UK rail minister got engineer sacked for raising safety concerns

[WelshBluebird]

No it's not legally questionable to say you won't do business with someone because their employees are causing PR harm to your business.

I said borderline, in that you can argue it either way, becasue retailiation is a serious matter and a public servant who is now a government minister threatening a business about future contracts raises some eyebrows to say the least.

Exactly the same as when I returned in an off licence aeons ago. Someone came in who were said wasn't welcome (she was often drunk and/or abusive to other customers). We refused to serve her and asked her to leave. She called the police crying racism. Police attended, told her that it's a private business and she has no absolute right to shop there and that out reasons for refusal were nothing to do with her race. She was then invited to leave or be arrested. She took the sensible option.

That has literally nothing to do with any of this.

And? You need really a qualification in transport planning to understand urban realm planning and pedestrian flows. Lots of people on these forums are "extremely knowledgable" on railways!

You absolutely do not need such a qualification to understand that hoarding lots of people together in a small space and then getting them to run to the same location in a short amount of time through groups of other people who are standing around waiting to do the same is potentially unsafe

 

[matt_world2004]

Indeed. But that should be done internally and professionally, and not via the press.
Crowd control isn't Dennis' area of expertise anyway.

So a public body receiving public money should not be subject to criticism then?

 

[HarryL]

Peter Hendy was the chair of Network Rail, I'm not entirely sure how the company is set up but is it not unusual for the chair to be writing letters like this without input from the CEO? Did the Network Rail CEO know this was written? Did he approve of it?

It seems weird that a chair would be threatening company contracts over letter without informing anybody else of that doesn't it?

 

[Trainbike46]

You absolutely do not need such a qualification to understand that hoarding lots of people together in a small space and then getting them to run to the same location in a short amount of time through groups of other people who are standing around waiting to do the same is potentially unsafe

agreed!

Don't forget to mention that at times it can be really hard to leave the station as well - I've arrived in euston and my trainload ended up standing on the ramp waiting to leave as the concourse was so busy that it was impossible to leave until some people had left the concourse - certainly not a safe situation, and something that could lead to injuries if someone panics

 

[WelshBluebird]

I'm talking about being an employee and using social / traditional media - and having a profile to have an impact - to make a statement about a client which has active work there on an issue which is already well known. This is about HR, employment and client-relationship issues; ultimately it doesn't matter how "right" you are on the issue.

Which takes us back to the fact that his employer knew about that fact he talks a lot in the press and was more than happy about it to boast about it on their website (that page is still up - or at least was a few hours ago). And given some of his comments in the past about other topics, they very much knew what "baggage" he was bringing to the business in that regard, so to then go all shocked when he says something someone doesn't like is at best naive to say the least from them!

Given the fact everyone knows Euston is a mess anyway, how about the potential idea that instead of writing a snarky letter to the employer, NR respond privately saying we know about the issues and are working on them, and whilst we are doing so it would be good to not add fuel to the fire, and then also publically respond by acknoweldging issues at Euston, stating the obvious with the ORR comments etc, and making it clear to the public that they have made some improvements and are looking to make more. Much easier and nicer and if anything NR would come out of it looking half decent.

 

[Trainbike46]

Which takes us back to the fact that his employer knew about that fact he talks a lot in the press and was more than happy about it to boast about it on their website (that page is still up - or at least was a few hours ago). And given some of his comments in the past about other topics, they very much knew what "baggage" he was bringing to the business in that regard, so to then go all shocked when he says something someone doesn't like is at best naive to say the least from them!

especially as he was already doing Railnatter when they decided to hire him!

 

[Horizon22]

You absolutely do not need such a qualification to understand that hoarding lots of people together in a small space and then getting them to run to the same location in a short amount of time through groups of other people who are standing around waiting to do the same is potentially unsafe

But to model the current status, design 3-4 options, scope them out and re-model them requires specific training, qualifications and programs/systems to get to a good result. But that's not really the point; I know, you know and Gareth Dennis knows there is a problem. But so do Network Rail and the ORR so adding one extra voice is it really doing much to actually solve the problem?

Finding a problem is easy, but designing a proper solution is harder - although Network Rail are currently not making it much better right now (if anything, the opposite).

