Grimsby train worker sacked, TPE South staff plan strike.

[185]

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.

Not at TPE, I can assure you. Despite, in the words of Paul Watson - TPE Operations Director, I had a faultless disciplinary and safety of the line record over ten years, they still sacked me for an incident BTP issued a commendation for. I won't go back whilst FG are anywhere near the franchise.

Grimsby Telegraph have been in contact, as have a couple of organizations after former colleagues passed on my details. Suspect it won't be long before Simon, TPE's solicitor rings me to threaten me not to talk to anyone, otherwise they may want some of the money back

 

[falcon]

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.

I think you will find that the rule is that the guard has to stay at the door to observe the train has cleared the platform safely.Only then can he look away.

I don't agree with him being sacked. It's just how the UK legal system has gone now. As someon has said what are we supposed to employ staff to hold idiots down until the train has left. There needs to be a move to a more balanced situation where people who are able to be responsible for their actions are held more responsible for them. It was onece like that in the UK it was called contributory negligence.:roll:

 

[bramling]

I think you will find that the rule is that the guard has to stay at the door to observe the train has cleared the platform safely.Only then can he look away.

I don't agree with him being sacked. It's just how the UK legal system has gone now. As someon has said what are we supposed to employ staff to hold idiots down until the train has left. There needs to be a move to a more balanced situation where people who are able to be responsible for their actions are held more responsible for them. It was onece like that in the UK it was called contributory negligence.:roll:

The trouble with the guard staying at the door is that there's no absolute requirement for him to actually look along the train - the Rule Book wording is "if it is safe and possible to do so". Without a droplight it's not possible, and leaning out is not safe. So you're restricted to looking sideways, in which case you're not going to see something occurring at another position on the train, like a surfer. A DOO driver will be able to see nothing unless he leans out and turns his head back.

Agree with your second paragraph.

Meanwhile, just had a look through the LUL Rule Book for comparison purposes. The despatch process is basically identical, the driver's main action is a safety check down the length of the train before starting off. After that, the only requirement is to "check the in-cab monitors (if fitted) as your train leaves the platform". Nowhere does it define what should happen if something occurs during this latter process. So if the same incident occurred on LUL, you'd be struggling to find something in the Rule Book to charge the driver with. Perhaps be able to find something more generic in the Code of Conduct. Also, LUL drivers are not required to maintain a continuous check of the monitors, as their primary responsibility is to observe the road ahead - so something could easily and justifiably be missed. Once again, the process has almost no guaranteed safeguard to identify and respond to a surfer.

 

[Flamingo]

I was once told that part of being a good Officer (in the army) is knowing what not to see. It's part of a Train Guards role as well, I suspect...

 

[HH]

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.

"Charged with". Was it then decided that it wasn't gross negligence but a lesser misdemeanour?

Were they examples of staff not following safety critical rules? Did they potentially place a member of the public's life in danger?

In other words are they good comparisons or not? Final question, were they a FirstGroup TOC?

 

[bramling]

"Charged with". Was it then decided that it wasn't gross negligence but a lesser misdemeanour?

Were they examples of staff not following safety critical rules? Did they potentially place a member of the public's life in danger?

In other words are they good comparisons or not? Final question, were they a FirstGroup TOC?

Hearing was gross misconduct. Yes not following a safety rule, and potential risk to safety of passengers yes.

No, not a First Group TOC. (Which seems to be a common theme in this thread!).

I should add that, looking through the discipline policy, there's also an option for redeployment elsewhere. In practice this would presumably mean relegation to station duties or back-office roles.

 

[Clip]

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.

Oh, you mean the real world of the railway I happen to work in? Ok then. Of course how would 'I didn't stick to the rules because they sounded silly' hold up in court if something does happen?

However I must point out that I have not voiced any opinion on whether or not he should've been sacked as no on e has the full facts about the investigation and other circumstances surrounding it.

At the end of the day nobody was injured or killed so the whole thing should have been ignored and forgotten by now,

Thankfully there wasn't but I don't see how such an incident should be 'forgotten' let alone 'ignored'

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

Indeed however do you know this guards full disciplinary record and other mitigating circumstances that may have played a part in his dismissal?

