UK rail minister got engineer sacked for raising safety concerns

[Horizon22]

Have you read the thread? It's a threat to deny public money to a company unless they do what pleases Hendy personally. It couldn't be any more obvious that it's a breach of standards in public life.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Aug 2024 ==


It's funny how frequently you post saying "this is just one of those things". I'm not sure I believe you to be honest because if you actually thought that you'd probably say it once then ignore it, but what you actually do is keep coming back to the thread to repeat yourself. Perhaps you can correct the record for us, what is your motivation for frequently saying that?

Of course I've read the thread I've been actively involved! This is how some businesses work at higher levels and there are some "sharp" comments. Perhaps it should be better, but you'd have underdo decades of corporate culture and I'm not naive enough to expect that to happen. I clearly think it's more "grey" than you do and as I said early on the original letter is very carefully worded. Before Hendy wrote such a letter I imagine he had someone with some sort of HR or legal background give it a quick once over so it didn't land him in some real (not PR) trouble.

What is my motivation for what? I'm quite confused by what you mean. I'm allowed to come back because I think some people are blowing this way out of proportion and think it is solely Hendy to blame whereas I think there are some more nuanced opinions including HR processes, Dennis wanting to "have his cake and eat it", how Systra dealt with it etc. @Clarence Yard has clarified how things work at a senior level and how you have to be mindful of how you deal with the media. Does this mean I like Hendy/dislike Dennis or have any particular views on them? No not really.

I think PR wise it's obviously gone quite badly but as I said, I don't think much will come of it in my professional and personal opinion. Those are just my own views, you can disagree with it fine - and it's been a good discussion from various sides - but I don't see the need to "correct" any record.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I think that it depends on the specifics of his alleged media agreement.

Which would probably be more a breach of contract argument than anything to do with unfair dissmisal.

In what way is such a letter "misconduct"?

Threatening a company over future contracts, when such future contracts should be going through a proper tender process rather than being at the whim of the chair of the organisation (indeed the chair of the organisation should have absolutely nothing to do with contacts being put out to tender to avoid bias, bribary, nepotism and other malpractice).

 

[Wolfie]

If a specific supplier is problematic, a reason can be found to not accept their bid and not a lot can be done about it.

Except an application for judicial review.... You'd be amazed at what a good KC will find out through legal disclosure...

 

[Starmill]

Of course I've read the thread I've been actively involved!

Great, thank you. So would you be able to clarify if there's a reason why you're asking for something to be explained again when it's already been clarified multiple times what the problem is?

This is how some businesses work at higher levels and there are some "sharp" comments. Perhaps it should be better, but you'd have underdo decades of corporate culture and I'm not naive enough to expect that to happen. I clearly think it's more "grey" than you do and as I said early on the original letter is very carefully worded. Before Hendy wrote such a letter I imagine he had someone with some sort of HR or legal background give it a quick once over so it didn't land him in some real (not PR) trouble.

I'm afraid I don't think you're following. We're talking about a senior public servant, a Parliamentarian and, now, a Minister of the Crown. It's in those capacities which he's being criticised. Not his capacity as a simple business executive. I don't think there's room for interpretation because Hendy's internal emails make it totally clear how his letter to Salt was intended, perhaps you've not made that link, even though it's already been pointed out several times.

What is my motivation for what? I'm quite confused by what you mean. I'm allowed to come back because I think some people are blowing this way out of proportion and think it is solely Hendy to blame whereas I think there are some more nuanced opinions including HR processes, Dennis wanting to "have his cake and eat it", how Systra dealt with it etc. @Clarence Yard has clarified how things work at a senior level and how you have to be mindful of how you deal with the media.

Interesting, we're getting somewhere. Yes, Hendy definitely is solely to blame because, for the thousandth time, Dennis made his comment as a single individual, a private citizen, no different to you and I commenting here on this forum. Hendy was the chair of a state body, a Lord, and is now a Minister. He spoke in his letter as a senior public sector manager and a Parliamentarian. Not as just himself, Peter. Dennis is about as a relevant to Government as you and I are. Hendy is in Government.