 

[jfowkes]

If Euston is a known problem in the industry, other people (besides the ORR) must have spoken up about it? Did they get the same treatment?

 

[matt_world2004]

But to model the current status, design 3-4 options, scope them out and re-model them requires specific training, qualifications and programs/systems to get to a good result. But that's not really the point; I know, you know and Gareth Dennis knows there is a problem. But so do Network Rail and the ORR so adding one extra voice is it really doing much to actually solve the problem?

Finding a problem is easy, but designing a proper solution is harder - although Network Rail are currently not making it much better right now (if anything, the opposite).

By bringing the problem to the national media , it can make ministers take notice which can unlock impetus to solve the problem

 

[Horizon22]

Which takes us back to the fact that his employer knew about that fact he talks a lot in the press and was more than happy about it to boast about it on their website (that page is still up - or at least was a few hours ago). And given some of his comments in the past about other topics, they very much knew what "baggage" he was bringing to the business in that regard, so to then go all shocked when he says something someone doesn't like is at best naive to say the least from them!

I don't dispute that. There are some who think there would be no consequences and I suggest he was pushing his luck somewhat. As I posted earlier, it really depends on what sort of contract/discussions he had with Systra for all his prior media & press work.

But ultimately the power is on the employer's side and if nothing was written down, they can turn on you when things go sour just like that. It might not be right or fair, but that's also something that could happen. The fact it went to a gross misconduct hearing and he was fired suggests (and merely suggests; gross misconduct hearings can be wrong or we wouldn't have tribunals!) that Systra are happy with the actions they took.

None of this makes comment on whether it was "right", "unethical", "fair" or "bad PR" but whether it is within all agreed HR procedures.

 

[trebor79]

So a public body receiving public money should not be subject to criticism then?

That isn't what I said and you know it.

 

[takno]

Peter Hendy was the chair of Network Rail, I'm not entirely sure how the company is set up but is it not unusual for the chair to be writing letters like this without input from the CEO? Did the Network Rail CEO know this was written? Did he approve of it?

Doesn't seem massively unusual. It would depend on how much time the chairman was expected to spend on the role and what division of responsibilities the chairman and CEO had agreed between them. Company reputation quite often sits with the chairman, since it has more to do with the future of the company than the current day-to-day.

Safety issues of course sit with everybody, and an accusation that Network Rail is negligently ignoring safety issues is an attack on the Chairman as much as it is the CEO.

 

[Horizon22]

By bringing the problem to the national media , it can make ministers take notice which can unlock impetus to solve the problem

It was already in the national media when the ORR reported on it - Sky article from October 2023 which I found with a quick google of "Euston overcrowding". So his comments added little and it already had a "wider audience" (one of his defences). Again I don't deny it might well have been good to get a wider audience, but there are consequences of doing so.

 

[matt_world2004]

That isn't what I said and you know it.

Well network rail is a public body. So why shouldn't it be criticised including by those contractors that help maintain its network.

It's not Peter Hendys personal trainset and should be accountable to the public including through the press.

Imagine if a TOC started banning people from it's services because someone criticised them on twitter. A toc would be within it's legal rights to ban anyone it liked from it's services but the reality is that it would be highly unethical to ban people for criticising it.

 

[Wolfie]

I'd say it's less a railway industry issue, and more a standards in public life issue. That's an attack line Labour deployed very successfully against Johnson and Sunak.

Absolutely. Starmer could get hoisted by his own petard...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Aug 2024 ==

There seems something quite wrong about the culture of network rail . Where instead of facilitating discussion about safety issues in the rail industry , they would rather attempt to shut down those discussions. That is not healthy for the industry itself.and the price it will pay for this in the long term will be in blood.

Anyone who is commenting on safety issues within the industry from a position of qualification is going to be connected to the industry in some way.

Absolutely antithetical to a healthy safety culture.

 

[Horizon22]

Well network rail is a public body. So why shouldn't it be criticised including by those contractors that help maintain its network.

It's not Peter Hendys personal trainset and should be accountable to the public including through the press.

Imagine if a TOC started banning people from it's services because someone criticised them on twitter. A toc would be within it's legal rights to ban anyone it liked from it's services but the reality is that it would be highly unethical to ban people for criticising it.

