RMT Strike Action - Virgin West Coast

[mde]

The RMT have called a strike for train managers on 19 November over an alleged 'victimisation' issue.

It appears, going by their previous press releases, that it refers to the issue at Crewe back in May (discussed on this forum here), which resulted in a TM at Holyhead being sacked over what Virgin are calling 'gross misconduct'.

RMT calls strike on Virgin West Coast over sacked and victimised member

RAIL UNION RMT confirmed today that it has called a 24 hour strike on Virgin West Coast over the shocking treatment and dismissal of a colleague that the union says is a straightforward and vicious case of victimisation.

RMT has congratulated members for their solid and united support for their colleague who has been so disgracefully treated by Virgin West Coast. An overtime and rest day ban over the last few weeks has been rock solid in spite of various efforts to mislead, intimidate and harass members in clear underhand tactics to undermine it.

Despite this, management continue to resist all efforts to try to resolve this matter and see the case treated in a fair and proportionate way. Management have upped the ante by resisting reasonable union requests to release our Train Manager Company Council reps to try to discuss the ongoing dispute.

RMT is clear that Virgin West Coast have acted in an entirely arrogant and belligerent manner and we will not allow this to continue. The unions National Executive Committee has considered this matter again and, having taken on board the views of local representatives, has decided to suspend the current overtime and rest day ban and call strike action as below: -

• All Train Manager members are instructed not to book on for any duties that commence between 00.01 hours and 23.59 hours on Tuesday 19th November 2019.

RMT general secretary Mick Cash said;

“I urge all Virgin West Coast members to continue their magnificent solidarity and support for our colleague who has been treated so disgracefully. We cannot allow this appalling situation to continue and our member must be reinstated.


“It is time for the company to stop their aggressive and bullying tactics and sit down with us and right this wrong which has angered staff across the West Coast franchise.”

https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-calls-strike-on-virgin-west11119/

 

[yorkie]

They really are bonkers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What's the other side of the story, if anyone knows it?

 

[Starmill]

I wonder if the train manager has made a claim at the Employment Tribunal? I also wonder if the passenger has made a claim against Virgin Trains for unlawful discrimination.

 

[Starmill]

What's the other side of the story, if anyone knows it?

A disabled passenger was refused travel by a train manager. The passenger claimed this was unlawful discrimination against them.

I wonder if it is possible that VT settled a claim with the passenger, and, holding the train manager responsible for that, dismissed them.

 

[Joe Paxton]

They really are bonkers.

Which 'they' are you referring to?

 

[mde]

What's the other side of the story, if anyone knows it?

The customer's perspective is on a video which the Metro have (I can't find the original source link); however, based on the hyperbole that the RMT have published it seems there is some suggestion of malfeasance on the customer's part.

As the trade dispute summary makes clear Sister Hughes was sacked for refusing to allow a passenger to board the train who, in a previous incident in March, had been intimidating and aggressive towards her and a catering member of staff. This passenger is well known to staff and previously posted edited video clips onto social media giving what many consider to be highly selective and inaccurate view of what actually occurred.

On the day in question the journey from Euston had already been challenging for Rebecca to say the least. The setup was 5 car instead of 10 car, two disabled passengers were on board who required a high level of support, one of which had welfare issues which needed addressing repeatedly. On the basis of the previous difficulties Rebecca and other staff have had with this passenger, as well as the highly challenging circumstances she had already experienced throughout the journey, Rebecca decided she would not let the passenger board the train. At that point Rebecca’s fears were realised and yet again the passenger became abusive and her companion started to filming the incident which ended up on social media in a matter of hours.

https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/members-updates/dismissal-rebecca-hughes-train-manager29819/

 

[Tetchytyke]

Rebecca Hughes decided she didn't have to deal with a "difficult" customer, Rebecca Hughes stopped doing her job, Rebecca Hughes faced the consequences of her behaviour. The End.

The RMT would make me vote Tory

Still, if the brothers want to lose a few hundred quid each in defence of a woman who clearly isn't capable of doing her job professionally and properly, fill yer boots.

