Grimsby train worker sacked, TPE South staff plan strike.

[Bletchleyite]

Rules are primarily based on past experiences; sometimes things happen that don't exactly fit into the rules or would benefit from a more flexible approach.

Last year a 3-year old fell into the Mersey from a ferry. A crew member dived in and undoubtedly saved her life.
You may condemn him for breaking the rules, but not many would share your opinion, and he wasn't sacked for it.

Presumably the normal "man overboard" procedure involves initially throwing a lifebuoy so they can grab onto it. But a 3 year old might not do that as they might not properly understand what is going on. So it would seem to me that the ferry company should have a procedure for dealing with an "insensible" (effectively) man overboard like a 3 year old. I wonder what it is?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

On a slightly related note, SYPTE have released a poster about tram surfing.

Can't help but think that that might give ideas about how you could tram-surf, while I have never done so nor had any intention[1] of doing so I had never thought of the idea of standing on the coupler - same for those who would?

[1] In the UK. I have travelled on the outside (well, hanging from the open door) of trains in countries (Thailand for one) where this is usual practice.

 

[joeh917]

I don't know if any of you are familiar with Grimsby Railway Station but their is a rail crossing right outside and when the front of the train reaches the crossing gates the back of the train if their are 4 coaches will still be on the end of the platform. Now it often seems to take an age for those crossing gates to lift as everyone has to wait for the train to pass but if the guard had done what many are suggesting how long would that have held up traffic, it may however have allerted police to the situation but how long would they take to respond. I have information from a reliable sourse that it costs the company money everytime a train is late.

 

[khib70]

The rules, and the law, don't distinguish between idiots doing train surfing and any general member of the public who might have, for instance, gotten a piece of clothing trapped in a door. The guard has the same duty of care to both.

And really it is for the best if you think about it properly. Do we want Guards, or anyone else in the position of having a duty of care (e.g. Doctors) to start making moral decisions on whose life is worth looking after and whose not?

This is absolutely the key point here. Banging on about "self-responsibility" is a handy little slogan. But should this override the rules of railway operation and the duty of care? I would be shocked and surprised if any responsible railway employee answered "yes". Or if any railway employee seriously advocated that the rules only applied to people whose behaviour met their standards.

This is not to say that I in any way approve of the actions of this moron or anyone else who behaves in a similar fashion, nor that I don't hugely sympathise with the guard. But we have a generally safe and effective railway because of the professionalism of rail staff who know and apply the rules regardless of subjective moral judgements.

 

[Domh245]

I don't know if any of you are familiar with Grimsby Railway Station but their is a rail crossing right outside and when the front of the train reaches the crossing gates the back of the train if their are 4 coaches will still be on the end of the platform. Now it often seems to take an age for those crossing gates to lift as everyone has to wait for the train to pass but if the guard had done what many are suggesting how long would that have held up traffic, it may however have allerted police to the situation but how long would they take to respond. I have information from a reliable sourse that it costs the company money everytime a train is late.

Indeed, it will have cost TPE money from delays to their service, as well as other services it may have interacted with and delayed as a consequence. It will have also made a lot of people irritated - those delayed on the train, and those delayed on the crossing that you mention, but the guard would in effect be clear of any wrong doing. He cost the company money, but he followed the rules to the letter, so there isn't much more that can be done.

 

[ComUtoR]

...but if the guard had done what many are suggesting how long would that have held up traffic,

You are trying to justify an action that should never happen. There is NO justification for it. By adding extraneous factors you are ignoring the issue at hand. You are also putting a price on safety. Should the fact that traffic being delayed at a crossing be more important than ANY safety concerns with the train in the station ?

There is also another rule in place that you may be unaware of that IF a passcom is pulled in a station the train must be immediately stopped. As already stated by others this has come about because of previous incidents. IF a passcom was pulled and the train would foul the crossing by your logic it should continue across and not delay the traffic.

it may however have alerted police to the situation but how long would they take to respond. I have information from a reliable source that it costs the company money every time a train is late.

Its well documented that delays are fined. Again, Money must not define the course of action that the TOC takes.

 

[Clip]

I don't know if any of you are familiar with Grimsby Railway Station but their is a rail crossing right outside and when the front of the train reaches the crossing gates the back of the train if their are 4 coaches will still be on the end of the platform. Now it often seems to take an age for those crossing gates to lift as everyone has to wait for the train to pass but if the guard had done what many are suggesting how long would that have held up traffic, it may however have allerted police to the situation but how long would they take to respond. I have information from a reliable sourse that it costs the company money everytime a train is late.

