Grimsby train worker sacked, TPE South staff plan strike.

[the sniper]

Not sure if that would stand up, also depends on the TOCs local instructions for dispatch.

It could easily be argued that it wasn't safe to to look out, what with the likelihood of the yobs assaulting the Guard as he went past. According to the RMT he was spat at but it missed. Most TOCs don't encourage Guards to lean out of the window due to the risks involved, I don't know TPE's policy though. Plus, if you were going by the letter of the law/rule book, why didn't the driver look out the window and put the brake in, as the rule book puts equal responsibility on both grades? Some drivers at my TOC always look back, most never look back though. I'd say most Guards at my TOC look out, but some never do. No one is required to though. That rule is a bit of a grey area.

Edit: At the end of the day though he did look out, was aware of the situation and theoretically made the wrong decision in that split moment, even though it was seemingly a decision made in good faith. The problem is whether the punishment fits the 'crime', which I personally don't think it did.

 

[DownSouth]

Whilst it's quite right for unions to represent their members, why do rail unions seem to default to threats of action as a response to issues such as these?

Because their reputation (and therefore the important income from membership fees) will suffer from both the other possible options (not contesting it at all, or contesting it through the proper channels) if neither of those options has a plausible chance of them getting a win.

A bit of brinkmanship, on the other hand might end up with the company caving in and giving the former guard some sort of 'redundancy payment' to make the problem go away - but when they union acts like gangsters the proper gangster term of protection should be used. The bloke gets some cash, the company still gets to offload an employee who could become a liability and the union can claim a win - everyone's happy.

 

[swj99]

That's the point of doing it "to the book", it passes the responsibility on to whoever wrote the book. It might not be the best or most sensible way of doing it, but it's not the Guards fault when it does go wrong. Once one deviates in any way, it becomes personal responsibility.

That's a good point, and illustrates the concept very clearly. I've seen similar arguments about whether or not car drivers should drive through a red traffic light to allow an emergency vehicle to pass. On the one hand, if they do, they might get penalty points, but if they don't, someone might die. But with the number of nanny state rules and traffic light cameras, many motorists are now not willing to jump traffic lights, and they are entitled by law to remain where they are until the lights turn green, no matter whose life might be at stake. Sadly, a similar thing seems to be happening on the railways, and like you quite rightly say, doing it by the book means the person who makes the rules is responsible. Sad, but that's the reality at the moment.

This situation also raises other important questions, such as who is in charge of Grimsby station ? Why were these train surfing suicide candidates there ? Did they have tickets, and if not, how did they gain access ? And regardless of how they happened to be there, why weren't they removed, or ordered to leave, given their behaviour ?

 

[Flamingo]

That's a good point, and illustrates the concept very clearly. I've seen similar arguments about whether or not car drivers should drive through a red traffic light to allow an emergency vehicle to pass. On the one hand, if they do, they might get penalty points, but if they don't, someone might die. But with the number of nanny state rules and traffic light cameras, many motorists are now not willing to jump traffic lights, and they are entitled by law to remain where they are until the lights turn green, no matter whose life might be at stake. Sadly, a similar thing seems to be happening on the railways, and like you quite rightly say, doing it by the book means the person who makes the rules is responsible. Sad, but that's the reality at the moment.

This situation also raises other important questions, such as who is in charge of Grimsby station ? Why were these train surfing suicide candidates there ? Did they have tickets, and if not, how did they gain access ? And regardless of how they happened to be there, why weren't they removed, or ordered to leave, given their behaviour ?

It's the reason I get annoyed when we get told "Use your discretion", as the problem with that is it is usually followed by "Who authorised you to do that?"

 

[Solent&Wessex]

One thing I can't see mentioned so far is that it is often traditional, especially for Drivers who have incidents, for them to be demoted or placed into a non safety critical role. At a meeting last week the union highlighted various precedents where people had been placed into non safety critical roles where vacancies existed and requested that in this case the member was given the job in the booking office at Grimsby, currently being advertised in the internal vacancy list. The company refused this, which seemed fairly senseless considering the Guards previously clean record, his honesty during the investigation, and precedent from other cases previously. I think this is a particular gripe.