I work with "difficult" people all day every day, as some of you will know. Don't like it? Don't do the job.

 

[Starmill]

The customer's perspective is on a video which the Metro have (I can't find the original source link); however, based on the hyperbole that the RMT have published it seems there is some suggestion of malfeasance on the customer's part.

It's amazing that the RMT's own statement admits that "Sister Hughes" chose not to allow the customer to board the train without a legitimate reason. The only reason given is that the RMT and "Sister Hughes" dislike the customer. Refusing travel because you have a personal vendetta (and thereby likely committing breach of contract against a customer) is obvious criteria for gross misconduct. And that's the just what is included in the RMT's statement. What we don't know is if the train manager had previously had any warnings.

however, based on the hyperbole that the RMT have published it seems there is some suggestion of malfeasance on the customer's part.

It's strongly in RMT's interest for the customer to have done something wrong. There doesn't appear to be any particular evidence that this is the case, however.​

 

[yorkie]

Which 'they' are you referring to?

The RMT of course!

...I work with "difficult" people all day every day, as some of you will know. Don't like it? Don't do the job....

Quite. I've faced all sorts of challenging behaviours but you have to respond professionally at all times.

Every member of VT staff depicted in the video was a credit to the company, and dealt with a challenging situation very well... except for one.

Well done to Virgin for doing the right thing.

As for the RMT... they couldn't sink any lower in my opinion (not that they care what my opinion is; I am sure the feeling is mutual on that!)

 

[Kite159]

It's amazing that the RMT's own statement admits that "Sister Hughes" chose not to allow the customer to board the train without a legitimate reason. The only reason given is that the RMT and "Sister Hughes" dislike the customer. Refusing travel because you have a personal vendetta (and thereby likely committing breach of contract against a customer) is obvious criteria for gross misconduct. And that's the just what is included in the RMT's statement. What we don't know is if the train manager had previously had any warnings.

The RMT probably want to see Virgin out with a bang. Maybe a warning at what to expect depending on the results of the vote in December.

At least they are not striking over someone getting sacked for turning up to work drunk, turning themselves into laughing stocks in the public eye

 

[Mag_seven]

Does anyone know if the dismissed employee has been to an industrial tribunal and if so what was the finding?

 

[mde]

It's strongly in RMT's interest for the customer to have done something wrong. There doesn't appear to be any particular evidence that this is the case, however.

Oh indeed; there is a suggestion the video isn't quite the whole story, but, that's hard to prove…

Something smells a bit fishy here.

 

[randyrippley]

Do a Google search for her. "Agony Autie". There are some interesting comments from other autistic people who don't have a lot of time for her.
Difficult to repeat whats claimed without opening the site to legal action, but based on what can be read online about other incidents I'd be disinclined to believe her.

 

[Starmill]

Do a Google search for her. "Agony Autie". There are some interesting comments from other autistic people who don't have a lot of time for her.
Difficult to repeat whats claimed without opening the site to legal action, but based on what can be read online about other incidents I'd be disinclined to believe her.

Not having a lot of time for someone, and choosing to prevent someone from travelling on a train, in representing your employer and without an appropriate justification, when they've paid for the right to travel on it, are quite different things.

The RMT even tried to imply that the customer filming the station is wrongdoing, and that's pretty ridiculous.

 

[randyrippley]

Not having a lot of time for someone, and choosing to prevent someone from travelling on a train, in representing your employer and without an appropriate justification, when they've paid for the right to travel on it, are quite different things.

Agreed, but "Not having a lot of time" was a euphemism. As I said before, its difficult to repeat what others say without causing legal problems - but theres enough to suggest that justification could be expected

 

[Monty]

If the passenger in question has indeed been rude or aggressive it seems like a legitimate reason to refuse travel, the fact they may have an impairment seems like a bit of red herring. I would just like to point out that in my experience the union has rarely balloted for strike action when a member of staff has been dismissed, not unless they think there is something to it. So until further information comes to light this is all just speculation.