 

[wensley]

Thankfully there wasn't but I don't see how such an incident should be 'forgotten' let alone 'ignored'

Exactly. If there was the potential of serious harm then nobody should forget on a hurry; everyone can learn lessons from an incident like this.

 

[Carlisle]

I should add that, looking through the discipline policy, there's also an option for redeployment elsewhere. In practice this would presumably mean relegation to station duties or back-office roles.

The Disciplinary Redeployment elsewhere option was used a fair bit in BR times, however I believe it was a procedure that was very rarely favoured or used over the years in most of the bus industry which might explain why it's far less common in the privatised rail era too

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I've only been following this story and thread from afar, so sorry if this is covered ground, but this appeared on my Facebook just now:

"THANK you for saving my life and I'm sorry."

That was the heartfelt apology from teen Ashley Farrar to the conductor of the train he was surfing on.

The 13-year-old admits that the dangerous antics could have cost him his life – instead the incident has cost conductor Glenn Watson his livelihood. He was sacked by First TransPennine Express for allowing the train to pull out of Grimsby Town station with Ashley clinging on to the side.

Today, as the youth and his mum spoke to the Telegraph, the firm has given more details of why they felt they had to dismiss Mr Watson, who has accepted the teen's apology. The company said the conductor was dismissed because, despite having a clear view of the youth holding onto the train while it was stationary, he decided to tell the driver to go and not pull the stop button.

Mr Watson has always been adamant that the youth had jumped off the train once, and back on again when it was moving – leading him to believe it was safer to leave it running.

Today Ashley, of Grimsby, said whatever the circumstances, he was very sorry for his actions: "It's unfair for the train driver to lose his job because he basically saved my life. I am sorry for what I did and hope this helps get him his job back."

His mum Nicola Hosken, 34, said: "He has saved my son's life and I will be eternally grateful to him. He should not have been sacked. From what I have heard, it is my view that he has acted in the best interests of safety."

She added: "He has children himself so being a parent he knows how much this means. I can't imagine what he has been through."

The mother-of-six said: "Ashley was in with the wrong crowd at the time but he is starting to turn his life around. We all want the conductor to get his job back."

The mother, who is considering launching a petition, said Ashley did not tell her what had happened until days after the incident and said her son has never been subject to an antisocial behaviour order, as was previously suggested.

She said: "He went missing for about a week around that time. He had fallen in with the wrong crowd but is now getting his life back on track."

He attends New Chase House formerly Playsport and enjoys a lot of activities and mentors other teenagers by teaching them on a course called Angling For Change. She said her son, a keen footballer, had learned the enjoyment of fishing from his stepdad, David Willis. He also is keen on motorcycling having attended the Immingham Motorcycle Project.

In response to Ashley's apology, Glenn Watson said: "I accept his apology and I am glad he is remorseful.

"What he said is what I have been saying all along, but the company don't see it like that."

He recalled how he saw the group of youths on the platform as the train pulled in. They were jumping on and off the train when it was stationary, he said. When the conductor remonstrated with the group, he was spat at.

The sacked conductor said: "They started to walk to the exit gate. I thought it was safe to proceed. I got back on the train and signalled to the driver to proceed. It was all over in a matter of seconds. I deemed it safe for him to jump off of his own accord."

He added: "I hope he has learned his lesson and does not do any messing about with his mates again. They won't realise the trouble they have caused."

He said: "If I had applied the emergency brakes it would have thrown him."

The incident has led to industrial action over a number of days by the RMT Union, and they are planning a march in Cleethorpes.

But TransPennine Express says there have been inaccurate reports of what happened and it had been clear that Glenn had contravened his training and informed the driver to set off while the youth was still in contact with the train.

Nick Donovan, managing director, said: "Our position is that the conductor's actions were in clear and direct contravention to his training and also in breach of the Health and Safety at Work Act.

"As a consequence, he was dismissed following a full investigation and appropriate disciplinary process.

"I would like to stress in the strongest possible terms that the safety of all users of the railway, be they customers, staff, visitors or trespassers, is of paramount importance to our business, and all our staff must adhere to the mandatory, comprehensive and ongoing safety training they receive.