You are right late trains cost TOCs money.
But let me ask you a straight forward question which only requires a yes or no answer.

Would you rather be on a train where a guard follows the rules or on a train where the guard doesn't follow the rules?

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

That's not a yes or no question. Yes may refer to prefering either.
I'd like the sounds of a guard that allows free travel though.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's not a yes or no question. Yes may refer to prefering either.
I'd like the sounds of a guard that allows free travel though.

I don't, as if I've paid my fare (as I will have done provided it's not an unstaffed station with no TVM) I want everyone else to have paid theirs as well.

 

[Clip]

That's not a yes or no question. Yes may refer to prefering either.
I'd like the sounds of a guard that allows free travel though.

Touche, well lets say pick one of the two then

 

[jay3562]

this is why its so important to follow the rules . You make a split second decision and some manager gets to download the CCTV and watch it in slow motion and analyse your every move . In the case of a train surfer or someone coming near the side of the train during dispatch id always give 1 on the buzzer . if it makes the situation worse then so be it that is the TOC problem then .

I suspect the guards who are striking are not just trying to make a point about this one sacking but likely about a wider management attitude as well as maybe a local issue at grimsby station with people there causing trouble preventing staff from doing their job safely .

I think sacking in this case is a bit harsh . The Guard qualified why he decided to ignore the rules and although in my opinion he got it wrong he showed that he was thinking about the risks and was making a decision he thought was best .I think in this case a chat with no coffee and biscuits and either a downgrade to a non safety critical grade or a development plan with more assessments would have been more appropriate .

 

[EssexGonzo]

Then it's the railways good fortune that you don't have a job on the railway. The railway runs on rules. They are there for a very good reason, mostly because of other accidents, This isn't some perfect world. We follow the rules because they are there for good reason. There is no debate about that

Do the rules state that in a situation such as this the guard HAS to lose his job? It's not in dispute that he didn't follow the rules but do the rules say that this is always a sacking offence? Or should it have been a stiff and formal talking to?

And how does reducing the role of a railway employee to that solely of a rule-follower (as you have suggested) reflect on the value attached to the person, job and decent salaries that are paid to many? Assuming we don't need the human element, surely rules can be followed by machines and computers?

I prefer a well trained, intelligent and quick thinking human being to be in charge of my transport conveyance. But if all they do is follow rules then bring on the minimum wage robot.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do the rules state that in a situation such as this the guard HAS to lose his job? It's not in dispute that he didn't follow the rules but do the rules say that this is always a sacking offence? Or should it have been a stiff and formal talking to?

We don't know what else has gone on. Was he maybe on a warning for rule breaking already? On the face of it a sacking seems over the top, but we don't know (and will never know) the whole story.

 

[PHILIPE]

There was an item on ATW Journey Check yesterday re a delay in the Rhondda due to an "operating incident". It went on, surprisingly enough, to detail the incident which was "Youths trying to surf the train".

 

[Clip]

Do the rules state that in a situation such as this the guard HAS to lose his job? It's not in dispute that he didn't follow the rules but do the rules say that this is always a sacking offence? Or should it have been a stiff and formal talking to?

And how does reducing the role of a railway employee to that solely of a rule-follower (as you have suggested) reflect on the value attached to the person, job and decent salaries that are paid to many? Assuming we don't need the human element, surely rules can be followed by machines and computers?

I prefer a well trained, intelligent and quick thinking human being to be in charge of my transport conveyance. But if all they do is follow rules then bring on the minimum wage robot.

Oh dear you have not really grasped this at all have you?

 

[transmanche]

There was an item on ATW Journey Check yesterday re a delay in the Rhondda due to an "operating incident". It went on, surprisingly enough, to detail the incident which was "Youths trying to surf the train".

And I commend ATW for explaining the real reason for the delay. It's something that ordinary people will understand, whereas 'operating incident' is just meaningless.

 

[joeh917]

As a member of the general public who has never worked on the railway and if I had been a passenger that day I would have seen the youth surfing if I was in that carriage and seen him jump off at the end of the platform and then the train would have chugged out of the station and off we would go to Sheffield ect. I would not have given much thought to the incident apart from thinking what an idiot the lad had been but would certainly not have thought in my wildest dreams that the conductor was to blame and that the next day he would get the sack. Like I have said already it was a non-event and should not have meant that a man should lose his livelyhood and that the idiot who was to blame gets nothing more than a slap on the wrist. Also remember that the poor man was spat at.

