Grimsby train worker sacked, TPE South staff plan strike.

[Morris Dancer]

Going on longer than you think.
https://youtu.be/L8zt1V043hg

 

[transmanche]

Are all youths now to be called 'vulnerable members of the public' ?

You can bet your life that should said youth be dismembered by a train, his (or her) parents will tearfully explain just how vulnerable he was.

 

[bnm]

Said parents can console themselves with the Darwin Award their stupid offspring would win.

 

[broadgage]

Are all youths now to be called 'vulnerable members of the public' ?

Considering what he did, I'd say 'yob' was more appropriate.

Agree, but these days drunk and/or stupid is "vulnerable"
And yes train surfing has been popular for years among the "vulnerable" in south London and presumably elsewhere. Until recently I lived within sight of a station and witnessed a number of cases of riding on the outside of passenger trains, riding on goods trains, standing on conductor rails, climbing radio masts, and other foolhardy behaviour.

 

[185]

I'm staying undecided on this with an open mind, as I know both the person concerned, and the company concerned rather well.

Four years ago, Safety Manager Alexander Walker attended court, to give evidence about a "company procedure clearly stated in the SC2 staff handbook", then when asked where in the said book it was, he then proceeded to retract the statement apologising to a judge stating it was an "administrative mistake" and it did not exist.

The amended company procedure he referred to was introduced 4 weeks before the court date, however a copy of their own book was produced in court which was current at the time of the incident, had no mention of the procedure.... the new procedure which was introduced in the aftermath of the very incident that disciplinary action arose from. He lied.

For those who break the basics of despatch procedure, it lets the rest down. Different rolling stock is better for despatch than others, and TPE (except for the hired 156s) have some of the best stock in industry for doing a safe conductor despatch.

 

[bramling]

Are all youths now to be called 'vulnerable members of the public' ?

Considering what he did, I'd say 'yob' was more appropriate.

Unless there's more we don't know, I *strongly* object to any idea that the youth in this incident was in any way "vulnerable". I can think of quite a few words that could be accurately used, but "vulnerable" certainly isn't one.

Without having seen the full story it's hard to form a judgement one way or another regarding the guard's actions. However, as a fellow railwayman he has my full sympathy in respect of the position he now finds himself in.

I agree with what others have said regarding not attempting to push someone off the side of a train. No matter how tempting, if you're not railway staff it's better not to intervene at all, than risk potentially making a bad situation a whole lot worse. Personally I couldn't really care a damn about the welfare of the idiot doing the surfing, but anyone getting physically involved could find themselves up for manslaughter (or worse) if the person ends up under the train - it's really isn't worth taking that chance.

 

[yorkie]

Any action taken against the 'surfer' ?

There isn't any action that our society is prepared to take against such individuals that would actually make them bothered.

Had the emergency brakes been applied and the idiot lost his life because he lost his grip and fell onto the track awkwardly, could it be deemed negligent on the part of the guard because he could have reasonably foreseen that following this protocol blindly could have resulted in harm in the particular set of circumstances, thereby being prosecuted by the CPS?

Not in a sane world. I know our legal system is bonkers, but surely it's not that bonkers that you can be prosecuted for following the correct procedure?

Are all youths now to be called 'vulnerable members of the public' ?
Considering what he did, I'd say 'yob' was more appropriate.

Absolutely 'yob' is more appropriate, but our society demands we give such individuals almost unlimited rights (including the right not to be referred to by accurate descriptions) and almost unlimited chances.

 

[bnm]

Ultimately though (and this a general point and not a comment on this individual case), our society and legal systems are such that we protect, as far as possible, people from themselves. Even the idiots.

 

[the sniper]

The main mistake here was the Guard presumably leaning out the window to observe the train leaving the platform. It's the safest way to work the train, but most TOCs don't encourage it. As such, the choice is yours. Work the train more safely with your head out or keep your head in, see no evil/hear no evil, stick to the TOC policy and considerably reduce your risk of being sacked/going to court.

Even with that in mind, I still often have my head out of the window. I prefer to work the train more safely rather than just cover my arse, though if you're in the wrong place at the wrong time, and in a spilt moment don't make the right call, you know the price you'll pay for safety.

 

[Starmill]

What would have happened if the guard had been using the set of passenger doors? That would be permitted at this location would it not? He would have completed the safety check on the rest of the doors, closed his own and stood by the panel none the wiser to what they chose to start doing after that.

Consider the days when this would have been a 158. No matter which doors were in use that would have happened then.

