Hull Trains Strike over dismissal

[piers1234]

Any one with inside information know if the repointing of said Aslef district organiser(hull trains) to a different company has any bearing on the strike issue being resolved?

 

[mpthomson]

It's not the first time FirstGroup have sacked someone who raised concerns about safety. At a business-critical time for FirstGroup, with the future of Open Access in question, it was particularly stupid to take on the union and stick FG's dirty washing on the line for all to see.

Reminds me of the case some years ago where FirstGroup sacked a driver, a troublesome ASLEF Health & Safety rep for making a false report - namely that his train's horn didn't work and could have killed track workers. The train was cancelled, brought into a depot, and the horn worked fine*

*oh, after the ice blocking it defrosted in the nice warm depot.

This isn't what happened in this instance...

 

[fabs]

It's not the first time FirstGroup have sacked someone who raised concerns about safety. At a business-critical time for FirstGroup, with the future of Open Access in question, it was particularly stupid to take on the union and stick FG's dirty washing on the line for all to see.

Reminds me of the case some years ago where FirstGroup sacked a driver, a troublesome ASLEF Health & Safety rep for making a false report - namely that his train's horn didn't work and could have killed track workers. The train was cancelled, brought into a depot, and the horn worked fine*

*oh, after the ice blocking it defrosted in the nice warm depot.

That rep may have been sacked for making a false report. But the report was not for what you are saying it was (and it was false).

 

[Tetchytyke]

Employment Tribunals are, largely, useless where there is any hint of grey in a decision.

ETs can usually only decide that a dismissal is unlawful if no reasonable employer would ever have come to the conclusion that they did, or if the decision was made due to a protected characteristic.

I think it is increasingly clear that trade unions no longer have any faith in the ET process. I can't say that I particularly blame them.

I have no inside knowledge but I suspect that First have now written a cheque which is sufficiently large to draw a line under the dispute. My immediate question would be why didn't they write that cheque a year ago and save all this mess, but we are where we are. Perhaps the cheque is smaller now than it was a year ago, or perhaps the driver has been ground down enough to take the money and move on with life.

As for the longer-term repercussions, it can't be a good mess room atmosphere now that half the drivers have seemingly left ASLEF, judging by the vote results. Presumably they've left either for another trade union or no trade union. These things do fester. It'll be interesting to see what happens if those drivers ever get into a dispute with First...

 

[mpthomson]

Employment Tribunals are, largely, useless where there is any hint of grey in a decision.

ETs can usually only decide that a dismissal is unlawful if no reasonable employer would ever have come to the conclusion that they did, or if the decision was made due to a protected characteristic.

A perfect example of that was a couple of weeks ago, with a Metroline bus driver in London being sacked for getting out of his cab when a passenger was mugged. The police labelled him a hero and the police position was that he attacked first by the mugger. But the bus company manager thought otherwise and decided that he'd hit the mugger- who was apparently coming to apologise- first. The ET decided that the decision to dismiss was within the range of decisions that an employer acting reasonably could come to.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6977768e3fd50ac304b79732/Mr_Mark_Hehir_v_METROLINE_LTD_6018181_2024_Reserved_Judgment.pdf

I think it is increasingly clear that trade unions no longer have any faith in the ET process. I can't say that I particularly blame them.

I have no inside knowledge but I suspect that First have now written a cheque which is sufficiently large to draw a line under the dispute. My immediate question would be why didn't they write that cheque a year ago and save all this mess, but we are where we are. Perhaps the cheque is smaller now than it was a year ago, or perhaps the driver has been ground down enough to take the money and move on with life.

As for the longer-term repercussions, it can't be a good mess room atmosphere now that half the drivers have seemingly left ASLEF, judging by the vote results. Presumably they've left either for another trade union or no trade union. These things do fester. It'll be interesting to see what happens if those drivers ever get into a dispute with First...