Clearly Dennis and Systra have resolved their differences and that's the end of that. It's not likely to affect anything. However, the way Hendy threatened Systra and their capitulation to him is another matter.

I think PR wise it's obviously gone quite badly but as I said, I don't think much will come of it in my professional and personal opinion. Those are just my own views, you can disagree with it fine - and it's been a good discussion from various sides - but I don't see the need to "correct" any record.

Hopefully the above has clarified things.

 

[Vectron383]

I think a lot of commenters on this thread are letting their opinion of Dennis influence their opinion on this situation… it is abundantly clear that Hendy acted in an inappropriate and unbecoming manner for someone holding public office, and he should be held to account for this.

(Edited for clarity)

 

[Starmill]

Which would probably be more a breach of contract argument than anything to do with unfair dissmisal.

I agree that Dennis' actions are absolutely not the actions of someone wanting to go for an unfair dismissal claim. You don't sell merch on Twitter about your alleged unfair dismissal.

 

[Wolfie]

I think a lot of commenters on this thread are letting their opinion of Dennis influence their opinion on this situation… it is abundantly clear that Hendy acted in an inappropriate and unbecoming manner for someone holding public office, and he should be held to account for this.

(Edited for clarity)

Absolutely.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I think a lot of commenters on this thread are letting their opinion of Dennis influence their opinion on this situation… it is abundantly clear that Hendy acted in an inappropriate and unbecoming manner for someone holding public office, and he should be held to account for this.

(Edited for clarity)

This where I am at with the situation.

 

[Starmill]

I think a lot of commenters on this thread are letting their opinion of Dennis influence their opinion on this situation… it is abundantly clear that Hendy acted in an inappropriate and unbecoming manner for someone holding public office, and he should be held to account for this.

(Edited for clarity)

Indeed. Dennis just really isn't a leading figure in the industry. Hendy is perhaps the second most senior figure. It's totally not comparable at all.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I agree that Dennis' actions are absolutely not the actions of someone wanting to go for an unfair dismissal claim. You don't sell merch on Twitter about your alleged unfair dismissal.

My point was that he can't rather than isn't. At least from my understanding of employment law there is absolutely nothing to stop someone being fired unfairly if they have been employed for less than 2 years and the reason doesn't fall into the few narrowly defined "automatically unfair" reasons. IMO we really need a look at employment law in the UK and beef it up - but of course that is never going to happen! Regardless of if you agree he should have made the comments or not, or if you think the employer is right to sack him or not, at least if he had been employed for 2 years he would have been able to argtue his case in a trubunal. The fact he can't because of some arbitary anti worker law is just plain wrong in my eyes.

 

[Horizon22]

Great, thank you. So would you be able to clarify if there's a reason why you're asking for something to be explained again when it's already been clarified multiple times what the problem is?

What am I asking to be explained again? Genuinely confused here!

I'm afraid I don't think you're following. We're talking about a senior public servant, a Parliamentarian and, now, a Minister of the Crown. It's in those capacities which he's being criticised. Not his capacity as a simple business executive. I don't think there's room for interpretation because Hendy's internal emails make it totally clear how his letter to Salt was intended, perhaps you've not made that link, even though it's already been pointed out several times.

I've said several times I don't think it was a good letter and seemed like it could have been dealt with in a different way (a direct call to Systra to ask Dennis to politely stop as one example). But I can also understand nuance - I think it was just the right side of OK from a legal and HR standpoint, even if it that has PR implications. Some people seem to be failing to understand the difference.

Interesting, we're getting somewhere. Yes, Hendy definitely is solely to blame because, for the thousandth time, Dennis made his comment as a single individual, a private citizen, no different to you and I commenting here on this forum. Hendy was the chair of a state body, a Lord, and is now a Minister. He spoke in his letter as a senior public sector manager and a Parliamentarian. Not ss just himself, Peter.