"While the news of the industrial action is clearly disappointing, I would like to assure our customers that we intend to operate all services between Sheffield and Cleethorpes as planned."

http://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/T...sorry-sacked/story-26724158-detail/story.html

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

I was just about to post that, thanks for saving me the effort. So the 'youth' was just a 13 year old who's very sorry. And he was seen clinging onto the then stationary train when conductor allowed it to go.

That does sound very bad and foolish for both involved, if it's true. I'm sure that the conductor won't do it again if he gets his job back. And the kid won't either.

 

[HH]

Hearing was gross misconduct. Yes not following a safety rule, and potential risk to safety of passengers yes.

No, not a First Group TOC. (Which seems to be a common theme in this thread!).

I should add that, looking through the discipline policy, there's also an option for redeployment elsewhere. In practice this would presumably mean relegation to station duties or back-office roles.

FirstGroup do take safety a bit further than other owning groups. Sir Moir had a pretty much zero tolerance policy and that still seems to be in place. I don't know enough about this (nor do any of us) to know whether the decision here was harsh or not. However TPE are holding their line in the face of strike action which says to me that First strongly believe in their stance. By now it must have been reviewed at a high level.

Redeployment can be quite difficult in reality. You take away the safety critical jobs and you have a fairly narrow band of activities - ticket office or back office. These require their own skills which a conductor might not possess. But beyond this, take a job in the ticket office - there are rules there as well. As an employer I might question whether this person would also think it was OK to ignore some of those.

I've seen an ex-driver redeployed as a night cleaner - I can't imagine that anyone is happy with that situation, even though he was still drawing his old salary.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was just about to post that, thanks for saving me the effort. So the 'youth' was just a 13 year old who's very sorry. And he was seen clinging onto the then stationary train when conductor allowed it to go.

That does sound very bad and foolish for both involved, if it's true. I'm sure that the conductor won't do it again if he gets his job back. And the kid won't either.

If that is indeed the case, it's not all that dissimilar to the Merseyrail case, where not only did the guard who belled the train off with someone leaning on it (who was then killed) get sacked, he also got a prison sentence. The main difference being that the train-surfer survived.

 

[ComUtoR]

...I'm sure that the conductor won't do it again if he gets his job back. And the kid won't either.

Are you prepared to take that risk ? TPE are not. There would be a liability issue should the Conductor do something else in the future.

 

[joeh917]

This puts a different slant on the matter.Did the conductor give the signal to go with the lad already on the step while the train was stationary or did he give the signal to go seconds before the lad jumped back on.If it is the latter he should have his job back but if it is the former I don't know what to think should happen. I must admit that I had a picture in my mind of an older thug type youth not a thirteen year old.

 

[ComUtoR]

This puts a different slant on the matter

Always does as more evidence comes out.

.Did the conductor give the signal to go with the lad already on the step while the train was stationary or did he give the signal to go seconds before the lad jumped back on.

Neither would change to outcome. What is important is that the Conductor knew the kid was holding the door when the train was in motion. It becomes even more serious if the former is to be believed. It does highlight that the facts of the case is not always as presented.

I must admit that I had a picture in my mind of an older thug type youth not a thirteen year old.

Feels different doesn't it now that the kid is revealed to be 13

 

[DeeGee]

I must admit that I had a picture in my mind of an older thug type youth not a thirteen year old.

Do you live in the same Grimsby as me? this is exactly the sort of thing the 12, 13, 14 year olds do. Older, "thug-type" youths wouldn't be seen doing anything as childish as that. Not when there's drugs to be taken and local lasses to impregnate.

 

[Muzer]

Yeah, it's just the stupidity of a completely naïve idiot who hasn't completely thought things through. It's exactly the age I'd expect it to happen.

 

[Flamingo]

12-13-14 year olds are amongst the worst behaved, in my opinion. They are big enough to have a mouth, and small enough not to have figured out when to shut it.

 

[Clip]

This puts a different slant on the matter.Did the uld haconductor give the signal to go with the lad already on the step while the train was stationary or did he give the signal to go seconds before the lad jumped back on.If it is the latter he should have his job back but if it is the former I don't know what to think should happen. I must admit that I had a picture in my mind of an older thug type youth not a thirteen year old.