On the subject of discipline as a whole, I know if one Guard who was spat at in the face by a fare dodger. The BTP subsequently arrested and prosecuted the scroat following the Guard quickly using their DNA collection kit, and he received a fairly decent punishment in court. The company, despite all the public posters about they won't tolerate abuse, suspended the Guard for a week and started disciplinary proceedings. Apparently it was the Guards fault for challenging the individual. Another Guard had a drinks can thrown at him which hit him on the back of the head, again by a fare dodger. He was similarly suspended and charged with gross misconduct. Not surprisingly both cases were eventually dismissed.

 

[bramling]

One thing I can't see mentioned so far is that it is often traditional, especially for Drivers who have incidents, for them to be demoted or placed into a non safety critical role. At a meeting last week the union highlighted various precedents where people had been placed into non safety critical roles where vacancies existed and requested that in this case the member was given the job in the booking office at Grimsby, currently being advertised in the internal vacancy list. The company refused this, which seemed fairly senseless considering the Guards previously clean record, his honesty during the investigation, and precedent from other cases previously. I think this is a particular gripe.

On the subject of discipline as a whole, I know if one Guard who was spat at in the face by a fare dodger. The BTP subsequently arrested and prosecuted the scroat following the Guard quickly using their DNA collection kit, and he received a fairly decent punishment in court. The company, despite all the public posters about they won't tolerate abuse, suspended the Guard for a week and started disciplinary proceedings. Apparently it was the Guards fault for challenging the individual. Another Guard had a drinks can thrown at him which hit him on the back of the head, again by a fare dodger. He was similarly suspended and charged with gross misconduct. Not surprisingly both cases were eventually dismissed.

Seems to me the ever-increasing spread of CCTV seems to be being used as a means of collaring staff who have the audacity to try and defend themselves.

Few or even none of the incidents described in this thread (including James Street) would have blown up had there been no CCTV footage.

 

[transmanche]

On the subject of discipline as a whole, I know if one Guard who was spat at in the face by a fare dodger. The BTP subsequently arrested and prosecuted the scroat following the Guard quickly using their DNA collection kit, and he received a fairly decent punishment in court. The company, despite all the public posters about they won't tolerate abuse, suspended the Guard for a week and started disciplinary proceedings. Apparently it was the Guards fault for challenging the individual. Another Guard had a drinks can thrown at him which hit him on the back of the head, again by a fare dodger. He was similarly suspended and charged with gross misconduct. Not surprisingly both cases were eventually dismissed.

Speaking generally, I've seen that in cases where any sort of minor incident or minor misdemeanour has been treated as 'gross misconduct' it's usually because the manager is using it as an excuse to get rid of a member of staff because they are deemed 'troublesome' for some reason or other; or quite simply that the manager is a bully.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's the reason I get annoyed when we get told "Use your discretion", as the problem with that is it is usually followed by "Who authorised you to do that?"

It's a common problem in many industries. Staff that are told they are 'empowered' to make decisions, unless that later proves to be inconvenient to the powers that be...

 

[Flamingo]

One thing that annoys the hell out of me is "Monday Morning Quarterbacking"...

 

[Jonny]

One thing that annoys the hell out of me is "Monday Morning Quarterbacking"...

The trouble is, that's how the judiciary tends to work.

 

[Flamingo]

The trouble is, that's how the judiciary tends to work.

And a lot of managers...

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Few or even none of the incidents described in this thread (including James Street) would have blown up had there been no CCTV footage.

On the other side of the coin, has there been any cases of station staff being assaulted, where the incident has been caught on CCTV, which subsequently led to the apprehension of the attackers?

 

[bramling]

On the other side of the coin, has there been any cases of station staff being assaulted, where the incident has been caught on CCTV, which subsequently led to the apprehension of the attackers?

I know the point you're making, and you're right. However, one negative side of CCTV is that it does allow people who weren't on scene to view the incident from the comfort of an armchair or office desk, and make judgements which can have an effect on someone's career.

I'm not saying CCTV is a bad thing, but sometimes I do wish we could go back to the days when every move is not recorded.

 

[martynbristow]

Speaking generally, I've seen that in cases where any sort of minor incident or minor misdemeanour has been treated as 'gross misconduct' it's usually because the manager is using it as an excuse to get rid of a member of staff because they are deemed 'troublesome' for some reason or other; or quite simply that the manager is a bully.