 

[MikeWh]

Not in a sane world. I know our legal system is bonkers, but surely it's not that bonkers that you can be prosecuted for following the correct procedure?

It might be ...

A father who was denied any access to his children by a family court was successfully fined when the mother took them out of school without his knowledge. The judge sympathised with the father, but as the fine is a strict liability matter there was nothing he could do.

This is 21st century Britain!

 

[martynbristow]

Goes to prove that as Guards we have to have "Zero Tolerance", and stick to our guns, be it with Platform Staff, Control, BTP or Delay Attribution.

We can get pressured by all of these to do things we feel can uncomfortable with and are ultimately going to be our responsibility when it all goes wrong.

A group of youths on the platform attempting to do something stupid? Refuse to move the train until the platform is clear - if this means waiting twenty or thirty minutes for police to turn up, so be it! After the delay minutes build up, and complaints roll in, then it might be seen as a problem.

I've known a colleague wait this long on a platform with a late train as there was an incapable drunk on the platform staggering around and it took that long for police to turn up. Nothing happened to him.

Personally, on late trains and unmanned platforms, I don't lock the doors until the platform is empty. I don't care how long it takes (I make a point of NOT looking at a clock until I'm totally ready to move). Supporting my family takes priority over everything in my book.

My opinion is your spot on. ZERO tolerance must be taken, but not just by you by everyone.
I only read the revised article but from the news article I would put the mistake at allowing the dispatch, as there was no evidence to suggest the kid wouldn't do it again.
If the guard holds the train I would only hold it against TPE for failing to ensure the security of the train.

Reading between the lines of the James St report I think the company needs to ensure the platform is clear and no people come into proximity with the train after the train has prepared to leave. Merseyrail now have security on platforms

 

[DaleCooper]

It might be ...

A father who was denied any access to his children by a family court was successfully fined when the mother took them out of school without his knowledge. The judge sympathised with the father, but as the fine is a strict liability matter there was nothing he could do.

This is 21st century Britain!

That's an interesting case, have you got a link to it?

 

[jopsuk]

by the reports (both from TPE and RMT sources) it seems to me the Guard made one key assumption - that the youth would let go of the train whilst it was still travelling at a relatively low speed. He turned out to be correct, but on what basic, what evidence could the guard make that judgement? We're clearly not talking about geniuses here- could it not have been as likely that the youth would try and hang on for much longer?

 

[HilversumNS]

That's an interesting case, have you got a link to it?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...prosecuted-mother-took-holiday-term-time.html

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/reading-berkshire-news/berkshire-parents-lose-appeal-after-9196812

 

[jamesst]

My opinion is your spot on. ZERO tolerance must be taken, but not just by you by everyone.
I only read the revised article but from the news article I would put the mistake at allowing the dispatch, as there was no evidence to suggest the kid wouldn't do it again.
If the guard holds the train I would only hold it against TPE for failing to ensure the security of the train.

Reading between the lines of the James St report I think the company needs to ensure the platform is clear and no people come into proximity with the train after the train has prepared to leave. Merseyrail now have security on platforms

Merseyrail only have security on the underground platforms and whilst moorfields is being refurbished. For the most part traincrew are still left to fend for themselves with zero backup

 

[martynbristow]

Merseyrail only have security on the underground platforms and whilst moorfields is being refurbished. For the most part traincrew are still left to fend for themselves with zero backup

There are a number of agency staff now about but there is also a greater presence of staff in general and I have seen certain people be suitably proctive dealing with people.
If have been made aware of a train being left because of a disruptive person and it had to wait for BTP respond which there isn't a problem with.
All staff deal with people on the platforms when I've been waiting

 

[Ianigsy]

With the best will in the world, there's always a limit to the amount of earnings that people are prepared to sacrifice to support a dismissed colleague, but I have to say that I think the RMT are probably right to be taking action on the grounds that antisocial behaviour on this line is clearly an issue and the instructions that they're being given from TPE are not adequate in the situation. Refusing to provide a Saturday service when these problems are presumably at a peak isn't unreasonable but if I were the RMT I'd be looking to make the wider point about having the necessary support available to deal with the misbehaviour and allowing staff to do their job in a safe and professional way.