They aren’t remotely useless. They don't exist to overturn decisions that people don't like. They’re about whether companies followed their own policies and acted reasonably and fairly in accordance with them most of the time. If they did and the employee should have understood that then the tribunal won’t succeed. Not liking the policies in place (and as long as they’re lawfuland reasonable), whether union or interested observer, doesn’t change that. Tribunals don’t exist to dictate policy to employers, other than that the policies are lawful/ non-discriminatory etc.

The number of successful claims by employees increased over the last two years of data available, both in number and as a proportion of the total.

 

[officewalla]

Employment Tribunals are, largely, useless where there is any hint of grey in a decision.

ETs can usually only decide that a dismissal is unlawful if no reasonable employer would ever have come to the conclusion that they did, or if the decision was made due to a protected characteristic.

I think it is increasingly clear that trade unions no longer have any faith in the ET process. I can't say that I particularly blame them.

I have no inside knowledge but I suspect that First have now written a cheque which is sufficiently large to draw a line under the dispute. My immediate question would be why didn't they write that cheque a year ago and save all this mess, but we are where we are. Perhaps the cheque is smaller now than it was a year ago, or perhaps the driver has been ground down enough to take the money and move on with life.

As for the longer-term repercussions, it can't be a good mess room atmosphere now that half the drivers have seemingly left ASLEF, judging by the vote results. Presumably they've left either for another trade union or no trade union. These things do fester. It'll be interesting to see what happens if those drivers ever get into a dispute with First...

Why would there need to be a presumed atmosphere in the messroom?

People are free to join, not join or leave any organisation that they wish. An individual's status as a union member or not is their own business and should not be made public knowledge. Any repercussions based upon membership of a union or not would almost certainly be seen as bullying in the workplace which could expose individuals to a world of pain if proven. Whether the driver was retired on medical grounds or not is none of our business.

However, if said driver was prone to 'sleeping at the wheel', then that individual and ASLEF cannot possibly be surprised if he was then removed from the driver grade on safety grounds. From my outside position, this looks very much like ASLEF tried to flex its muscles and was found to be more of a paper tiger when challenged.

The fact that a large percentage of drivers locally have left ASLEF suggests that there never was much of a case to answer except in the ideological union v management world.

 

[leonie13]

Why would there need to be a presumed atmosphere in the messroom?

People are free to join, not join or leave any organisation that they wish.

Unions can be very tribal - particularly within depots and/or messrooms. A 'split pack' can potentially weaken a messroom/depot when it comes to future IR negotiations. I can't imagine any individual would ever resort to the bullying you suggest, but the messroom could potentially become awkward in the aftermath of such an incident, especially having lost so many members.

 

[PLY2AYS]

Why would there need to be a presumed atmosphere in the messroom?

One would hope that those who left the union never find themselves in the same position as the driver at the centre of this dispute.

 

[66701GBRF]

What exactly is the win here, and what have the striking staff got out of it?

 

[PLY2AYS]

What exactly is the win here, and what have the striking staff got out of it?

Solidarity with the colleague over an unlawful dismissal. I think that’s pretty clear, happy to be corrected though.

 

[snookertam]

As for the longer-term repercussions, it can't be a good mess room atmosphere now that half the drivers have seemingly left ASLEF, judging by the vote results. Presumably they've left either for another trade union or no trade union. These things do fester. It'll be interesting to see what happens if those drivers ever get into a dispute with First...

Protection racket culture.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Feb 2026 ==

One would hope that those who left the union never find themselves in the same position as the driver at the centre of this dispute.

Brilliant. No self reflection. The protection racket is always right.

Bully boy bothy culture. That’s all ASLEF want to maintain.

 

[PLY2AYS]

Protection racket culture.

Brilliant. No self reflection. The protection racket is always right.

Bully boy bothy culture. That’s all ASLEF want to maintain.

Clearly you’re not a driver…

 

[snookertam]

Clearly you’re not a driver…

Yes exactly, because it’s only drivers who matter eh?

Everyone else gets shouted down and bullied out the way. School playground antics. Loudest and most threatening voice wins.

