UK rail minister got engineer sacked for raising safety concerns

[BAFRA77]

That does rather translate as "They were not penalised because they obeyed me" doesn't it.

Lest we forget - his employers were fine with the article until Hendy threatened them.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Given that Dennis had significantly less than 12 months service in his job, he has very little recourse to a tribunal.

As I understand it, you can still claim for unfair dismissal in the first twelve months, albeit the bar is higher.

 

[KNN]

Completely aligned - it comes back to the difference between escalating within the industry, and going public.

Yeah it's this. It's always been this.

There is a difference between "raising safety concerns through the proper channels" and "slagging off an organisation you contract work from on your public platform".

 

[zwk500]

Meanwhile, Gareth Dennis is still jobless

Doesn't he have an academic post? and his various media appearances seem to be keeping him busy.

 

[43066]

As I understand it, you can still claim for unfair dismissal in the first twelve months, albeit the bar is higher.

First two years you can only claim where the dismissal is for an “automatically unfair” reason.

Even if he had more than two years in the job, this is a fairly straightforward case of bringing his employer (or a customer of his employer) into disrepute. So it’s hard to imagine on what grounds he would go to a tribunal.

 

[185]

For which he only has himself to blame. If you fly close to the sun on numerous occasions, sooner or later you’re going to burn.

On the railway, if it's related to reporting safety breaches, the only one self-combusting should be the well-paid guy at the top making threats.

I hope someone funds a civil suit against both Hendy & Network Rail for Mr Dennis, that half-hearted excuse sent yesterday by Hendy sounds worse that something from Ms Victoria Pollard.


Yeah. But no.

 

[43096]

On the railway, if it's related to reporting safety breaches, the only one self-combusting should be the well-paid guy at the top making threats.

Except he wasn’t reporting safety breaches, he was making media comments outside of his area of expertise.

This is not a “whistle blowing” situation.

 

[Harpo]

Even on ‘safety breaches’, Dennis is on shakey ground. ORR had closed out NR’s improvement actions in December 2023 so he’d also need to prove that ORR was wrong and that Euston had remained unsafe after that time.

As discussed before, there’s a difference between feeling unsafe (try walking on a glass floor at height) and something actually being unsafe.

 

[RGM654]

Even on ‘safety breaches’, Dennis is on shakey ground. ORR had closed out NR’s improvement actions in December 2023 so he’d also need to prove that ORR was wrong and that Euston had remained unsafe after that time.

As discussed before, there’s a difference between feeling unsafe (try walking on a glass floor at height) and something actually being unsafe.

Don't the SoS's recent intervention and the resulting 5-point(?) plan confirm that Euston had indeed remained unsafe?

 

[35B]

Don't the SoS's recent intervention and the resulting 5-point(?) plan confirm that Euston had indeed remained unsafe?

That would be difficult to argue given that his dismissal was at a time when the responsible regulator had ruled otherwise.

He dug his own hole by commenting in public, not using industry channels, and putting his employer into a very difficult position with the major customer for whom he worked.

 

[Trainbike46]

Doesn't he have an academic post? and his various media appearances seem to be keeping him busy.

He had an academic post at the college for high speed rail - which has (unfortunately) closed down

 

[Harpo]

Don't the SoS's recent intervention and the resulting 5-point(?) plan confirm that Euston had indeed remained unsafe?

I don’t believe so. I saw the SoS intervention as being about the truly awful customer experience.

As a politician, if she had safety concerns she would instruct ORR to review them, not deal with it personally.

 

[Trainbike46]

Even on ‘safety breaches’, Dennis is on shakey ground. ORR had closed out NR’s improvement actions in December 2023 so he’d also need to prove that ORR was wrong and that Euston had remained unsafe after that time.

As discussed before, there’s a difference between feeling unsafe (try walking on a glass floor at height) and something actually being unsafe.

though the fact that the ORR notice was closed wasn't publicised on the ORR website until after the article was publicised.

Don't the SoS's recent intervention and the resulting 5-point(?) plan confirm that Euston had indeed remained unsafe?

That's how I would see it, but this case is definitely not straightforward. The fact that Gareth had a specific agreement on media with SYSTRA (and I don't think that is public?) likely complicates matters further

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The thread title is somewhat misleading.
Hendy was Chair of Network Rail when the offensive letter was sent.
He was not Rail Minister at the time, though it is of course ironic that he now finds himself in the spotlight for actions in his previous job.

