Article in Private Eye - GTR Driver wins Employment Tribunal over safety issues and whistleblowing

[BR1]

Interesting article in the current edition of Private Eye (Issue 1658)...

---

TRAIN SAFETY Driver blindsided

SENIOR leaders at Govia Thameslink, Britain's biggest railway franchise (and one of the worst-performing) have been hauled over the coals by an employment tribunal judge for covering up a reported safety issue and conspiring to silence the whistleblower. Experienced train driver Lee Blake- White first reported concerns in early 2021 about the noise from the heating, ventilation and aircon system (HVAC) in the cab of a fleet of class 377s. As well as making it uncomfortable, he warned, it could be dangerous, affecting concentration and leading to hearing damage. He also alerted bosses to excessively loud alarms that drivers had sought to muffle.

Instead of investigating, a cabal of managers colluded to make Blake-White the problem - and make that problem go away. They removed him from driving duties and sought to manage him out on medical grounds, saying he was the problem, not the trains, and lying that his had been the only complaint, in order to avoid potentially expensive and disruptive repairs.

Four years later, Blake-White has won an employment tribunal that revealed a worrying culture of profit over safety at Govia, which runs Thameslink, Gatwick Express, Great Northern and Southern.

In her excoriating judgment, Judge Navdip Wilson found that the overriding concern of some of the Govia team was the fear that a "real issue" with HVAC could have "significant operational and financial implications"

In his written and oral evidence, Govia health and safety specialist Dominic Morrow persistently denied having heard any similar complaints and sought to minimise his role in the campaign to bury it. Judge Wilson found him evasive and "disingenuous at best", and said email trails showed he knew that driver trainers had previously reported being unable to instruct trainees over the racket. Other drivers had physically bent back the covering of circuit breakers to disable the HVAC system manually, even though that would cut off the fresh air they might need to stay alert.

"Arguably this alone would have alerted a reasonable employer of a more widespread issue with the HVAC system for drivers," said Judge Wilson. Govia simply strengthened the metal covering.

The judge found that driver manager Angela Toase was "content" to ignore the evidence of multiple complaints so she and others could "feed a narrative that the issue was a claimant issue whether that be due to his lack of resilience... or for his acute good hearing." She added: "None of this stacks up against the factual background." She concluded that the issue would have been the subject of conversations which were not recorded between the leadership, and asked why Toase had brought in HR when Blake-White had made a protected disclosure, saying Toase's primary concern had been that he would "keep on about this"

Train drivers' union Aslef called the management behaviour "despicable". General secretary Mick Whelan added: "Rarely have we seen such an overwhelming judgment in favour of someone brave enough to raise concerns with a company. We are proud of our member, but do wonder how many others are forced out of our industry by companies putting profits before safety."

Toase, who admitted censoring Blake-White's name from emails to avoid detection in case of any later action, retired earlier this year.

A Govia Thameslink Railways spokesperson denied there had been any conspiracy, and said the whistleblower was still in employment and noise issues were "independently investigated by an external company and the investigation confirmed that there was no further action necessary". There was no mention of any independent investigation in the tribunal judgment. Mr Blake-White told the Eye: "In 2021

I raised a number of serious safety concerns to my employer, affecting not just me, but the wider train driver population and passenger safety. The tribunal found that my detrimental treatment was materially influenced because I raised these concerns. The judgment was clear and unambiguous, and I will be forever grateful that justice has prevailed."

---

I spotted this in a recent Reddit post. Along with the article is a link to the public judgement which has not yet been uploaded to the government website but can be found attached or here: PUBLIC JUDGEMENT

 

[Vexed]

From the perspective of someone outside the industry, the safety culture in GTR (or at least attitudes of the staff involved) looks to be disappointing. Noise in cabs isn't an isolated issue - for example 66s are known to be pretty bad and there are lots of issues with track noise on LU. If more drivers were as concerned as the claimant, I'm sure Aslef would be kicking up more of a fuss.

 

[Starmill]

The remedy plus costs order here will be substantial given the issues and the finding I think. Could be many hundreds of thousands once GTR's own legal costs are included. All costs to be met by public funding of course, and all because some operational managers decided they didn't feel like doing their job, and that it would be much easier to break the law.

This is the sort of judgement that should scare the pants off all medium and large employers. Even if they care not a jot for the wellbeing of their employees, the safety of the general public and their good standing in the marketplace. Even with no compensation at all there are likely to be significant legal costs if you lose a case like this.