It is rather different really. This forum is not a national media site where quotes are provided from named 'experts'. We are writing under psuedonyms and our comments cannot be tracked back to an individual/company easily. This is a volunter forum and a discussion board on a whole range of topics. I don't know why some people are so oblivious to the fact that in the modern, media era when you are employed in the sector and your are criticising a 3rd party for which the company you are employed with is directly & actively involved in a contract/project this can (and is likely to) have consequences. That's really the point I'm trying to make but some are either completely disgreading it or are naive about it.

Clearly Dennis and Systra have resolved their differences and that's the end of that. It's not likely to affect anything. However, the way Hendy threatened Systra and their capitulation to him is another matter.

Yes, it could well be the end of the matter in all regards. Maybe Labour want to look into his conduct - that's totally there prerogative to do whatever they wish to.

 

[Starmill]

My point was that he can't rather than isn't. At least from my understanding of employment law there is absolutely nothing to stop someone being fired unfairly if they have been employed for less than 2 years and the reason doesn't fall into the few narrowly defined "automatically unfair" reasons. IMO we really need a look at employment law in the UK and beef it up - but of course that is never going to happen!

Yes agreed. If there's no plaintiff and no defendant, you can't say anything about whether a claim is valid. But yes in general principle I agree.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

One hopes he doesn't also have a family to support.

He does - a fairly new born infant too.

 

[Starmill]

What am I asking to be explained again? Genuinely confused here!

Number 325. I don't think it's been that difficult to follow to be honest?

I've said several times I don't think it was a good letter and seemed like it could have been dealt with in a different way (a direct call to Systra to ask Dennis to politely stop as one example). But I can also understand nuance - I think it was just the right side of OK from a legal and HR standpoint, even if it that has PR implications. Some people seem to be failing to understand the difference.

Sure. Maybe you're right on that.

However, nobody that I've seen is calling for Hendy to be prosecuted or convicted. We're just calling for him to resign. Dennis himself hasn't argued that hendy broke the law, just the basic standards of public life to manage public money responsibily. Perhaps he did break the law on that and perhaps he didn't. It's hard to be certain from our position. It's not hard to be sure it was unethical.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Aug 2024 ==

It is rather different really. This forum is not a national media site where quotes are provided from named 'experts'. We are writing under psuedonyms and our comments cannot be tracked back to an individual/company easily. This is a volunter forum and a discussion board on a whole range of topics. I don't know why some people are so oblivious to the fact that in the modern, media era when you are employed in the sector and your are criticising a 3rd party for which the company you are employed with is directly & actively involved in a contract/project this can (and is likely to) have consequences. That's really the point I'm trying to make but some are either completely disgreading it or are naive about it.

Nobody is oblivious to any of that at all. What I'm saying is that it's irrelevant. You can keep going on and on about it all you like for me but does it really have anything to do with Hendy's abuse of his power?

 

[Horizon22]

Number 325. I don't think it's been that difficult to follow to be honest?

Okay and people have given their views on why it's misconduct. I happen to disagree (for reasons above). That is all.

Sure. Maybe you're right on that.

However, nobody that I've seen is calling for Hendy to be prosecuted or convicted. We're just calling for him to resign. Dennis himself hasn't argued that hendy broke the law, just the basic standards of public life to manage public money responsibily. Perhaps he did break the law on that and perhaps he didn't. It's hard to be certain from our position. It's not hard to be sure it was unethical.

No, and if people want to call him to resign then fair enough. Again, just not my opinion that this is an incident that rates highly enough to ensure a resignation. I highly doubt he broke the law because as I alluded to, I would suggest before he wrote such a letter a) it was checked over by those with some legal perspective and b) it was carefully worded to be just on the right side of anything deemed purely improper. Perhaps he was advised to not send it but did so anyway! Of course there are various things it is potentially insinuating but there are a lot of ducks in a row to get this far. Certainly not how I'd have dealt with it but there we are! You can disagree with an approach whilst at the same time acknowledging that it was still a valid course of action. Not everything is so black and white as you accept with "its hard to be certain" & "perhaps he didn't".


