to how false info could be otherwise the strike is illegal...obviously the union will send out info designed to get a 'yes' vote, but at the same time the company will be sending out plenty of stuff designed to get a 'no' vote.

 

[Robertj21a]

I find your assertion fascinating and await the evidence... YOUR beliefs are not necessarily, no matter how convincing you find them, correct - particularly when it comes to mapping those beliefs to others!

Of course, were I cynical I could "fix" your comment...

"Because that is what most Tories who hate the TUs and have loaded a large up-front fee onto ETs would consider to be reasonable, sensible and the appropriate way forward?"

What a very strange and bitter response !. Of course they are my beliefs, as is my belief that 'most other people would consider to be reasonable, sensible and the appropriate way forward'.

Just because you are a supporter of a different point of view doesn't make my comments any less credible.

 

[Wolfie]

What a very strange and bitter response !. Of course they are my beliefs, as is my belief that 'most other people would consider to be reasonable, sensible and the appropriate way forward'.

Just because you are a supporter of a different point of view doesn't make my comments any less credible.

Every person is, of course, perfectly entitled to their own viewpoint. Expressing your own view is fine but claiming those views as more than that is not. The issue I had was with your unproven assertion that your views are those of "most other people" - if you could, for instance, cite an opinion poll....

 

[deltic]

I'm not a union member but if there is one thing that I would strike over is a colleague being unfairly dismissed (not saying that this is the case here as we dont have enough information). Saying take it to an employment tribunal is too simplistic. An ET may find in your favour but may not necessarily require you to be reinstated just awarding you compensation. Other employers still regard with suspicion someone who has taken a former employer to a tribunal - in their eyes there is a risk they could be high maintenance and litigious. As with any court case there is also no guarantee of success even if you are in the right - it often depends on how good the two sides lawyers are at arguing each other's cases. Sorting out an issue without going to an ET is likely to the best option.

 

[D1009]

Getting back to the original topic, I remain convinced that there is much more to it. Reports on here of 'cheeky banter' from the guy suggest that this may not have been the first complaint and there may well be a history to it. Unfortunately the union knows that once they have got their ridiculously one sided claims into the media the damage is done regardless of the truth, while the employer remains bound by confidentiality rules. People will blindly believe what they read if it suits their own agenda and we all hate nasty bosses stamping on the poor downtrodden working man don't we...

47513

And let us not forget that he was a team leader, a man who was responsible for explaining the reasons for a failure in the system in such a way as not to inflame the situation. From reading what little we know of this it is perfectly possible that he was not doing the job in the way management would expect.

 

[6Gman]

I'm not a union member but if there is one thing that I would strike over is a colleague being unfairly dismissed (not saying that this is the case here as we dont have enough information). Saying take it to an employment tribunal is too simplistic. An ET may find in your favour but may not necessarily require you to be reinstated just awarding you compensation. Other employers still regard with suspicion someone who has taken a former employer to a tribunal - in their eyes there is a risk they could be high maintenance and litigious. As with any court case there is also no guarantee of success even if you are in the right - it often depends on how good the two sides lawyers are at arguing each other's cases. Sorting out an issue without going to an ET is likely to the best option.

Quite.

I was on the railway for 20 years. Never took industrial action of any sort. But victimisation of a colleague would have prompted me to act.

 

[Robertj21a]

Every person is, of course, perfectly entitled to their own viewpoint. Expressing your own view is fine but claiming those views as more than that is not. The issue I had was with your unproven assertion that your views are those of "most other people" - if you could, for instance, cite an opinion poll....

No I can't - any more than you can quote anything to support your point of view. However, most employees in the UK are not in Trade Unions that have a habit of 'bullying' (a significant point in the earlier comment) - so it is perfectly logical for me to suggest '....that is what most other people would consider to be reasonable, sensible and the appropriate way forward'.

 

[Clip]

I think before we carry on dicussing the rights and wrongs the mights and failures of the unions we need to realise that at the present time we only have one side of the story.

As someone who at times gets flummoxed by union action I just dont think we can make a judgement on this by only knowing one side of this issue. It seems to me that it must be something else because I really cant see any TOC doing this on the back of one incident and the story seems not complete either so for now I will err on the side of the employee as I do find it unjust and unfair.

I will probably delve further in the coming week to find out but I urge you all not to get into yet another union bad thread. please.

 

[LowLevel]

How thoroughly daft. As a trade union member I shall continue to laugh at the usual 'shouldn't be allowed' types whilst bearing in mind that your dearly held opinion is irrelevant. Cheers now

PS - I voted 'no' last time I was balloted for strike action for unfair dismissal, as did the majority of my fellow members. But who cares about democratic process.

 

[Daz28]

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

The Court of Appeal disagrees with you.

 

[Hadders]

There are some circumstances where an expired warning can be taken into account.

Consider a long serving employee, no previous, who does something bordering on gross misconduct. It's one of those that could go either way but you decide to take into account the previous unblemished record and the employee is given a final written warning.

The warning expires but a year or so later a similar thing happens. When you're deciding what to do this time the employee's no longer got an unblemished record going back years so this can't be used in mitigation.