 

[JamesT]

From the perspective of someone outside the industry, the safety culture in GTR (or at least attitudes of the staff involved) looks to be disappointing. Noise in cabs isn't an isolated issue - for example 66s are known to be pretty bad and there are lots of issues with track noise on LU. If more drivers were as concerned as the claimant, I'm sure Aslef would be kicking up more of a fuss.

As we’ve seen from the (non) introduction of some stock, the Unions are heavily involved in the acceptance process for new trains. That they’re in service would indicate they were signed off as acceptable.

 

[ainsworth74]

As we’ve seen from the (non) introduction of some stock, the Unions are heavily involved in the acceptance process for new trains. That they’re in service would indicate they were signed off as acceptable.

Though it strikes me that many of the 377s referred to will be around twenty years old. For one thing what was considered acceptable twenty years ago might not be any more but more to the point things that are twenty years old tend not to work as well as they did when they were brand new. The HVAC units might have been whisper quiet when new, but are they now?

 

[Starmill]

Though it strikes me that many of the 377s referred to will be around twenty years old. For one thing what was considered acceptable twenty years ago might not be any more but more to the point things that are twenty years old tend not to work as well as they did when they were brand new. The HVAC units might have been whisper quiet when new, but are they now?

Indeed. We don't know precisely which batches are in question here, nor when or what overhauls they were given. But original construction work dates back to at least 2001 so...

 

[Tetchytyke]

Your reminder that HR are not your friends and Occupational Health are not your friends. They will all stiff you given half a chance, as Occupational Health seemingly agreed to do so here.

Be interesting what the remedy will be. I suspect it won’t be reinstatement. So why would the managers involved care? They got what they wanted. Looks like he is still in employment, at least.

Something sobering for all those union bashers to consider.

 

[ainsworth74]

Be interesting what the remedy will be. I suspect it won’t be reinstatement. So why would the managers involved care? They got what they wanted.

I am of the impression that driver in question still works for GTR?

 

[Tetchytyke]

I am of the impression that driver in question still works for GTR?

Ah yes, missed that in the pre amble.

 

[Ellwill]

Your reminder that HR are not your friends and Occupational Health are not your friends. They will all stiff you given half a chance, as Occupational Health seemingly agreed to do so here.

Be interesting what the remedy will be. I suspect it won’t be reinstatement. So why would the managers involved care? They got what they wanted. Looks like he is still in employment, at least.

Something sobering for all those union bashers to consider.

The findings of the tribunal largely exonerated Occupational Health as conspirators in this scheme to fire the driver. He requested a referral to them after his disclosures regarding the HVAC and AWS. After a telephone consultation deemed him F2, he disputed this with his DM as what he said had been inaccurately recorded. DM should have referred him back to OH for further review. Instead she used it as justification to suspend him from duty despite no previous concerns raised at any point before the referral, and then later sought to railroad him into a capability assessment in an effort to provide justification for his dismissal.

We make no findings that OH were involved in any plot. We have no evidence that points to this at all. But what we do have is the respondent allowing something which they knew the claimant was saying had been inaccurately recorded in the OH report to be used to support moving the claimant along to a capability process.

It is clearly detrimental treatment to try and drive a particular OH outcome which can ultimately be used to move one along to a capability route which could result in the end of one’s employment. Further we find that a hypothetical comparator would not have been treated in the same way had they disputed an OH report.

 

[Trackman]

Is this the same whistleblower case we had on the forums about 6 months ago or so?
It wasn't disclosed what had happened then.

 

[RiverDon]

Though it strikes me that many of the 377s referred to will be around twenty years old. For one thing what was considered acceptable twenty years ago might not be any more but more to the point things that are twenty years old tend not to work as well as they did when they were brand new. The HVAC units might have been whisper quiet when new, but are they now?

I don't know if a class 377 is similar but on the class 170s my company has the HVAC in the cab is very loud and it can't be switched off, even the circuit breaker has a cover over it so it can't be accessed by the driver. The fan noise above your head can be quite deafening after a few minutes and I was surprised when I first went in a cab at how loud it is. The AWS noise is also very loud on the class 170 but obviously thats only for a second or two at a time. Also the buzzer from the conductor on some class 170s is ridiculously loud!