 

[PLY2AYS]

Yes exactly, because it’s only drivers who matter eh?

Everyone else gets shouted down and bullied out the way. School playground antics. Loudest and most threatening voice wins.

It’s ASLEF.

Of course they only represent drivers…

I’m struggling to see what mental gymnastics you’ve gone through to bring other grades into the discussion.

But thank you for admitting you’ve no experience with the grade or union.

 

[AlterEgo]

Yes exactly, because it’s only drivers who matter eh?

It's only them who would matter to ASLEF, yes; they are train drivers' union after all. That is how unions work.

 

[mpthomson]

Solidarity with the colleague over an unlawful dismissal. I think that’s pretty clear, happy to be corrected though.

It clearly wasn't unlawful as otherwise it would have been taken to tribunal. There's a reason why it hasn't been. ASLEF not liking a dismissal doesn't make it unlawful.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Feb 2026 ==

What exactly is the win here, and what have the striking staff got out of it?

If the information about a significant number of drivers having left ASLEF over this issue is correct then no-one has won, certainly not the driver involved and ASLEF as well.

 

[PLY2AYS]

It clearly wasn't unlawful as otherwise it would have been taken to tribunal. There's a reason why it hasn't been. ASLEF not liking a dismissal doesn't make it unlawful.

IIRC only 3% of unlawful dismissals make it to tribunal.
The remainder are settled.

Finalising a settlement outside of tribunal is beneficial to all parties in this instance. It is obvious that the relationship between employer and employee has irrevocably broken down… so reinstatement is off the table.
Which only leaves a settlement and curtails any further/impending strike action.

 

[Ian Hardy]

IIRC only 3% of unlawful dismissals make it to tribunal.
The remainder are settled.

Finalising a settlement outside of tribunal is beneficial to all parties in this instance. It is obvious that the relationship between employer and employee has irrevocably broken down… so reinstatement is off the table.
Which only leaves a settlement and curtails any further/impending strike action.

The only real winners in Industrial Tribunals are the legal profession as their costs are so high.
Which is why unions only start legal proceedings if there is a greater than 50%, some unions set the bar even higher at 75% chance of winning the case, because if the union looses, they will have to pay the employers legal costs as well as their own.

 

[VItraveller]

“One would hope that those who left the union never find themselves in the same position as the driver at the centre of this dispute.”

as someone who enjoys travelling by train regularly, but would feel a lot less safe if I knew that the driver driving my train had a history of falling asleep, I would also hope that they don’t find themselves in the same position.

 

[mpthomson]

IIRC only 3% of unlawful dismissals make it to tribunal.
The remainder are settled.

Finalising a settlement outside of tribunal is beneficial to all parties in this instance. It is obvious that the relationship between employer and employee has irrevocably broken down… so reinstatement is off the table.
Which only leaves a settlement and curtails any further/impending strike action.

Which doesn’t make this dismissal unlawful… and no dismissal is unlawful unless it’s been deemed to be so by a tribunal. A company choosing to settle doesn’t mean it’s unlawful either.

 

[PLY2AYS]

Which doesn’t make this dismissal unlawful… and no dismissal is unlawful unless it’s been deemed to be so by a tribunal. A company choosing to settle doesn’t mean it’s unlawful either.

It also doesn’t mean it’s lawful.
But given that the company were happy to settle, that is most telling.

Else they’d happily have gone to court and won, wouldn’t they…

 

[TheLastMinute]

It also doesn’t mean it’s lawful.
But given that the company were happy to settle, that is most telling.

Else they’d happily have gone to court and won, wouldn’t they…

Also, the fact that HT settled (if indeed they did) doesn't mean the sacking was unlawful either. Fact is we just don't know. All I can say for sure is that, because of human nature being what it is, it's very possible that one side or another was being unreasonable. At the end of the day, some companies and/or managers take the micky, just as some TU reps and/or branches also take the micky. One doesn't invalidate the other.