 

[Clip]

There are some circumstances where an expired warning can be taken into account.

Consider a long serving employee, no previous, who does something bordering on gross misconduct. It's one of those that could go either way but you decide to take into account the previous unblemished record and the employee is given a final written warning.

The warning expires but a year or so later a similar thing happens. When you're deciding what to do this time the employee's no longer got an unblemished record going back years so this can't be used in mitigation.

Very true but in this day and age I have often heard that certain things can not be given, like a buffet even for standard class pax so it amazes me that this is the sole reason he has been sacked.

 

[Hadders]

Very true but in this day and age I have often heard that certain things can not be given, like a buffet even for standard class pax so it amazes me that this is the sole reason he has been sacked.

I'm sure there's more to this than what we know.

 

[Clip]

Indeed there is. I would snoop but I think Ill let this one play out as I can see it wont be pretty.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was on the railway for 20 years. Never took industrial action of any sort. But victimisation of a colleague would have prompted me to act.

Though, even taking this at face value, is there any evidence that it is "victimisation" in this case? (I realise you were making a generla point). It might be unreasonable management - being unduly strict about a minor "offence" (though we don't know what else has gone on previously) - but "victimisation" would suggest a personal bias against that individual being used to be picky towards them, rather than just a general "being too strict" or "disciplining people for things that shouldn't be offences" - both of which might justify industrial action, but aren't quite the same as an individual being picked on.

Neil

 

[CockneySparrow]

I wonder if that could one day form the basis of a case against the TOCs for sale of goods / services based on what's advertised to potential customers in their literature / publicity / adverts.

Lets say my local pub advertises a free pie with every pint. You buy the pint.... but they've no pies. Surely as the pie was advertised as part of the sale, it could be argued false advertising was being used to up the customer numbers.

*drops can of worms and runs off*

Bit of a grey area, if it is stated where available the TOC will be in a better place than if they didn't say that, I suspect it would be done on a percentage basis, if it becomes clear that a broken boiler and staff shortages affects nearly every train then they might be in hot water, if it happens occasionally then they will probably get away with it due to unforseen circumstances

 

[40129]

Bit of a grey area, if it is stated where available the TOC will be in a better place than if they didn't say that, I suspect it would be done on a percentage basis, if it becomes clear that a broken boiler and staff shortages affects nearly every train then they might be in hot water, if it happens occasionally then they will probably get away with it due to unforseen circumstances

If the boiler's broken, the most the water would be is luke warm

(I'll get my coat)

 

[Philip]

A different take on this story, is it really a right for first class customers to have a full cooked breakfast? Although a cooked breakfast is nice I'd still be happy with a breakfast roll or a normal sandwich if that was what was on offer. Food is food. Some people expect too much and what annoys me more is to read about customers making life difficult for the staff because of it.

 

[PHILIPE]

What is the source of information on this incident. The Media. So, what other evidence have we got, also the Newspapers tend to blow up a story.

I think we need the full picture before being able to judge.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A different take on this story, is it really a right for first class customers to have a full cooked breakfast? Although a cooked breakfast is nice I'd still be happy with a breakfast roll or a normal sandwich if that was what was on offer. Food is food.

Well, that depends. I'm gluten intolerant, so I'd have a full English and leave the sausage (normally bulked with breadcrumbs), there's enough of the rest of it, or maybe smoked salmon and scrambled egg. A bacon roll leaves me a couple of slices of bacon. Which as I've paid for it (it's not free, it's part of the fare) would leave me unhappy and after some RTVs to pay for buying a breakfast at my destination, certainly.

First Class in the UK is expensive, and the selling point is not just the wider seat. (I'd rather it was, personally, and the fare was more reasonable, but it's not). So I expect the whole package to be delivered, and certainly a meaningful apology at least if it is not.

Neil

 

[A-driver]

Well, that depends. I'm gluten intolerant, so I'd have a full English and leave the sausage (normally bulked with breadcrumbs), there's enough of the rest of it, or maybe smoked salmon and scrambled egg. A bacon roll leaves me a couple of slices of bacon. Which as I've paid for it (it's not free, it's part of the fare) would leave me unhappy and after some RTVs to pay for buying a breakfast at my destination, certainly.



First Class in the UK is expensive, and the selling point is not just the wider seat. (I'd rather it was, personally, and the fare was more reasonable, but it's not). So I expect the whole package to be delivered, and certainly a meaningful apology at least if it is not.



Neil

Sorry but that is incorrect. Absolutely wrong. The food is not 'part of the fare'. You pay for a ticket to transport you from A to B. You are not even paying for a seat-if none are free (regardless of reservations) then you still pay what you paid to stand from A to B.

The food is complimentary and most importantly subject to availability. Your ticket price is purely for your transport, not for food, seat or anything else.

If they can't get you to your destination or you are significantly delayed then you will get some form of compensation. If no food is offered (being tht it is subject to availability) then you are not entitled to any compensation.

It's a train, not a restaurant. The food is free, it certainly is not pet of the fare and if EC decided to stop offering any free food then the ticket price would be unlikely to change to reflect this.

Sorry but you are very wrong with that post!