 

[ComUtoR]

Well done joe. You have taken nothing from this thread. :cry:

 

[bramling]

Probably not



They are not regarded of any importance.

From what I read through this thread you can almost make a clear distinction of two sets of viewpoints. The Staff on here talk about the Guards actions. What he should have done and what the rules are. Others talk about the surfer and his actions.

By having the thought that his actions were the cause it is certainly you that are giving him any importance.

PERSONALLY I wouldn't give this kid a second thought. I couldn't give a flying *&$^ about him and give him not a seconds consideration. I would give them no press or any of the attention they crave.

The trouble with this incident is that it's basically a mess all round.

For a start, had the conductor carried out his 'safety check' and observed the train was safe to start at that time (which postings in this thread seem to suggest he did and it was), and then closed his door and not seen anything further, there would have been no come back on him. What seems harsh to me is that he has been penalised for seeing something he wasn't required to be looking for. To me the message this sends out is that it's ok for the company's dispatch process to ignore this risk, but not for the conductor. I can appreciate why this mismatch exists, but to me it then seems unfair to penalise the conductor to the point of him losing his job.

From a train staff's point of view, it's a problematic scenario all round. At an unstaffed station, especially in the evening, your realistic options are:
1) Stop the train and sit there like a lemon til the troublemakers get bored or the BTP turn up. Maybe get some grief from other passengers, send out a message to the troublemakers that they have a free hand to cause as much delay as they like and there's not much we can do about it. You could be there all night waiting for BTP at a remote location.
2) Stop the train and try and deal with the troublemakers. Risk being assaulted or made to look a prat, no guarantee you will be able to resolve the situation.
3) Basically do what the guard did, chances are nothing bad will happen.

None of these options are good. If we didn't have rules and the risk of legal consequences, I'd be tempted to go with option 3 on the basis that if anything bad were to happen my conscience would be pretty clear that it was the idiot's own stupid actions that caused the outcome. As things stand, realistically we're stuck with option 1.

However, I also understand why we have a Rule Book, and that every rule has a reason why it's there, and this is why we follow it.

What I would expect is for the conductor's actions to be considered sympathetically in the circumstances, and for his past safety record to be taken in to consideration. We don't know the full sequence of events, and we don't know the individual's record. I'm pretty sure that where I am, so long as there was nothing else untoward, we'd be looking at an action plan rather than dismissal.

 

[jay3562]

From a train staff's point of view, it's a problematic scenario all round. At an unstaffed station, especially in the evening, your realistic options are:
1) Stop the train and sit there like a lemon til the troublemakers get bored or the BTP turn up. Maybe get some grief from other passengers, send out a message to the troublemakers that they have a free hand to cause as much delay as they like and there's not much we can do about it. You could be there all night waiting for BTP at a remote location.
2) Stop the train and try and deal with the troublemakers. Risk being assaulted or made to look a prat, no guarantee you will be able to resolve the situation.
3) Basically do what the guard did, chances are nothing bad will happen.

None of these options are good. If we didn't have rules and the risk of legal consequences, I'd be tempted to go with option 3 on the basis that if anything bad were to happen my conscience would be pretty clear that it was the idiot's own stupid actions that caused the outcome. As things stand, realistically we're stuck with option 1.

If im in a situation like that if ive got a driver who I know will back me up then I would opt for 2) , tell them to move on and if they refuse point out that the police will be called if they dont move on and the train wont be moving .

If I have not got a driver that will back me up then its a case of 1) and apologize to passengers on board

its all too easy to go for 3 and hope that nothing bad would happen . But say that the train surfer had injured himself or worse killed himself and the guard could have been shown to have not followed the procedure you can find yourself in a lot of trouble . Not a risk I would be willing to take .

I wish that we didnt have to take responsibility for and have a duty of care towards these idiots who try and surf on trains or hold the doors open or board whilst the doors are closing . But we unfortunately do and I am paid to exercise that duty of care in the way I have been trained . When Im on work time I will do as I am instructed , and if it goes wrong and I end up witnessing a fatality or getting assaulted following procedure then I will ensure I am suitably treated for the trauma and compensated with time off in that event .