 

[Flamingo]

With the best will in the world, there's always a limit to the amount of earnings that people are prepared to sacrifice to support a dismissed colleague, but I have to say that I think the RMT are probably right to be taking action on the grounds that antisocial behaviour on this line is clearly an issue and the instructions that they're being given from TPE are not adequate in the situation. Refusing to provide a Saturday service when these problems are presumably at a peak isn't unreasonable but if I were the RMT I'd be looking to make the wider point about having the necessary support available to deal with the misbehaviour and allowing staff to do their job in a safe and professional way.

Where's the "Like" button?

 

[transmanche]

but if I were the RMT I'd be looking to make the wider point about having the necessary support available to deal with the misbehaviour and allowing staff to do their job in a safe and professional way.

You make a very good point, especially as the impression I get from reading posts here is that TOC management are not exactly good at supporting staff who face anti-social behaviour at stations and on trains.

Unfortunately I don't think the general public have a particularly good impression of railway unions in general, as some of the unions' public announcements come across as 'somewhat combative'. I think they could do with employing a PR expert or spin doctor to get some positive coverage on their own terms. Get the general public 'on side', be media-savvy (be social media savvy!) because it's hard to win hearts and minds when all the public hears about is industrial action.

 

[tony6499]

by the reports (both from TPE and RMT sources) it seems to me the Guard made one key assumption - that the youth would let go of the train whilst it was still travelling at a relatively low speed. He turned out to be correct, but on what basic, what evidence could the guard make that judgement? We're clearly not talking about geniuses here- could it not have been as likely that the youth would try and hang on for much longer?

That's my point, as an ex guard I've seen plenty of crowd surfers on trains over the years and we have had some head bangers who would want to stay on to the next station or beyond.

If you see the danger stop the train, then you can't be accused and if there is danger before you give right away then don't until help is at hand.

 

[12CSVT]

Justice will only be done if the guard gets his job back, and the pile of rat poo which attempted to spit at him gets a custodial sentence. The fact that the saliva (thankfully) missed its intended target is irrelevant.

 

[northwichcat]

It seems to just affect South TPE on a number of upcoming weekends.

Rail Union RMT has today confirmed that strike dates over the harsh decision taken by Transpennine Express management to dismiss a union member following a train despatch irregularity at Grimsby Town are well and truly on after the company refused a perfectly reasonable request to reinstate at an “avoidance of disputes” meeting with RMT this week.

RMT had identified a perfectly valid vacancy that the member could have been redeployed to but despite a strenuous effort to reach a solution from the trade union side those efforts were thrown back in our faces by a management not prepared to take any account whatsoever of the extenuating circumstances and the honesty of the individual who now faces the loss of his livelihood.

Prior to the despatch incident that led to the dismissal a gang of youths had been acting in an anti-social manner at the station. When our dismissed members train arrived at the station and during the despatch process one of the youths – known to have an ASBO- attempted to "surf" the train on departure. RMT’s member spotted this and ceased the despatch process before he had reached the point of giving the Train Driver the right away signal (two buzzers). He shouted and gesticulated to the youth to move away from the train and started the despatch process again. He was able to give the right away signal to the Driver while observing that the youth was clear of the train. Then as the Driver was taking power and about to move off, the youth once again “surfed” the train by holding on to the door frame and standing on the small step board.

The train started to move off down the platform at 7mph with the youth clinging on for about 15 meters then jumping back off and the train continuing. RMT’s member saw the youth, and in the seconds it took the incident to happen, he judged that it was safer to allow the youth to jump back off at slow speed, rather than carry out the approved procedure of pressing the red emergency stop button, which would have made an immediate emergency full brake application, possibly throwing the youth off balance. As the rear of the train passed the access gate at which the youths had gathered, the youth who had been clinging to the train then directed foul and abusive language at the RMT member and spat at him, but luckily missed. Our member then reported the incident to control.

Despite the extenuating circumstances behind this case, and despite our member being fully open and honest about what happened, the company moved to dismiss, triggering a ballot which delivered an overwhelming vote for action and leading RMT’s executive to declare the following action:

All TPE Conductor members located at Cleethorpes and Sheffield to take industrial action as listed below:-

Strike Action

Do NOT to book on for any shifts that commence between:-

• 00.01 hours and 23:59 hours on Sunday 7th June 2015
• 00.01 hours and 23:59 hours on Sunday 14th June 2015
• 00.01 hours and 23:59 hours on Sunday 21st June 2015
• 00.01 hours and 23:59 hours on Sunday 28th June 2015

Further Industrial Action

Do NOT work any overtime or undertake any rest day working between the following hours:-

• 00.01 hours and 23:59 hours on Saturday 30th May 2015
• 00.01 hours and 23:59 hours on Saturday 6th June 2015
• 00.01 hours and 23:59 hours on Saturday 13th June 2015
• 00.01 hours and 23:59 hours on Saturday 20th June 2015
• 00.01 hours and 23:59 hours on Saturday 27th June 2015

The union has also now decided to escalate by balloting conductor members across the TPE franchise.