 

[Undiscovered]

I don't know if a class 377 is similar but on the class 170s my company has the HVAC in the cab is very loud and it can't be switched off, even the circuit breaker has a cover over it so it can't be accessed by the driver. The fan noise above your head can be quite deafening after a few minutes and I was surprised when I first went in a cab at how loud it is.

Ah, the same HVAC that blows directly on your head, and can't be stopped? Very irritating. A copy of Metro and some sticky tape provides an excellent solution.
More worrying is the black dust that gathers around the HVAC outlets. Some of that is inevitably going into your lungs and goodness knows how long the filters have been in place, or when, they were last cleaned, if ever. Filthy cabs those 170s.

 

[PupCuff]

On the cab noise front, at one operator - no names mentioned, may or may not be already in this thread - some of a train class the type of AWS horn fitted is deafening and on others in the same class the type of AWS horn fitted is basically inaudible.

Can't you maybe perhaps order some more of the sounder that can be heard over wind noise instead of the one that can't, so we have fewer missed AWSes?

Ahhh, no, only a wee daftie would suggest that - it's the railway - when they're replaced the inaudible ones have to get replaced with new inaudible ones.....

 

[styles]

I find it really hard with some of these cases, to get into the mindset of let's just try and bury this.

I've been a manager before and if somebody came to me with what appears to be a health concern, or even in this case a safety concern, I would, and indeed have, prioritise it. Yes there may be a cost to the company in doing some retrospective change to an HVAC system, but if it needs to be done, so be it.

Even if I drop any sort of empathy, it doesn't make sense from a financial point or view. Staff having to take time off or retire early or as in this case having to give a payout to a wronged staff member and still potentially have to make the modifications to the stock anyway. It just doesn't even make financial sense.

In one of my volunteering roles I handle safeguarding complaints of children. In don't want to suggest a noise complaint is the same as a safeguarding complaint from a child, but I just wonder like, are there managers out there who would just sweep a safeguarding complaint under the carpet to save a fallout or the cost of reviewing and possibly changing a young person safeguarding policy? It's totally bizarre to me the actions of some managers when safety issues crop up.

 

[Ellwill]

Though it strikes me that many of the 377s referred to will be around twenty years old.

Not the case, the issues are specifically with the /6 & /7 subclasses manufactured from 2012 onwards.

 

[Flying Snail]

I find it really hard with some of these cases, to get into the mindset of let's just try and bury this.

I've been a manager before and if somebody came to me with what appears to be a health concern, or even in this case a safety concern, I would, and indeed have, prioritise it. Yes there may be a cost to the company in doing some retrospective change to an HVAC system, but if it needs to be done, so be it.

Even if I drop any sort of empathy, it doesn't make sense from a financial point or view. Staff having to take time off or retire early or as in this case having to give a payout to a wronged staff member and still potentially have to make the modifications to the stock anyway. It just doesn't even make financial sense.

In one of my volunteering roles I handle safeguarding complaints of children. In don't want to suggest a noise complaint is the same as a safeguarding complaint from a child, but I just wonder like, are there managers out there who would just sweep a safeguarding complaint under the carpet to save a fallout or the cost of reviewing and possibly changing a young person safeguarding policy? It's totally bizarre to me the actions of some managers when safety issues crop up.

If you haven't ever worked somewhere that has that sort of toxic management behaviour then you have lived a charmed life.

My experience is more than 50% of management I have had the displeasure of working for/with would behave like that or worse, over 30 years maybe 3 managers I have dealt with I would have trusted to be bothered competent and genuinely interested in staff welfare above other concerns.

In many cases it is a top down culture where senior management impose the rot down as company policy but it is also common to get individual managers who take it upon themselves to behave this way.

 

[styles]

If you haven't ever worked somewhere that has that sort of toxic management behaviour then you have lived a charmed life.

My experience is more than 50% of management I have had the displeasure of working for/with would behave like that or worse, over 30 years maybe 3 managers I have dealt with I would have trusted to be bothered competent and genuinely interested in staff welfare above other concerns.

In many cases it is a top down culture where senior management impose the rot down as company policy but it is also common to get individual managers who take it upon themselves to behave this way.

One of my early jobs was truly toxic.

I was once late to work because a train was cancelled. My boss refused to believe me even after I sent in a photo of the departure screen on the platform saying cancelled, as apparently he'd been on the National Rail website and it said it was running.