 

[Goldfish62]

I note that Dennis is still jobless. Given his purported talents I'd have thought he would have been snapped up by now...

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

I note that Dennis is still jobless. Given his purported talents I'd have thought he would have been snapped up by now...

I do think he had a very valid and legitimate complaint originally that deserved to be addressed, particularly in a proper court or tribunal.

However, he has tried to play this out in the court of public opinion and was doing absolutely everything to try to blow this up for maximum publicity, including resorting to some more personal attacks on Hendy, unrelated to the issues at Euston.

 

[Starmill]

If I were in the Rail Supplier business I'd see this for what it is, a desperate attempt to avoid scarring and price inflation as a result of the loss of confidence in the buyer. The Rail Minister is right to apologise for his outrageous threats of actions which were likely unlawful, but he clearly isn't giving a serious apology, just one he's been forced into by circumstances. Also if he were sorry he'd have apologised when the allegations against him came to light, not four months later.

 

[Goldfish62]

However, he has tried to play this out in the court of public opinion and was doing absolutely everything to try to blow this up for maximum publicity, including resorting to some more personal attacks on Hendy, unrelated to the issues at Euston.

Exactly. If I were a potential employer I might see the way he's been dealing with this as a liability.

The proper forum is an employment tribunal and not, as you say, the court of public opinion. It's actually rather immature the way he's been carrying on.

 

[35B]

Exactly. If I were a potential employer I might see the way he's been dealing with this as a liability.

The proper forum is an employment tribunal and not, as you say, the court of public opinion. It's actually rather immature the way he's been carrying on.

And noticing where his book has been reviewed, and the type of reviews it's received, I suspect his appeal is rather more limited.

Political activism and client facing jobs dealing with the subjects of activism don't go well together.

 

[43096]

I do think he had a very valid and legitimate complaint originally that deserved to be addressed, particularly in a proper court or tribunal.

He didn’t. He wasn’t a whistle blower. He hasn’t got a leg to stand on with this.

 

[josh-j]

Yeah it's this. It's always been this.

There is a difference between "raising safety concerns through the proper channels" and "slagging off an organisation you contract work from on your public platform".

The issue has only had any attention from public pressure though. NR must have been aware of the issues and have done nothing. That's what Hendy should be apologising for, regardless of the nuances of what happened to Gareth (and I don't think theres any mince really, Hendy shouldn't have made the threat, what Gareth said was very mild and common knowledge. He didn't criticise NR.)

 

[35B]

The issue has only had any attention from public pressure though. NR must have been aware of the issues and have done nothing. That's what Hendy should be apologising for, regardless of the nuances of what happened to Gareth (and I don't think theres any mince really, Hendy shouldn't have made the threat, what Gareth said was very mild and common knowledge. He didn't criticise NR.)

An employee made a statement about a major customer of his firm, in a public forum, being represented as an expert in a field that he wasn't actually expert in. That crossed an absolute red line. If I did so and it was tolerated by my employer for some reason, I would still expect serious comeback if the customer complained about me - and in all likelihood gross misconduct proceedings. Social media let or not.

It is irrelevant whether (a) I think Hendy over-reacted or (b) what I think of the objective truth of what he said about Euston. The consequences of those are separate.

 

[josh-j]

The employer was fine with the employee saying what he said. I could understand Hendy complaining to them and I guess wanting them to change that policy, but not him pressuring them to specifically get rid of their employee who was acting within what was agreed. As Hendy himself said, who they employ is up to them - but there is plenty of evidence that Hendy was out specifically to get rid of Gareth, rather than simply getting Systra to change their approach.

I think we're losing sight of the fact it seems take public pressure to get issues addressed now, rather than NR acting because it's the right thing to do.

And regardless of employment contracts, engineers should be able to speak out about safety issues in public. I think that's fairly straightforward regardless of the letter of the law.

I do appreciate not everyone is a fan of Gareth but I don't think that matters. He's been made the fall guy for an obvious structural failing.

 

[43066]

An employee made a statement about a major customer of his firm, in a public forum, being represented as an expert in a field that he wasn't actually expert in. That crossed an absolute red line. If I did so and it was tolerated by my employer for some reason, I would still expect serious comeback if the customer complained about me - and in all likelihood gross misconduct proceedings. Social media let or not.