I've had managers like that and they try anything to get things the way they want it.
They get pulled up and *dealt with* but often not enough. If the issue that managers are doing that it should be dealt with.
However life is a popularity contest and not a competency one :/

 

[PHILIPE]

Managers nowadays just can't manage like old time managers used to. Man management has gone out of the window. Unless every box is ticked to their liking now, that's it.

 

[185]

Whilst it's quite right for unions to represent their members, why do rail unions seem to default to threats of action as a response to issues such as these? If they consider that a particular dismissal was unfair, that 's what employment tribunals are there for.

And there lieth the problem. Most of us would naturally assume a court of law is the only correct place to make a fair and informed judgement on who did right, who did wrong.

Employment Tribunals were once well respected establishments with a reputation for bringing justice to those who'd been deprived of it, whist protecting companies who correctly dismissed more unscrupulous employees.

Move forward to 2015, and it seems madame justice has taken an extended leave from our tribunal system. In court, I have witnessed, as mentioned earlier, a member of First Transpennine Express management, who is also a lay magistrate, openly perjure himself three times, then retract his statements when confronted by evidence - CCTV, witnesses and the company's own publications.

Employers such as FTPE know the likelyhood of any employment tribunal actually criminally punishing a perjurer are minimal - hence why the RMT will cause as much grief as possible before a case heads to a (costly) courtroom.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

Whilst it's quite right for unions to represent their members, why do rail unions seem to default to threats of action as a response to issues such as these? If they consider that a particular dismissal was unfair, that 's what employment tribunals are there for.

because they are ideologically stuck in the 1970s ...

however anecdotally there appears to be an issue with the use gross misconduct charges within the TOC and it doesn;t appear that they are getting downgraded during the investigation or a th hearing as often happens in discips elsewhere in the wider world ...

 

[martynbristow]

And there lieth the problem. Most of us would naturally assume a court of law is the only correct place to make a fair and informed judgement on who did right, who did wrong.

Employment Tribunals were once well respected establishments with a reputation for bringing justice to those who'd been deprived of it, whist protecting companies who correctly dismissed more unscrupulous employees.

Move forward to 2015, and it seems madame justice has taken an extended leave from our tribunal system. In court, I have witnessed, as mentioned earlier, a member of First Transpennine Express management, who is also a lay magistrate, openly perjure himself three times, then retract his statements when confronted by evidence - CCTV, witnesses and the company's own publications.

Employers such as FTPE know the likelyhood of any employment tribunal actually criminally punishing a perjurer are minimal - hence why the RMT will cause as much grief as possible before a case heads to a (costly) courtroom.

Well personal views aside, as I may know the said individual
Such disrespect for the law such be taken seriously!
Its sad that we now feel we should protect people committing crime.
The courts are supposed to issue punishments to wrong doers not love and care :/

 

[tony6499]

By charging for tribunals they've made voting for strikes a legitimate means to achieve justice

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Well personal views aside, as I may know the said individual. Such disrespect for the law such be taken seriously! Its sad that we now feel we should protect people committing crime. The courts are supposed to issue punishments to wrong doers not love and care :/

Once what occurred is fully known, the days as a lay magistrate of the individual in the link that you submitted with your posting will surely come to a very speedy end.

 

[Boothby97]

This situation also raises other important questions, such as who is in charge of Grimsby station ? Why were these train surfing suicide candidates there ? Did they have tickets, and if not, how did they gain access ? And regardless of how they happened to be there, why weren't they removed, or ordered to leave, given their behaviour ?

Grimsby Town station does not have ticket barriers so therefore is an open station, to access the platforms you can either walk through the ticket office or through a gate behind the buildings (this gate is used for passenger access when the ticket office is closed which shuts around 8pm IIRC).

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Yesterday while waiting for the 7mins delayed 19:48 train to Cleethorpes there were people messing around on the platform with scooters (the kiddy type not motored) almost falling onto the track at Grimsby Town.

I'm now certain the station needs later staff as the station buildings were shut from at least as early as 7:30pm yesterday..
In Merseyside most stations are staffed all though service times.

