GWR Strike Ballot

[Blytheski]

Appears that GWR drivers and guards at Paddington are to be balloted for strike over a sacked staff member.

RMT to go ahead with ballot of Paddington depot members over victimised rail guard

RAIL UNION RMT will ballot all guards and drivers at Paddington Depot for strike action and action short of a strike over the victimisation and decision to sack Great Western Railway (GWR) rail guard and union activist Ben Frederick."

https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-to-go-ahead-with-ballot-of-paddington-depot-members/

 

[Mills444]

If what the RMT is saying is true i fully agree with strike action.

 

[Kite159]

If what the RMT is saying is true i fully agree with strike action.

The RMT have a habit of not telling the full story on their website when it comes to trying to drum up support.

 

[Blytheski]

Any strike action I guess would be very disruptive to the network especially if coordinated with SWR strikes.

 

[Kite159]

Any strike action I guess would be very disruptive to the network especially if coordinated with SWR strikes.

I guess the drivers who are with ASLEF won't necessary be affected so it will just be the RMT drivers, and the biggest impact if the guards go on strike will be for High Speed services.

 

[cactustwirly]

It really depends on the circumstances, I really would take the RMTs view with a pinch of salt...
If the allegation that he did assault a member of the public then it is quite right that he was sacked...

 

[Carlisle]

It really depends on the circumstances, I really would take the RMTs view with a pinch of salt...
If the allegation that he did assault a member of the public then it is quite right that he was sacked...

You’d expect on modern stock with CCTV and some staff now using body cams it’d be relatively simple to prove which sides argument is the more realistic.

 

[cactustwirly]

You’d expect on modern stock with CCTV and some staff now using body cams it’d be relatively simple to prove which sides argument is the more realistic.

No because CCTV doesn't record sound...

 

[ainsworth74]

I really wish the RMT would drop the "brother/sister" language. It really isn't quite the tone to be taking in the modern world.

Well, there is apparently CCTV of the incident so that would seem to make it fairly easy to work out what's happened even without sound. So if it's as described by the RMT then GWR are on a hiding to nothing. Further I hope the gentleman in question is appealing and aiming to take Employment Tribunal action if necessary!

 

[cactustwirly]

Just want to point out that the legal definition of assault, is the threat of immediate violence to another person.
Therefore CCTV without sound doesn't necessarily prove that someone is innocent, as the guard could have threatened to do something to another passenger etc.
Battery/ABH/GBH is the actual physical act, and CCTV could be used to disprove this.

Obviously we don't know the full picture, but something must have happened for them to sack him...

 

[ArchieWoodbine]

Everyone is right: we're only getting half of the story. But, the fact the RMT feel so strongly as to escelate this to possible strike action, suggests they're not too worried about an alternate tale of events completely contradicting them.

I really wish the RMT would drop the "brother/sister" language

Agreed. It comes across as slightly cultish or, at the very least, a bit alienating to those outside of the clique or thinking of joining.

 

[OrangeJuice]

Just want to point out that the legal definition of assault, is the threat of immediate violence to another person.
Therefore CCTV without sound doesn't necessarily prove that someone is innocent, as the guard could have threatened to do something to another passenger etc.
Battery/ABH/GBH is the actual physical act, and CCTV could be used to disprove this.

Obviously we don't know the full picture, but something must have happened for them to sack him...

Thanks for that definition. I assume that makes it much harder to know what actually happened and whether GWR were correct with their decision or not. Could the fact that BTP never took a statement based on the press release be an issue here?

 

[cactustwirly]

Thanks for that definition. I assume that makes it much harder to know what actually happened and whether GWR were correct with their decision or not. Could the fact that BTP never took a statement based on the press release be an issue here?

It depends, a BTP statement would be one of the pieces of evidence used at a criminal trial.
However there hasn't been a trial yet, GWR don't necessarily need a police statement to sack him.
It really depends on what they found during their investigation.

 

[DDB]

Why do the RMT want to strike when surely they should just be supporting the member through the industrial tribunal to be quietly compensated and reinstated rather then disrupt the general public.

 

[Darandio]

Why do the RMT want to strike when surely they should just be supporting the member through the industrial tribunal to be quietly compensated and reinstated rather then disrupt the general public.