When I got to work, was pulled over to his desk, and he'd spent time on Google Maps and found that I could've got to work just about on time if I'd walked to a bus stop, got a bus to a tram stop, a tram to the main interchange station in the city centre, then caught a non-stopping train from that station to the one near work.

I darent imagine how long it took to calculate that, but I'm certain it wasn't a good use of company time.

Also we didn't have any meetings scheduled for 9am, no software released lined up for that morning, etc. I obviously stayed the extra 20 minutes or whatever it was at the end of the working day, so no work time of mine was lost. This was pre-covid though and the department in question basically required either 8-4 or 9-5 working.

The best thing about this was that we literally worked in the rail industry, so to be so confidently incorrect about a train being cancelled I found amusingly ironic.

You're right about it being top-down. I didn't rate much of the senior management.

Funnily enough, the entire department was disbanded not long after I hear. Proof that such a culture doesn't pay dividends. I know three other devs (about a third of the team) who left in the months after I had so it was clearly a shared view. Had it been a more welcoming place to work I actually would've stuck it out, as we got given decent kit, a hefty budget for training courses etc. In the end it just didn't seem worth it when the highlight of the day was going to the pub and collectively ranting about the latest bizarre things certain managers had said and done.

 

[Tetchytyke]

he findings of the tribunal largely exonerated Occupational Health as conspirators in this scheme to fire the driver.

The wording was very careful: they found no evidence to suggest that Occupational Health were involved in the plot. The Tribunal did not find that they were not involved in the plot.

The issue as to how OH made these mistakes, mistakes which just so happened to assist the managers, remained unexplored.

This is, in my opinion, likely to be because the question as to how OH came to make these mistakes simply wasn't relevant to the pleaded case. The claimant said the OH report was wrong and his managers both ignored him and didn't request a second report. That was enough for the Tribunal to support their findings. Tribunals won't go into the weeds if they don't have to.

I certainly didn't read it as an exoneration!

 

[RT4038]

Likewise, as a manager, you'll be leading a charmed life if you don't come across toxic employees trying to play the Health & Safety card at every turn either to get special attention, run management ragged, get lots of money spent on them, avoid changing working practices / introduction of new equipment, get out of work etc etc.

 

[class442]

Likewise, as a manager, you'll be leading a charmed life if you don't come across toxic employees trying to play the Health & Safety card at every turn either to get special attention, run management ragged, get lots of money spent on them, avoid changing working practices / introduction of new equipment, get out of work etc etc.

I would think managing an employee like that would be even more of a reason to act in a way with said employee that isn't going to cause the company to lose a tribunal...

 

[PrincesWinsdor]

On the cab noise front, at one operator - no names mentioned, may or may not be already in this thread - some of a train class the type of AWS horn fitted is deafening and on others in the same class the type of AWS horn fitted is basically inaudible.

Can't you maybe perhaps order some more of the sounder that can be heard over wind noise instead of the one that can't, so we have fewer missed AWSes?

Ahhh, no, only a wee daftie would suggest that - it's the railway - when they're replaced the inaudible ones have to get replaced with new inaudible ones.....

Perhaps they could standardise the AWS sound by setting a standard volume. Also, do drivers prefer traditional bells or electronic beeps? I'd rather have the AWS sound to be deafening than inaudible.

 

[RT4038]

I would think managing an employee like that would be even more of a reason to act in a way with said employee that isn't going to cause the company to lose a tribunal...

Undoubtedly the safest policy, but this is easy to say when 'to act in a way' is going to take up a lot of your and your colleagues time, whilst under pressure to get lots of other tasks done too. Perhaps some you lose, and many you don't?

 

[sheff1]

If you haven't ever worked somewhere that has that sort of toxic management behaviour then you have lived a charmed life.

Likewise, as a manager, you'll be leading a charmed life if you don't come across toxic employees trying to play the Health & Safety card at every turn

Clearly I have led a doubly charmed life as I have not experienced such behaviour from senior management or anyone I was managing.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Clearly I have led a doubly charmed life as I have not experienced such behaviour from senior management or anyone I was managing.

Believe me. It does happen. I had carriage cleaners at one depot ‘black’ the use of water on ‘safety grounds’. A particularly gullible colleague was persuaded to take a mop with a wooden handle, thoroughly soak the whole thing and then push it into an EMU shoe fuse and get a ‘packet’ to ‘prove’ how dangerous it was. They had already banned vacuum cleaners because the flexes were a ‘tripping hazard’. As units arrived it was a quick ‘brush and pick’ then it was ‘job and knock’.
All with union Safety Rep support.