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Aug 2024 ==

Nobody is oblivious to any of that at all. What I'm saying is that it's irrelevant.

It isn't.

Anyway I feel like I'm going around in circles here with my viewpoint so I will leave it here.

 

[Starmill]

I would suggest before he wrote such a letter a) it was checked over by those with some legal perspective and b) it was carefully worded to be just on the right side of anything deemed purely improper.

These are just bare assumptions though by your own admission. You've nothing to back them up.

 

[Horizon22]

These are just bare assumptions though by your own admission. You've nothing to back them up.

Yes they are assumptions, but educated ones based on professional experience.

 

[Starmill]

It isn't.

It is. If I accepted all of your arguments about Dennis that doesn't in any way affect my arguments about Hendy. It doesn't actually matter what Dennis did because he wasn't a public servant.

Hendy was free to rebut the accusation in public by contacting the paper Dennis was interviewed for to say "Gareth Dennis is wrong because this, this and this. There is no longer any risk to passengers using London Euston station of crushing or other hazards during disruption to services because my organisation has done this, this, and this.". Now, you say Hendy didn't commit misconduct - so can you offer any sort of explanation for why he didn't do the above? Could it be, for example, because the above was false?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Aug 2024 ==

Yes they are assumptions, but educated ones based on professional experience.

Sure but we're talking about Hendy, a provably unethical leader. We aren't talking about you and your career where I assume you hold yourself to a higher standard.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

I don't know why some people are so oblivious to the fact that in the modern, media era when you are employed in the sector and your are criticising a 3rd party for which the company you are employed with is directly & actively involved in a contract/project this can (and is likely to) have consequences.

But this is not necessarily true for what are essentially policy decisions in the public sector.

I do some contracting work now and then for Frogshire County Council. I also publicly criticise Frogshire County Council for its cycling infrastructure provision which is laughably bad at times. No one bats an eyelid. There is no conflict between the two.

Hendy appeared to be acting as the Lord Sugar-esque "You're fired" buccaneering chair of a private company, which is not what Network Rail is. It is meant to award contracts on the basis of taxpayer value, not on the boss's say-so because he felt slighted by some insult or other.

 

[Starmill]

Of course there are various things it is potentially insinuating but there are a lot of ducks in a row to get this far. Certainly not how I'd have dealt with it but there we are! You can disagree with an approach whilst at the same time acknowledging that it was still a valid course of action. Not everything is so black and white as you accept with "its hard to be certain" & "perhaps he didn't".

It's not hard to be certain he was being unethical because there's loads of context in the internal emails the papers have. Hendy was retaliating against someone he didn't like, he said so himself. He was entitled to do that in public, but that would have exposed him to the cold hard facts of the situation, so instead he tried to do it in an underhanded way. He clearly didn't expect that letter to be made public. He clearly doesn't stand by it either, because if he did, he'd have commented so to the paper, instead of going no comment when they told him they were publishing it. That's the core of the misconduct.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Aug 2024 ==

But this is not necessarily true for what are essentially policy decisions in the public sector.

I do some contracting work now and then for Frogshire County Council. I also publicly criticise Frogshire County Council for its cycling infrastructure provision which is laughably bad at times. No one bats an eyelid. There is no conflict between the two.

Hendy appeared to be acting as the Lord Sugar-esque "You're fired" buccaneering chair of a private company, which is not what Network Rail is. It is meant to award contracts on the basis of taxpayer value, not on the boss's say-so because he felt slighted by some insult or other.

Exactly. The council is permitted to reject the facts of your criticism in public if it so wishes. No doubt they can't do that, because they deep down know you're actually right.

What it's not permitted to do is retaliate against you secretly by threatening you with a procurement bar outside of their public sector procurement policy, as defined by the law, the Treasury, and industry best practice.

 

[Buzby]

Opinions on Dennis may be a little marmite in nature but regardless of anything Hendy's been pretty dumb here. No getting around it.

Until I read his reply. I actually held him in high regard. The veiled threats were needless and beneath him - yet he signed it!