However, I also understand why we have a Rule Book, and that every rule has a reason why it's there, and this is why we follow it.

What I would expect is for the conductor's actions to be considered sympathetically in the circumstances, and for his past safety record to be taken in to consideration. We don't know the full sequence of events, and we don't know the individual's record. I'm pretty sure that where I am, so long as there was nothing else untoward, we'd be looking at an action plan rather than dismissal.

I agree a chat and action plan should be the most he should have expected , particularly given he was open about what he did , why he did it and did not try and stage a cover up or lie about things . I have known of people failing door procedure checks during unobtrusive monitoring and they have ended up getting a pull into the office for a chat and placed on a development plan

Problem is though you also have to consider the circumstances from the point of view of TPE . They have just been ripped to shreds by the RAIB over another dispatch incident so they want to show they are taking it seriously .

 

[EssexGonzo]

Oh dear you have not really grasped this at all have you?

Don't let real world arguments get in the way of a shallow snide comment, will you old chap? The thread was about his sacking, rather than this being a breach of the rules.

Bramling's comments above seem to be more balanced and reflect what many would expect to have happened if this were to be an isolated "offence". Obviously we don't know how naughty he'd been in the past.

I suggest you relax, my good man, by getting your nose back in the rule book.

 

[HH]

We don't know the full sequence of events, and we don't know the individual's record. I'm pretty sure that where I am, so long as there was nothing else untoward, we'd be looking at an action plan rather than dismissal.

Presuming that there were no other circumstances, then it would depend on what the contract of employment says and how this "offence" was viewed. Dismissal would normally follow "gross misconduct"; one common example of gross misconduct is "serious breaches of health and safety rules". I can't see how this would not fall under that definition.

I would be surprised if any railway company viewed it differently. OTOH if you work for an amusement park...

 

[joeh917]

On June 29th they are having a march along Cleethorpes seafront in support of the conductor about an hour before the air show. I shall be going with my son who works on the Transpennine trains though not as a conductor. Please come along if you can.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Presuming that there were no other circumstances, then it would depend on what the contract of employment says and how this "offence" was viewed. Dismissal would normally follow "gross misconduct"; one common example of gross misconduct is "serious breaches of health and safety rules". I can't see how this would not fall under that definition.

I would be surprised if any railway company viewed it differently. OTOH if you work for an amusement park...

At the end of the day nobody was injured or killed so the whole thing should have been ignored and forgotten by now, instead a man who had a decent job had his income taken away from him for something that took about a minute or two to happen.

 

[Minilad]

Do the rules state that in a situation such as this the guard HAS to lose his job? It's not in dispute that he didn't follow the rules but do the rules say that this is always a sacking offence? Or should it have been a stiff and formal talking to?

And how does reducing the role of a railway employee to that solely of a rule-follower (as you have suggested) reflect on the value attached to the person, job and decent salaries that are paid to many? Assuming we don't need the human element, surely rules can be followed by machines and computers?

I prefer a well trained, intelligent and quick thinking human being to be in charge of my transport conveyance. But if all they do is follow rules then bring on the minimum wage robot.

Like many others have said no one knows what has gone before in this case. The guard in question may well have a perfect record, then again he might well have had SOL incidents before. So I don't think anyone here is in a position to say with any certainty what the correct response should have been.
Unfortunately dispatch procedure is looked at very strictly on many TOCs because of previous incidents and lets not kid ourselves here if the outcome had been a person injured, or even killed, we would not just be looking at a guard losing his job but his freedom too.
I can assure you I am a well trained, intelligent and quick thinking human being and it's because of those things I am well aware of the need to follow the rule book. Now you can argue all day long about the relative merits of individual rules but while they are in place then I will follow them. That doesn't make me a robot it makes me a conscientious railway employee who is well aware of what can happen when short cuts are taken.

 

[joeh917]

Like many others have said no one knows what has gone before in this case. The guard in question may well have a perfect record, then again he might well have had SOL incidents before. So I don't think anyone here is in a position to say with any certainty what the correct response should have been.
Unfortunately dispatch procedure is looked at very strictly on many TOCs because of previous incidents and lets not kid ourselves here if the outcome had been a person injured, or even killed, we would not just be looking at a guard losing his job but his freedom too.
I can assure you I am a well trained, intelligent and quick thinking human being and it's because of those things I am well aware of the need to follow the rule book. Now you can argue all day long about the relative merits of individual rules but while they are in place then I will follow them. That doesn't make me a robot it makes me a conscientious railway employee who is well aware of what can happen when short cuts are taken.