RMT General Secretary Mick Cash said:
“It is disgraceful that strenuous efforts by the union in the avoidance of disputes meeting to right this blatant injustice have been thrown back in our faces and that our member now faces poverty and the dole queue despite the blatantly obvious extenuating circumstances in this case.

“Our sacked member has maintained an unblemished safety and disciplinary record during his ten years of employment with First Transpennine Express. This union remains firmly of the opinion that his dismissal is overly harsh and unwarranted. We balloted our TPE Conductor members at Cleethorpes and Sheffield for strike action and industrial action short of a strike, ballots which delivered a large mandate, and we are now moving to action to press the company once again to re-employ our colleague.

“This dispute is about recognising the particular circumstances of this case and ensuring that the duty of care to staff facing abuse and dangerous behaviour on the railways is properly recognised. RMT remains available for talks.”

http://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-confirms-strike-dates-on-trans-pennine-express/

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

I think he shouldn't lose his job since it was an one off event that few woukd have been trained for.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I see that the issued statement must have been rushed, as the normal "trade-union-speak" phrases that can be counted upon to be liberally interspersed in a harkening back to the days of Ramsay Macdonald were sadly missing.

All that I could find was one instance of "harsh decision" and two instances of "thrown back in our faces". Perhaps brother Cash needs to show those responsible for such statements in how to word such a statement with at least twenty of the "stock union-style phrases" being used.

 

[northwichcat]

I see that the issued statement must have been rushed, as the normal "trade-union-speak" phrases that can be counted upon to be liberally interspersed in a harkening back to the days of Ramsay Macdonald were sadly missing.

All that I could find was one instance of "harsh decision" and two instances of "thrown back in our faces". Perhaps brother Cash needs to show those responsible for such statements in how to word such a statement with at least twenty of the "stock union-style phrases" being used.

The one yesterday on the Network Rail strike obviously had been rushed. In it the RMT claimed the offer for the year 2105 was a 1% rise.

 

[carriageline]

The one yesterday on the Network Rail strike obviously had been rushed. In it the RMT claimed the offer for the year 2105 was a 1% rise.

I knew NR liked long term deals, but that takes the mickey!

 

[martynbristow]

I think he shouldn't lose his job since it was an one off event that few woukd have been trained for.

I doubt 99.99% of things that pop up have been *trained* for, however the skill is making correct decisions quickly.
As the information clearly indicates he knew there was a risk of a problem I would argue the dispatch should have been aborted and NOT restarted until it had been made safe.
Not seeing a risk doesn't mean its gone away.
From TPE it seems there are legal precedents the can't cross.
Although the punishment is harsh, I think if something had happened it would be very serious.

 

[185]

I doubt 99.99% of things that pop up have been *trained* for, however the skill is making correct decisions quickly.

Not the case, at TPE.

In court, three years ago, I witnessed Mr Paul Watson, Operations Director concede to the judge, ".....yes, the police did commend our employee's actions for his split second decision making, but we had to dismiss them as it breaks our policy...."

Then Alex Walker, Safety Manager was later asked where the policy was "...it's in the SC2 Conductor Standards Handbook..." (which was then produced) - his answer then changed to ...."errr.. yes, sorry your honour, it's not in there, we don't have a policy".

So in that 2011 case-
A) the police will agree that common sense is followed in upholding the law using ordinary powers of any citizen in protecting a *vulnerable* lone female passenger, whilst
B) the company sack him, for breaching a policy they later invented, even if it did prevent an a-la-Merseyrail fatality, during a despatch 10 mins later.

This is quite a different scenario, however the principles are again identical - member of staff making an instant decision, whilst someone sat behind a desk who thinks they know better passes their own thoughtless judgement from a nice warm office.

 

[Flamingo]

There is nothing wrong with doing an after-incident review to see if any improvement can be made regarding the handling of incidents, and in a cool detached manner seeing if the split-second decision can be improved. This information should then be given to staff to help them in dealing with a similar situation.

However, this process needs to be treated as a learning and education exercise, not a disciplinary process, unless it turns up gross negligence on the part of the employee. Even if a failure to follow policy, the reasons why must be given proper weight.