That said I feel the need to express my disgust at the notion that I should tolerate aggressive behaviour at work and just do my 'job'. It's that kind of thinking that ends up with gateline assistants getting suckerpunched or guards being grabbed by the throat or spat on by unruly children. Abuse be it physical or verbal should not be tolerated under any circumstances, it should be of no consequence if the person is able bodied or not.

 

[embers25]

If the passenger in question has indeed been rude or aggressive it seems like a legitimate reason to refuse travel, the fact they may have an impairment seems like a bit of red herring. I would just like to point out that in my experience the union has rarely balloted for strike action when a member of staff has been dismissed, not unless they think there is something to it. So until further information comes to light this is all just speculation.

That said I feel the need to express my disgust at the notion that I should tolerate aggressive behaviour at work and just do my 'job'. It's that kind of thinking that ends up with gateline assistants getting suckerpunched or guards being grabbed by the throat or spat on by unruly children. Abuse be it physical or verbal should not be tolerated under any circumstances, it should be of no consequence if the person is able bodied or not.

As everyone knows I despise the RMT with every bone in my body but I agree with Monty on this. I agree its not grounds for a strike but it is surely the thin end of the wedge and every guard's job is in danger, particularly in todays "I'm a vlogger, you'd better treat me better than anyone else" society.

 

[gazzaa2]

Did the TM have witnesses that the passenger was abusive? That's grounds for refusing entry.

 

[a_c_skinner]

Industrial tribunal, not industrial action. Trades unions exist to better their members not to cost them money. Any strike is a failure for any trades union.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Trades unions exist to better their members not to cost them money. Any strike is a failure for any trades union.

Somehow you will have difficulty in convincing a certain Mr Cash of the truth of that...

 

[Bletchleyite]

The customer's perspective is on a video which the Metro have (I can't find the original source link); however, based on the hyperbole that the RMT have published it seems there is some suggestion of malfeasance on the customer's part.

Ah, that incident. I'm in full support of VTWC and the passenger, then.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do a Google search for her. "Agony Autie". There are some interesting comments from other autistic people who don't have a lot of time for her.
Difficult to repeat whats claimed without opening the site to legal action, but based on what can be read online about other incidents I'd be disinclined to believe her.

I don't think there is any evidence in any of the media about her (either done herself of by anyone else) about her being actually abusive. She is clearly awkward at times, but it is not within an individual member of staff's power to refuse someone travel on those grounds, so tough on the member of staff. If you don't like dealing with customers, go and be a non-DOO driver or something. It's not like the railway is in any way short of jobs that don't involve customer interaction.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If the passenger in question has indeed been rude or aggressive it seems like a legitimate reason to refuse travel

Being simply rude is NOT grounds to refuse travel; people should use their Ps and Qs but they are not a requirement of the National Rail Conditions of Travel. Being aggressive in a manner that the guard may feel physically threatened is, but she does not come across that way in anything I have seen regarding her, just a bit loud. Some may take this the wrong way (please don't), but someone in a wheelchair is already at a considerable physical disadvantage by being lower down and not being able to move as quickly as an able-bodied person, so unless she spat or something (and there is no evidence at all of that) it is difficult to see how she would pose a physical threat to anyone at all, either actual or perceived. She's just a bit awkward, and awkward customers are part of a customer service job.

 

[Monty]

Being simply rude is NOT grounds to refuse travel; people should use their Ps and Qs but they are not a requirement of the National Rail Conditions of Travel. Being aggressive in a manner that the guard may feel physically threatened is, but she does not come across that way in anything I have seen regarding her, just a bit loud. Some may take this the wrong way (please don't), but someone in a wheelchair is already at a considerable physical disadvantage by being lower down and not being able to move as quickly as an able-bodied person, so unless she spat or something (and there is no evidence at all of that) it is difficult to see how she would pose a physical threat to anyone at all, either actual or perceived. She's just a bit awkward, and awkward customers are part of a customer service job.

Depending on the passengers conduct and what was said they may be in breach of Byelaw 6 of the Railway Bylaws which the NRCoC clearly state that everyone on the railway is subject to.