The RMT now strike for absolutely anything in some futile attempt to force re-nationalisation of the railways. Brothers my arse.

Reading Twitter comments on their feed over the past few months they were often supported. Now it's increasingly becoming hateful towards them, it's turning.

 

[Jonfun]

Why do the RMT want to strike when surely they should just be supporting the member through the industrial tribunal to be quietly compensated and reinstated rather then disrupt the general public.

It's just how the railways work. The industry only really gets its act together on things when the staff ballot.

 

[yorkie]

I wouldn't trust the RMT.

In 2013 they supported Swansea football hooligan Andrew Davies and called for a strike on GWR. A train manager for the company (who is a member of this forum) informed me that it wasn't the done thing to vote against such matters but most people abstained from voting. But of those who did vote, a majority voted for strike action, even though it was totally unfounded.

The RMT have zero credibility and are about as untrustworthy as it's possible for any union to be. They're a disgrace to the union movement, quite frankly. Take anything they say with a pinch of salt.

 

[Iskra]

It's often not as easy as 'just check the CCTV.'

Camera's are usually fixed on a certain area and often don't cover all of an incident. Yes they often make a job easier to resolve, but they don't tell you everything, sometimes after watching many hours, they tell you nothing.

Quite concerning if GWR can't follow their own policies though...

 

[HH]

Hang on...

...rail guard and union activist...

This isn't a normal guard. So the question I have is, "Are GWR discriminating against a union activist" or "Are RMT supporting a union activist, even though it's not justified"?

 

[Dave1987]

I wouldn't trust the RMT.

In 2013 they supported Swansea football hooligan Andrew Davies and called for a strike on GWR. A train manager for the company (who is a member of this forum) informed me that it wasn't the done thing to vote against such matters but most people abstained from voting. But of those who did vote, a majority voted for strike action, even though it was totally unfounded.

The RMT have zero credibility and are about as untrustworthy as it's possible for any union to be. They're a disgrace to the union movement, quite frankly. Take anything they say with a pinch of salt.

Knowing your complete anti union agenda then I'm not at all surprised by your comments. I know some RMT reps who as trustworthy as anyone I know and your post does their fantastic work a complete disservice. Unless you know what has happened in this case and the specifics about it you cannot comment on the validity of the action.

 

[yorkie]

Knowing your complete anti union agenda...

I'm a member of a union myself and am proud to be related to one of the founding members of the trade union movement.

I do not have an "anti union agenda"; on the contrary I have actively encouraged colleagues to join a union (one that does not act dishonourably and does not support hooligans).

I would, however, never encourage anyone to join a union that behaves in the manner the RMT behaves.

then I'm not at all surprised by your comments

And nor am I by yours.

I know some RMT reps who as trustworthy as anyone I know and your post does their fantastic work a complete disservice. Unless you know what has happened in this case and the specifics about it you cannot comment on the validity of the action.

I am entitled to comment in the way that I have done in this thread, whether you like it or not.

 

[LowLevel]

Pertinent fact. The 'assaulted' party (member of the public) made no complaint to the police regarding their interaction with the train guard.

This alone suggests to me straight away that the company should not be pursueing any action against him. If it's gross misconduct the police should be involved.

I think I speak for all public facing staff when I say we are sick of being potentially on trial by our employers when we are attacked by the public in the course of our duties.

I've been there. A man off his head on drugs attacked a colleague. I escorted them to safety in a train cab whereby the man in question attempted to break in to continue his assault. It was sufficiently serious that the 999 call handler sent local police instead of BTP on blue lights. When they arrived he attacked them as well.

I make no apology for the fact I had the on board fire extinguisher out of it's holder and I had every intention of hitting the man with it had he successfully broken in. If I'd had access I would have had the fire axe instead. I might have killed him in the process. All of this went in my report to my employer and the police.

Why, in any such circumstances, should we ever be in fear of losing our employment or freedom?

You cannot walk away from every confrontation that you might get into.

 

[yorkie]

I think I speak for all public facing staff when I say we are sick of being potentially on trial by our employers when we are attacked by the public in the course of our duties.

But it cannot be denied that when you are acting in the course of your duties representing a company you have to act accordingly, not just as a member of the public might, and different standards of acceptable conduct apply.