 

[monoboy]

2 things got this man the sack,
1 reporting the incident himself, as I have been told if he had not, no one would of known,
2 having his head out of the drop down window,( no requirement to do this).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yesterday while waiting for the 7mins delayed 19:48 train to Cleethorpes there were people messing around on the platform with scooters (the kiddy type not motored) almost falling onto the track at Grimsby Town.

I'm now certain the station needs later staff as the station buildings were shut from at least as early as 7:30pm yesterday..
In Merseyside most stations are staffed all though service times.

station staffed intervened a few years back to a male with his legs dangling over platform, at Grimsby they were sacked. The held him down while police arrived, despite being backed by BTP TPE sacked them.
TPE mention the dispatch corridor, but not how large this "area" is, and in some cases the train would never leave, if this so called is important why did they stop dispatch staff at Doncaster/Sheffield and now Manchester Airport.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Someone's pointed out to me that most RMT members voted against a strike but most voted for action short of a strike. The action short of a strike includes a ban on volunteering to work Sundays while the RMT are saying there will be strikes on Sundays.

on both action short of strike and strike action the vote was 41 for 4 against, Sundays are not part of working week but are contracted to cover, strange agreement as if they need a Sunday off you cant book annual leave, either find cover or they have to work it, so in effect they are not doing sunday enforced overtime.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Picket line at Cleethorpes planned for tomorrow.

 

[323235]

We have had it on the trams up here in Edinburgh but I've never heard of it on the railway.

There is a picture on the link I've posted.

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.c...-tram-surfers-putting-lives-at-risk-1-3744535

It used to be a craze on Manchester Metrolink too and it was in the news at one point because someone uploaded a video to youtube. The mid Cheshire line was also a hotspot for a while too.

 

[ComUtoR]

2 things got this man the sack,
1 reporting the incident himself, as I have been told if he had not, no one would of known,
2 having his head out of the drop down window,( no requirement to do this).

1. Reporting the incident would never warrant the sack and it is the guards responsibility to report any and all incidents. Are you suggesting that the guard should have covered up the incident and pretended it never happened ? If that would have happened then the guard would be just as fuggered.

2. Irrespective of the guard sticking his head out the window or not that doesn't in any way absolve the guard from what he should have done. As posted by someone with more inside knowledge there is a suggestion that what is posted is not the precise sequence of events. Again it is not this single action that the guard has been sacked for.

The guard failed in his primary responsibility. The duty of care to the passenger. It doesn't matter whom the passenger is or what they are doing. What the guard did was place the life of the passenger at direct risk. By allowing the train to continue knowing the passenger was holding the train is what has caused the sacking. His job was to stop the train. He didn't do that.

 

[Temple Meads]

Oh and he spat at a passenger. The spitting alone I would certainly consider gross misconduct.

I thought it was the other way round?

From the RMT release quoted in the opening post:

the youth who had been clinging to the train then directed foul and abusive language at the RMT member and spat at him, but luckily missed

 

[ComUtoR]

I thought it was the other way round?

From the RMT release quoted in the opening post:

I stand corrected.

 

[monoboy]

. Reporting the incident would never warrant the sack and it is the guards responsibility to report any and all incidents. Are you suggesting that the guard should have covered up the incident and pretended it never happened ?

correct, management would not of know

 

[ComUtoR]

correct, management would not of know

One of the worst attitudes of any railway employee is that of "none saw, none know, it didn't happen."

Network Rail have taken a very severe stance on non reporting and we are being hammered about it on a regular basis. It is a fundamental part of our jobs.

There is always a "what if.." and the problem with the modern world we live in is that people are always out there watching, tweeting, filming, and using other various forms of social media. Chuck in data recorders and CCTV and you are taking a risk by not reporting. One of the reasons why you report is that "getting caught" will almost certainly lose you your job.

To highlight another reason why it is important to report is that it is safer for the public. Whilst I get frustrated with the social intrusion and camera happy busy bodies I do see positives coming from their actions.

There is another thread floating on her where a Guard lost his temper at a member of the public. Yes there were circumstances involved but poor behavior and unsafe working practices need to be highlighted and stamped out.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Picket line at Cleethorpes planned for tomorrow.

How did matters go there last Saturday?