 

[Starmill]

Until I read his reply. I actually held him in high regard. The veiled threats were needless and beneath him - yet he signed it!

When Hendy was appointed by Haigh I totally agreed. I thought he could do a great job.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Let’s be clear - Hendy wasn’t doing it in an underhand way - it was a letter on headed notepaper. If he wanted to do it without publicity, he would rung the chairman of Systra and not put it in writing at all.

Spelling out the consequences of any public statements or accusations by either the supplier or one of its employees, especially a prominent employee, is not unknown. In a public contract you usually have an agreement that you cannot, either directly or implicitly, slag the client off or act against the interests of the client. If you are an employee you do not have the right, as a private citizen, to just go to a journo and spout off about one of your firms clients and not face any consequences.

I don’t think people here realise how organisations (both public and private) work at times. Pressure is a recognised tool of the trade and is often deployed. It can get threatening if one party thinks they have been wronged and those at a senior level tend to have notoriously thin skins. The DfT are another party who have, in the past, “made changes”, on demand of senior officials.

Like I said before, it’s a hard world out there and if you mess with the big boys, you are likely to get in trouble if you are not careful. Blur the distinction between your professional and private lives and it may well end in tears.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

One thing that hasn't been clarified - to my eye at least, I may have missed it - why has this been published and become an issue now? The GD media interview was back in April, the letter from Hendy and subsequent repercussions were some time ago as well, as was the announcement of Hendy’s appointment as rail minister. What’s the logic of publishing the story in late August, or is this just how newspaper stories work?

 

[James H]

It will have taken a while for GD to get hold of the correspondence held by Network Rail, presumably under a subject access request.

The disciplinary process also continued till June/July by the sounds of it

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

Let’s be clear - Hendy wasn’t doing it in an underhand way - it was a letter on headed notepaper. If he wanted to do it without publicity, he would rung the chairman of Systra and not put it in writing at all.

Spelling out the consequences of any public statements or accusations by either the supplier or one of its employees, especially a prominent employee, is not unknown. In a public contract you usually have an agreement that you cannot, either directly or implicitly, slag the client off or act against the interests of the client. If you are an employee you do not have the right, as a private citizen, to just go to a journo and spout off about one of your firms clients and not face any consequences.

I don’t think people here realise how organisations (both public and private) work at times. Pressure is a recognised tool of the trade and is often deployed. It can get threatening if one party thinks they have been wronged and those at a senior level tend to have notoriously thin skins. The DfT are another party who have, in the past, “made changes”, on demand of senior officials.

Like I said before, it’s a hard world out there and if you mess with the big boys, you are likely to get in trouble if you are not careful. Blur the distinction between your professional and private lives and it may well end in tears.

Presumably in contracts between Systra and Network Rail there are clauses to that effect, so really the conflict is between Systra’s internal contract with GD and what they committed to with their client?

 

[Grimsby town]

Let’s be clear - Hendy wasn’t doing it in an underhand way - it was a letter on headed notepaper. If he wanted to do it without publicity, he would rung the chairman of Systra and not put it in writing at all.

Spelling out the consequences of any public statements or accusations by either the supplier or one of its employees, especially a prominent employee, is not unknown. In a public contract you usually have an agreement that you cannot, either directly or implicitly, slag the client off or act against the interests of the client. If you are an employee you do not have the right, as a private citizen, to just go to a journo and spout off about one of your firms clients and not face any consequences.

I don’t think people here realise how organisations (both public and private) work at times. Pressure is a recognised tool of the trade and is often deployed. It can get threatening if one party thinks they have been wronged and those at a senior level tend to have notoriously thin skins. The DfT are another party who have, in the past, “made changes”, on demand of senior officials.

Like I said before, it’s a hard world out there and if you mess with the big boys, you are likely to get in trouble if you are not careful. Blur the distinction between your professional and private lives and it may well end in tears.

I work in consulting and have heard of clients demanding all internal communications from consulting that relate to specific projects. I've also heard that the DfT wouldn't allow consultants to work on certain projects if they were particularly outspoken on certain topics. Its certainly heavy handed to do such things but the client has the right to do that.