I am not very good with these prefixes what does sol mean.

 

[Minilad]

SOL = Safety of the line

 

[455driver]

Of course if this had been a DOO train nobody would have seen anything!

 

[bramling]

Of course if this had been a DOO train nobody would have seen anything!

That's sort of the point I was making in my earlier post; if I use a mirror/monitor to leave a platform, once the final safety check is carried out and the train moves, that's it. Evidently it's deemed acceptable that if someone then surfs the side of the train and there's nothing else to stop the train (apart from, perhaps, a passcom being operated), and the miscreant gets killed, there will probably be no follow-up. Would the RAIB even carry out a formal investigation if CCTV showed the incident was undoubtedly the result of surfing? Would it be a good use of taxpayers money for the RAIB to investigate?

If, however, I happen to stick my head out when the train is 1 car out of the platform and see someone surfing, and don't stop the train, it seems based on the Grimsby incident I'm now up for gross misconduct and certain to lose my job, and perhaps be up for manslaughter. Although I'm not convinced the latter could stick in such a case, James Street was a different scenario entirely.

In answer to someone else's point elsewhere, gross misconduct does not *have* to lead to dismissal. It can lead to a final written warning, or 'suspended' dismissal. We don't know the history of this employee, but I'd like to think that either of these options were at least considered at the hearing.

 

[jay3562]

I can assure you I am a well trained, intelligent and quick thinking human being and it's because of those things I am well aware of the need to follow the rule book. Now you can argue all day long about the relative merits of individual rules but while they are in place then I will follow them. That doesn't make me a robot it makes me a conscientious railway employee who is well aware of what can happen when short cuts are taken.

Exactly , at that moment in time as a guard you are paid to work to the method of work you have been trained to regardless of the risks and how much the rules might appear to go against common sense . If you feel a rule is often leading to dangerous situations then you are then within your rights to bring it to the attention of your management but as the rule is you need to obey it or its your job on the line .

That's sort of the point I was making in my earlier post; if I use a mirror/monitor to leave a platform, once the final safety check is carried out and the train moves, that's it. Evidently it's deemed acceptable that if someone then surfs the side of the train and there's nothing else to stop the train (apart from, perhaps, a passcom being operated), and the miscreant gets killed, there will probably be no follow-up. Would the RAIB even carry out a formal investigation if CCTV showed the incident was undoubtedly the result of surfing? Would it be a good use of taxpayers money for the RAIB to investigate?

The RAIB would probably investigate to look at the method of work and if it found shortcomings it would recommend changes .

 

[HH]

In answer to someone else's point elsewhere, gross misconduct does not *have* to lead to dismissal.

Perhaps you don't understand what gross misconduct means. "Gross misconduct is misconduct by the employee so serious that it completely undermines the employer’s trust and confidence in the employee to perform his/her duties". When that relates to safety critical duties then I can't see how any railway company can fail to see it as a sacking offence.

I cannot see that a final warning or suspended dismissal is an option. They could not let them continue on safety critical duties - imagine what would happen if the guard then caused a death. The directors and head of safety could go to prison; they are not going to take that risk.

 

[bramling]

Perhaps you don't understand what gross misconduct means. "Gross misconduct is misconduct by the employee so serious that it completely undermines the employer’s trust and confidence in the employee to perform his/her duties". When that relates to safety critical duties then I can't see how any railway company can fail to see it as a sacking offence.

I cannot see that a final warning or suspended dismissal is an option. They could not let them continue on safety critical duties - imagine what would happen if the guard then caused a death. The directors and head of safety could go to prison; they are not going to take that risk.

I can quite readily think of examples (which I'm not going to post as it involves private company business) where people have been charged with gross misconduct for safety-related train incidents, and where the outcome has been a final written warning or suspended dismissal. So it *does* happen. Especially if there are mitigating circumstances. For the incident in question, there *appear* to be some mitigating circumstances, but equally there's a lot more we don't know.

I can also think of cases where the employee has been dismissed, and then had the sanction reduced to one of the above on appeal.

I've also been involved with quite a few safety incidents which have gone down the action plan route, providing management can demonstrate that any risk can be managed and controlled through retraining/coaching/monitoring etc.