The crux of the issue is that the RMT alledge the video has been edited for effect and doesn't tell the whole story. Video editing is becoming easier and easier to the point a relative novice can chop and change mobile videos without any specialist software. As I said previously it's actually quite unusual for the union to ballot for strikes for cases of employment dismissal unless they are pretty certain the process was flawed.

 

[Robertj21a]

Many people who are disabled can, at times, come over as 'grumpy' and frustrated with all around them - and who can blame them in today's 'Me Me Me' attitude to life. Thankfully, there are many others out there who are more than happy to go out of their way to help anybody who is less able and, hopefully, most train staff readily fall in to this category.

 

[gazzaa2]

Being simply rude is NOT grounds to refuse travel; people should use their Ps and Qs but they are not a requirement of the National Rail Conditions of Travel. Being aggressive in a manner that the guard may feel physically threatened is, but she does not come across that way in anything I have seen regarding her, just a bit loud. Some may take this the wrong way (please don't), but someone in a wheelchair is already at a considerable physical disadvantage by being lower down and not being able to move as quickly as an able-bodied person, so unless she spat or something (and there is no evidence at all of that) it is difficult to see how she would pose a physical threat to anyone at all, either actual or perceived. She's just a bit awkward, and awkward customers are part of a customer service job.

The TM made an error and was probably having a bad day/journey and dealt with a situation badly. Question would be whether it's a sacking offence or not. Unless the TM was already on a warning/previous misconduct charges surely a warning and customer service/disability awareness training would have sufficed. You've got to be professional but people aren't robots, they make mistakes and can't handle every unreasonable and difficult customer perfectly. If she was abusive to the passenger then it's more clear gross misconduct.

Staff do worse and get away with it because the customer isn't uploading it to social media and it becomes a trial by social media with the staff member made an example of. That's not fair either.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Okay, so perhaps DOO strikes are arguably over customer safety. But strikes over this? I think the RMT are mad.

 

[nedchester]

Depending on the passengers conduct and what was said they may be in breach of Byelaw 6 of the Railway Bylaws which the NRCoC clearly state that everyone on the railway is subject to.

The crux of the issue is that the RMT alledge the video has been edited for effect and doesn't tell the whole story. Video editing is becoming easier and easier to the point a relative novice can chop and change mobile videos without any specialist software. As I said previously it's actually quite unusual for the union to ballot for strikes for cases of employment dismissal unless they are pretty certain the process was flawed.

I am not a great fan of the RMT and their trigger happy attitude to industrial action but I have some strong suspicions here that the video doesn't tell the whole story.

I worked for many years with kids with severe autistic spectrum disorders so no more than a bit about the condition. While their autism might be a reason for their behaviour it should never be an excuse.

 

[ainsworth74]

If the passenger in question has indeed been rude or aggressive it seems like a legitimate reason to refuse travel, the fact they may have an impairment seems like a bit of red herring. I would just like to point out that in my experience the union has rarely balloted for strike action when a member of staff has been dismissed, not unless they think there is something to it. So until further information comes to light this is all just speculation.

That said I feel the need to express my disgust at the notion that I should tolerate aggressive behaviour at work and just do my 'job'. It's that kind of thinking that ends up with gateline assistants getting suckerpunched or guards being grabbed by the throat or spat on by unruly children. Abuse be it physical or verbal should not be tolerated under any circumstances, it should be of no consequence if the person is able bodied or not.

I certainly 100% agree that staff (at any place of work!) should never have to put up with abuse or aggression but I suspect the problem here is that the TM made the call on the basis of previous incidents. This passenger wasn't being abusive directly before travel or on trying to board. They had behaved inappropriately before on a different journey. The TM was aware of this and for that reason, even though they were seemingly behaving appropriately this time, refused travel. I'm not so sure that that is a tenable position for the TM to take.

If the TM had rolled into the platform opened the doors the passenger had immediately gone something along the lines of: "Oh it's you again you ****, get the ******* ramp out!" then I'd have had no problem with them refusing travel. 100% that is unacceptable and grounds for refusing travel. But that's not the way it played out and that's why I find it much harder to justify what the TM did.