But yet you had already formed in your mind what you thought should happen and had voiced your opinion on it quite clearly even though you were devoid of facts.

Funny how now you are more knowledgeable now you can actually make a better decision.

'Thug Type youth' lol.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

BBC Look North (Humber/Lincs/NW Norfolk one) is saying RMT are threatening TPE strike everywhere.

The RMT guy on Look North says "The yobbo hid out the way and the guard sorted him out 2 mins before... he wasn't a passenger and he wasn't vulnerable etc."

The TPE guy says " We know the train was stationary and must of been stopped.... [Newscaster: will he get his job back?] No it's a breach of safety etc."

Strikes are planned for Newcastle, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Liverpool and Manchester depots. The RMT guy said all the depots are supportive also.


Sorry if I misquoted as it's live TV.

 

[wensley]

BBC Look North (Humber/Lincs/NW Norfolk one) is saying RMT are threatening TPE strike everywhere.

I'd hear talk of the same, dependent on support from their members!

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Also Grimsby Telegraph have stated legal action will be taken against RMT by TPE.

BOSSES who controversially sacked a Grimsby Conductor have announced they will take legal action against the union representing their colleague.The announcement comes after the youth who "surfed" the train

Grimsby Railway Station, which led to Glenn Watson's sacking, admitted to the Grimsby Telegraph that the conductor's actions "saved his life."

Read more at http://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/T...6730172-detail/story.html#gsl6uP3pTCF7o4y3.99

 

[Central Trains]

BBC Look North (Humber/Lincs/NW Norfolk one) is saying RMT are threatening TPE strike everywhere.

The RMT guy on Look North says "The yobbo hid out the way and the guard sorted him out 2 mins before... he wasn't a passenger and he wasn't vulnerable etc."

The TPE guy says " We know the train was stationary and must of been stopped.... [Newscaster: will he get his job back?] No it's a breach of safety etc."

Strikes are planned for Newcastle, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Liverpool and Manchester depots. The RMT guy said all the depots are supportive also.


Sorry if I misquoted as it's live TV.

Extremely weak performance by Nick Donovan - the man has no presence whatsoever.

 

[HH]

Extremely weak performance by Nick Donovan - the man has no presence whatsoever.

Engineers don't seem to make good MDs. TBH I expect that most staff at TPE said "Nick Who?" when he was made MD in 2011. A peculiar job he had before that - Engineering Director in a company that doesn't maintain a single bit of rolling stock. You can't help but feel that he's out of his depth.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Just to hark back to the title of this particular long-running thread, what is the current situation on the strike action that was first referred to in the title of this thread?

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Strike is underway at Weekends with picket line at Cleethorpes and Trains running as normal. Sheffield staff are said to be on strike too, but I can't confirm that.

As said before escalation of strike is planned, and legal action is to be taken out against the union.

 

[DownSouth]

Are you prepared to take that risk ? TPE are not. There would be a liability issue should the Conductor do something else in the future.

Very true.

When the potential cost of an employee with bad form is multiplied by the chance of that cost being incurred and the resultant figure is more expensive than a company considers worth wearing, the employee has to go. It's a business decision, nothing more and nothing less.

 

[ComUtoR]

Very true.

When the potential cost of an employee with bad form is multiplied by the chance of that cost being incurred and the resultant figure is more expensive than a company considers worth wearing, the employee has to go. It's a business decision, nothing more and nothing less.

Sadly I also see that perspective too. We have similar situations on our TOC. Someone has to sign the license back and then fully accept that whatever future actions makes them liable. That decision is not just money. I know I wouldn't sleep at night if I let an unsafe employee work a train. Yeah money talks but the safety concern is to hard for me to ignore.

It is a hard decision for a Manager to make and not one done without an investigation. The CEO didn't make it so I cannot hold TPE as a TOC to blame.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

For the strength of feeling within the ranks for this incident that the guard was at fault (Losing his job however is very extreme imho) There has to be an underlying tension and unhappiness there. TPE do have a reputation for being very ruthless towards its staff so it will be interesting how this plays out.