 

[whoosh]

As for the longer-term repercussions, it can't be a good mess room atmosphere now that half the drivers have seemingly left ASLEF, judging by the vote results.

It may have been that the vast majority of drivers thought the sacking was unreasonable, but as the dispute went on and on, lost their faith in the amount of leverage the union thought it had, what with driver managers being used. My experience with a strike when with East Midlands Trains, was that South West Trains (also Stagecoach at the time) managers were parachuted in and trained on traction and route to undermine the strike action taking place.

East Midland Trains had far more daily services than Hull Trains though.

First have plenty of TOCs and Lumo to borrow managers from.

 

[PLY2AYS]

The driver aired a safety concern during a safety brief and admitted fatigue getting the better of him.
The company fired him without following their own agreed formal procedure/practices.

The safety record of the driver was, according to ASLEF; “without incident”.

It was indeed unlawful, given that due process was not followed and there was no evidence for grounds to fire aside from an informal/passing comment from the driver himself.

If someone has more accurate information however, I’ll happily concede, but none seem to be too forthcoming, only sceptical of the integrity of the union, who have represented and defended the driver and won him a settlement out of court.

 

[AlterEgo]

The only real winners in Industrial Tribunals are the legal profession as their costs are so high.
Which is why unions only start legal proceedings if there is a greater than 50%, some unions set the bar even higher at 75% chance of winning the case, because if the union looses, they will have to pay the employers legal costs as well as their own.

That is not correct. Costs are rarely awarded.

It also doesn’t mean it’s lawful.
But given that the company were happy to settle, that is most telling.

Else they’d happily have gone to court and won, wouldn’t they…

No, that's just as daft a statement as:

It clearly wasn't unlawful as otherwise it would have been taken to tribunal.

You can't deem the lawfulness of a disciplinary action based on whether a complainant or employee decides to go to a tribunal or not. Hot air.

 

[hornbeampark]

I am not in a position to analyse the lawfulness of the drivers dismissal.

What I will say, for what it’s worth, is that I am proud of the union for protecting their member and I hope my union would do the same for me if I ever needed it too.

Hull Trains is represented it is only fair for the driver to also be represented.

This type of action is not unique to train drivers or ASLEF.

 

[fishwomp]

The safety record of the driver was, according to ASLEF; “without incident”.

In the immortal words of Alan Partridge, "Oh yeah, people go on about Titanic, Titanic... Let me tell you something about the Titanic, people forget, people forget that on the Titanic's maiden voyage there were over 1000 miles of uneventful, very pleasurable cruising before it hit the iceberg!"

You don't wait for an accident.

It was indeed unlawful, given that due process was not followed and there was no evidence for grounds to fire aside from an informal/passing comment from the driver himself.

If it was unlawful, then compensation for lack of following the process doesn't necessarily mean the outcome is wrong, just that it was unfairly reached. Everyone has a right to a fair process.

 

[PLY2AYS]

No, that's just as daft a statement as:


You can't deem the lawfulness of a disciplinary action based on whether a complainant or employee decides to go to a tribunal or not. Hot air.

I’m glad it landed with someone

 

[NSEWonderer]

In the immortal words of Alan Partridge, "Oh yeah, people go on about Titanic, Titanic... Let me tell you something about the Titanic, people forget, people forget that on the Titanic's maiden voyage there were over 1000 miles of uneventful, very pleasurable cruising before it hit the iceberg!"

You don't wait for an accident.

So we should sack people based on the assumption that they're likely to have an incident? In essence is what your saying????

 

[AverageJoe]

There also needs to be a balance when it comes to protecting a driver and protecting ‘drivers’.

I know no details of this case so I’m not referring to it specifically but like some have said I also really appreciate the support we get from the union. But the union also needs to be careful that it doesn’t put fellow paying members in danger just to protect a single member who may be a risk as we ourselves may have to be passengers during our work day or leisure travel.

Of course the safety of passengers is highly important too.