 

[HarryL]

One thing that hasn't been clarified - to my eye at least, I may have missed it - why has this been published and become an issue now? The GD media interview was back in April, the letter from Hendy and subsequent repercussions were some time ago as well, as was the announcement of Hendy’s appointment as rail minister. What’s the logic of publishing the story in late August, or is this just how newspaper stories work?

Dennis has indicated he's been talking to the RMT about it all, presumably they've been working through all options for getting him back in or getting some form of justice behind the scenes before going public with it.

 

[Starmill]

Let’s be clear - Hendy wasn’t doing it in an underhand way - it was a letter on headed notepaper. If he wanted to do it without publicity, he would rung the chairman of Systra and not put it in writing at all.

Spelling out the consequences of any public statements or accusations by either the supplier or one of its employees, especially a prominent employee, is not unknown. In a public contract you usually have an agreement that you cannot, either directly or implicitly, slag the client off or act against the interests of the client. If you are an employee you do not have the right, as a private citizen, to just go to a journo and spout off about one of your firms clients and not face any consequences.

I don’t think people here realise how organisations (both public and private) work at times. Pressure is a recognised tool of the trade and is often deployed. It can get threatening if one party thinks they have been wronged and those at a senior level tend to have notoriously thin skins. The DfT are another party who have, in the past, “made changes”, on demand of senior officials.

Like I said before, it’s a hard world out there and if you mess with the big boys, you are likely to get in trouble if you are not careful. Blur the distinction between your professional and private lives and it may well end in tears.

So your argument is... what?

Most of us aren't fussed about what happens to Dennis because he actually seems to be loving this. There's a huge amount of good publicity in it for him that Systra tried to buy his silence and he's proudly called their bluff. For now he'll be doing great on merch sales and the live streaming, and if he moves into a journalist role he'll probably have it made.

However, Hendy is another matter. Is your argument everyone's as bad as him? If that's what this very long post is trying to say then I don't get why you'd argue it's a reason to give him a free pass. After all, I haven't seen anyone arguing for a conviction - a resignation in disgrace will do nicely. Why is it that "it's a hard world out there" is some impediment to that? Or alternatively if that's not your argument then what is?

As for the word underhanded, I meant it in the sense that I'm calling Hendy dishonest. I know it can also be a word often used to mean secretive too, and it wasn't quite that. But it certainly was a dishonest thing to do.

 

[Flying Snail]

Let’s be clear - Hendy wasn’t doing it in an underhand way - it was a letter on headed notepaper. If he wanted to do it without publicity, he would rung the chairman of Systra and not put it in writing at all.

Spelling out the consequences of any public statements or accusations by either the supplier or one of its employees, especially a prominent employee, is not unknown. In a public contract you usually have an agreement that you cannot, either directly or implicitly, slag the client off or act against the interests of the client. If you are an employee you do not have the right, as a private citizen, to just go to a journo and spout off about one of your firms clients and not face any consequences.

I don’t think people here realise how organisations (both public and private) work at times. Pressure is a recognised tool of the trade and is often deployed. It can get threatening if one party thinks they have been wronged and those at a senior level tend to have notoriously thin skins. The DfT are another party who have, in the past, “made changes”, on demand of senior officials.

Like I said before, it’s a hard world out there and if you mess with the big boys, you are likely to get in trouble if you are not careful. Blur the distinction between your professional and private lives and it may well end in tears.

So because they have ascended to high office the likes of Hendy should be entitled to act like low rent mafioso's, issuing termination orders on anyone who disrespects them?

It is sad so many people are happy to see ordinary workers taken to task and have their livelihoods ruined over things that shouldn't even be an issue such as speaking the truth about bad working practices.

It is these same people that are apparently incapable of understanding that those at the top of society need to be held to the highest of standards in all their activities as a reasonable condtion for the huge privileges and wealth their positions provide. Not to mention the corrosive corruption that follows from senior government officials being able to act like this.