 

[Jan Mayen]

Believe me. It does happen. I had carriage cleaners at one depot ‘black’ the use of water on ‘safety grounds’. A particularly gullible colleague was persuaded to take a mop with a wooden handle, thoroughly soak the whole thing and then push it into an EMU shoe fuse and get a ‘packet’ to ‘prove’ how dangerous it was. They had already banned vacuum cleaners because the flexes were a ‘tripping hazard’. As units arrived it was a quick ‘brush and pick’ then it was ‘job and knock’.
All with union Safety Rep support.

Sorry, but what does job and knock mean?

 

[Dr Hoo]

Sorry, but what does job and knock mean?

‘All of the work [that we’re willing to do] is complete so we’ll go home [after booking a ‘full’ shift].’

Still being able to get a reasonable night’s sleep, one of the more ‘enterprising’ cleaners was able to run a local market stall flogging, err, surplus and ‘liberated’ BR cleaning materials.

Welcome to BR in the 1980s.

 

[Starmill]

Believe me. It does happen. I had carriage cleaners at one depot ‘black’ the use of water on ‘safety grounds’. A particularly gullible colleague was persuaded to take a mop with a wooden handle, thoroughly soak the whole thing and then push it into an EMU shoe fuse and get a ‘packet’ to ‘prove’ how dangerous it was. They had already banned vacuum cleaners because the flexes were a ‘tripping hazard’. As units arrived it was a quick ‘brush and pick’ then it was ‘job and knock’.
All with union Safety Rep support.

This would be a good bit more persuasive if a cleaner working on the carriage sidings had never lost their life or sustained serious injury. As it stands, the obvious example is the May 2014 case of Wettons Cleaning Services and Southeastern causing the death of a worker at St Leonards West Marina sidings. Each were fined totalling several million pounds. No doubt costs and compensation were also awarded. "But they started it" can't be a defence in law.

 

[Dr Hoo]

This would be a good bit more persuasive if a cleaner working on the carriage sidings had never lost their life or sustained serious injury. As it stands, the obvious example is the May 2014 case of Wettons Cleaning Services and Southeastern causing the death of a worker at St Leonards West Marina sidings. Each were fined totalling several million pounds. No doubt costs and compensation were also awarded. "But they started it" can't be a defence in law.

Having faced and described two third rail electrocutions on these Forums before (and which I’m not going to repeat here) I am well aware of the hazards. It is an awful system and the Electricity at Work 1989 legislation effectively at least banning its significant extension was a major step forward.

However, as the ‘whistleblowing’ actions that I described related to normal cleaning inside trains I am not sure what the relevance is. To be quite clear, it is no part of a carriage cleaner’s duties to use a wet mop with a wooden handle to ‘clean’ shoe fuse boxes from ground level.

Having been removed from managing carriage cleaning depots for many years now, may I take it that there is no modern use of water or corded vacuum cleaners for train interior cleaning, on safety grounds (at least in third rail areas)?

I stand by the thrust of my first post on this thread that IMHO ‘safety concerns’ can be used in an inappropriate manner. (I have no knowledge of and make no comment on HVAC noise in Class 377 cabs.)

 

[Starmill]

Having faced and described two third rail electrocutions on these Forums before (and which I’m not going to repeat here) I am well aware of the hazards. It is an awful system and the Electricity at Work 1989 legislation effectively at least banning its significant extension was a major step forward.

However, as the ‘whistleblowing’ actions that I described related to normal cleaning inside trains I am not sure what the relevance is. To be quite clear, it is no part of a carriage cleaner’s duties to use a wet mop with a wooden handle to ‘clean’ shoe fuse boxes from ground level.

Having been removed from managing carriage cleaning depots for many years now, may I take it that there is no modern use of water or corded vacuum cleaners for train interior cleaning, on safety grounds (at least in third rail areas)?

I stand by the thrust of my first post on this thread that IMHO ‘safety concerns’ can be used in an inappropriate manner. (I have no knowledge of and make no comment on HVAC noise in Class 377 cabs.)

I am fairly sure that ordinary (by which I mean something very similar to what you have for vacuum cleaning in your house) and backpack style vacuum cleaners are in regular use by train presentation staff in various different depots, but I don't know that there's nowhere that wouldn't allow them. Water, I really don't know, but spray bottles and wipes are certainly commonplace.