I've been there. A man off his head on drugs attacked a colleague. I escorted them to safety in a train cab whereby the man in question attempted to break in to continue his assault. It was sufficiently serious that the 999 call handler sent local police instead of BTP on blue lights. When they arrived he attacked them as well.

I make no apology for the fact I had the on board fire extinguisher out of it's holder and I had every intention of hitting the man with it had he successfully broken in. If I'd had access I would have had the fire axe instead. I might have killed him in the process. All of this went in my report to my employer and the police.

Why, in any such circumstances, should we ever be in fear of losing our employment or freedom?

You cannot walk away from every confrontation that you might get into.

In the circumstances you describe, it sounds to me like you acted perfectly correctly, professionally and proportionately and you should not have to fear anything.

Someone else might have decided to fight the person, rather than restrain/escort them, and they'd have been looking at getting the sack, no matter how it started.

 

[theblackwatch]

I really wish the RMT would drop the "brother/sister" language. It really isn't quite the tone to be taking in the modern world.

Totally agree, the railway doesn't employ Monks and Nuns...

 

[Antman]

1. The RMT is rarely straightforward in how it manipulates press and propaganda. All I can be fairly sure of is that there'll be some truth in their presentation, and an equal amount of truth missing from it.
2. Most Railway staff are great and tend to put up with far far more than they deserve from the public. Certainly far more than I would, or do.
3. A tiny, tiny minority of railway staff relish the confrontation (then play all innocent) - the same as all walks of life.
4. I have no idea if Frederick is wronged, or has done wrong, but I am afraid, as a passenger, I am suspicious of the motives of the RMT to play the strike card instead of going through normal employment laws and processes. Sadly, I feel that's how they operate.....it comes across as belligerent and trying to intimidate. But that's how they choose to operate. And they wonder why they have little public support. Or care for it.

 

[43096]

Knowing your complete anti union agenda then I'm not at all surprised by your comments. I know some RMT reps who as trustworthy as anyone I know and your post does their fantastic work a complete disservice. Unless you know what has happened in this case and the specifics about it you cannot comment on the validity of the action.

Perhaps the RMT should shut up as well then?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Perhaps the RMT should shut up as well then?

It would be a good start if they did.

 

[tiptoptaff]

Internal rumour suggests the CCTV doesn't actually favour the RMT.

I dont know how many drivers at Pad are RMT but the majority are Aslef so the DOO services won't be affected.

Contingency guards are already trained and are frequently used on Sundays and the expectation is they'll use them where required if (when) the RMT declares Paddington is on strike.

Effects will be minimal. No Paddington TM routes arent coverable by contingency or guards from other depots.

 

[Darandio]

Perhaps the RMT should shut up as well then?

Here's hoping.

 

[Tom Quinne]

I wouldn't trust the RMT.

In 2013 they supported Swansea football hooligan Andrew Davies and called for a strike on GWR. A train manager for the company (who is a member of this forum) informed me that it wasn't the done thing to vote against such matters but most people abstained from voting. But of those who did vote, a majority voted for strike action, even though it was totally unfounded.

The RMT have zero credibility and are about as untrustworthy as it's possible for any union to be. They're a disgrace to the union movement, quite frankly. Take anything they say with a pinch of salt.

I’m afraid I tend to agree, in part at least.
I was a GWR Guard at the time of the ballot you mention and I don’t vote, as there are ALWAYS two sides to every story.

The way SOME Paddington guards go about their work is boarding on aggressive, I wouldn’t surprise me IF the guard had egged the offender to the point they snapped.

HOWEVER, it’s reported the guard was spare at, the most vile thing you can do to someone without physically touching them with your body.

Think about how you would react to someone spitting in your face with all the risks that would bring ?

Personally I can’t say I wouldn’t react with a stove or even punch, railway staff aren’t the stress relief for passengers.

Without knowing the whole truth it’s externally difficult to know what actually went on, the RMT asked us to lose pay to stand up for our “brother” but wouldn’t give a 100% reflection on what went on, those who knew him personally also had their own views.

These kind of ballots are never supported well, and often bring back a unbalanced result.

The union will proclaim “rock solid support” bla bla, but in reality only a small number actually voted Yes, with the majority voting NO or not at all.

Sadly my union (RMT) are becoming an embarrassment at national level, thankfully we do have some very good local reps who are the salt of the earth.