It is irrelevant whether (a) I think Hendy over-reacted or (b) what I think of the objective truth of what he said about Euston. The consequences of those are separate.

Absolutely.

I realise Euston is a bit of a hot potato on the forum at the moment, but it’s odd that so many seem to struggle with what are basic bread and butter concepts of modern employment. If I went online and started accusing my employer of being unsafe, I’d expect to be sacked for it. End of. Safety concerns can be raised through the proper channels.

The employer was fine with the employee saying what he said.

Well they weren’t, in the end, because they sacked him for it.

 

[josh-j]

Absolutely.

I realise Euston is a bit of a hot potato on the forum at the moment, but it’s odd that so many struggle with that are basic bread and butter concepts of modern employment. If I went online and started accusing my employer of being unsafe, I’d expect to be sacked for it. End of. Safety concerns can be raised through the proper channels.



Well they weren’t, in the end, because they sacked him for it.

If Systra is happy to turn around and change what they find acceptable for their employees to do after they've already given the green light and the event has happened, then probably any other engineers working for them should be looking for employment elsewhere if they can.

 

[43066]

Gareth's agreement was with his employer. If Systra is happy to turn around and change what they find acceptable for their employees to do after they've already given the green light and the event has happened, then probably any other engineers working for them should be looking for employment elsewhere if they can.

Yes, and he criticised a client of his employer who pays them millions per year. Is it really so hard to understand why they fired him?

And do we know for sure that they gave a green light to his comments? I rather doubt that.

 

[Iskra]

Exactly. If I were a potential employer I might see the way he's been dealing with this as a liability.

The proper forum is an employment tribunal and not, as you say, the court of public opinion. It's actually rather immature the way he's been carrying on.

He doesn't have the right to one, as has already been pointed out. You need two years of continuous employment for one of those. He has therefore; justifiably fought back the only way he can, and he's done a reasonable job under difficult circumstances. While I am no great fan of Mr Dennis, I'm also not a fan of shady letters leading to summary dismissal or corruption in public office, so wish him well with his counter-smearing of Hendy who is not a fit and proper person for the role he holds.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Nov 2024 ==

Yes, and he criticised a client of his employer who pays them millions per year. Is it really so hard to understand why they fired him?

While it was perhaps a little unwise or naïve, as far as criticism goes it was pretty measured. Hendy's response was hardly reasonable, proportionate or professional.

 

[43066]

While it was perhaps a little unwise or naïve, as far as criticism goes it was pretty measured. Hendy's response was hardly reasonable, proportionate or professional.

It wasn’t his place to criticise a client of his employer publicly on social media. Whether the criticism was measured or justified is irrelevant. There are internal channels to raise these issues.

Regarding Hendy’s response, I probably agree with you, but that isn’t relevant to the decision to terminate him. The employer’s duty is ultimately to their shareholders.

He knew what he was doing, in any case. He presumably calculated that it was worth it to him to boost his notoriety and popularity on various social media platforms.

 

[Wolfie]

He doesn't have the right to one, as has already been pointed out. You need two years of continuous employment for one of those. He has therefore; justifiably fought back the only way he can, and he's done a reasonable job under difficult circumstances. While I am no great fan of Mr Dennis, I'm also not a fan of shady letters leading to summary dismissal or corruption in public office, so wish him well with his counter-smearing of Hendy who is not a fit and proper person for the role he holds.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Nov 2024 ==


While it was perhaps a little unwise or naïve, as far as criticism goes it was pretty measured. Hendy's response was hardly reasonable, proportionate or professional.

Hendy used dubious means to achieve a questionable end. It absolutely serves him right if similar means are used against him and further undermine an already shop-soiled reputation. Live by the sword.....

 

[josh-j]

Yes, and he criticised a client of his employer who pays them millions per year. Is it really so hard to understand why they fired him?

And do we know for sure that they gave a green light to his comments? I rather doubt that.

I don't personally know tbh - I think it's what he has said that's all. Although in any case he didn't criticise NR he just said the situation was unsafe.

I do certainly concede that criticising a client isn't going to go down well generally with many employers. But it's a bit different when the client is a public body who apparently deliberately ignored safety concerns.