Totally incomparable to talk about fare-paying passengers complaining on Twitter about a service with an employee of a company talking directly - and negatively - about the work/sphere of the work that said company is currently doing.

 

[matt_world2004]

Totally incomparable to talk about passengers complaining on Twitter about a service with an employee of a company talking directly - and negatively - about the work/sphere of the work that said company is currently doing.

Explain the difference a TOC has the legal right to ban someone from their services for complaining . Why is that unethical but contacting another company to get an employee fired from them for criticising network rail isn't

 

[WelshBluebird]

I don't dispute that. There are some who think there would be no consequences and I suggest he was pushing his luck somewhat. As I posted earlier, it really depends on what sort of contract/discussions he had with Systra for all his prior media & press work.

But ultimately the power is on the employer's side and if nothing was written down, they can turn on you when things go sour just like that. It might not be right or fair, but that's also something that could happen.

Agreed. But that is all ifs and buts. The only public comment we have currently indicates that the employer was fine with im making comments in the media / online etc (and again - they actively boasted about it).

The fact it went to a gross misconduct hearing and he was fired suggests (and merely suggests; gross misconduct hearings can be wrong or we wouldn't have tribunals!) that Systra are happy with the actions they took.

I don't agree that you can make that inference. All it shows is that they felt sacking him was something they had to do. We don't know why. My reading of the situation from what is in the public domain is that they felt they had to do that because of the pressure applied by NR, not becasue they wanted to sack him due to his comments. Infact they very fact that nothing happened until Hendy starting putting that pressure on says a lot!

None of this makes comment on whether it was "right", "unethical", "fair" or "bad PR" but whether it is within all agreed HR procedures.

Except in a healthy company culture, if something is "right", "unethitcal" or "fair" tie directly into the agreed HR procedures, especially when safety issues are being talked about. Now I'm not naive enough to think most companies operate like that - of course they don't - most just look after their own bottom line, which is exactly what looks like to have happened here!. But I also have absolutely seen companies stand up for employees when under pressure from other organisations to sack said employee.

 

[Taunton]

This is what happens when a "whistleblower" starts to think they are bullet-proof, and goes round making a hyped-up, self-congratulatory, confounded nuisance of themselves in the media. The two situations are quite different. It's pretty poor of their employer in the first place not to have addressed this long before it went right up the hierarchy of their major customer.

 

[Horizon22]

I don't agree that you can make that inference. All it shows is that they felt sacking him was something they had to do. We don't know why. My reading of the situation from what is in the public domain is that they felt they had to do that because of the pressure applied by NR, not becasue they wanted to sack him due to his comments. Infact they very fact that nothing happened until Hendy starting putting that pressure on says a lot!

Except in a healthy company culture, if something is "right", "unethitcal" or "fair" tie directly into the agreed HR procedures, especially when safety issues are being talked about. Now I'm not naive enough to think most companies operate like that - of course they don't - most just look after their own bottom line, which is exactly what looks like to have happened here!. But I also have absolutely seen companies stand up for employees when under pressure from other organisations to sack said employee.

I think you can make a slight inference that it was something they both had to do and could do. If they didn't think gross misconduct would stack up, they wouldn't have done it at risk of tribunal.

However I do agree, it does suggest that Systra just bowed to the pressure from Network Rail as there were several other approaches that could have been taken. Nor does it remark well on the company's culture as you say. Looking after that lucrative NR contract (and future contracts) probably.

 

[jfowkes]

Safety issues of course sit with everybody, and an accusation that Network Rail is negligently ignoring safety issues is an attack on the Chairman as much as it is the CEO.

Gareth Dennis did not claim that NR were negligently ignoring safety issues. He said, in the context of when multiple delays/cancellations occur: "you’re talking about thousands of people squished into that space. It’s not just uncomfortable, it’s not just unpleasant, it’s unsafe.”. That's it. Nothing about who was negligent, responsible or liable.

This is what happens when a "whistleblower" starts to think they are bullet-proof, and goes round making a hyped-up confounded nuisance of themselves in the media. The two situations are quite different. It's pretty poor of their employer in the first place not to have addressed this long before it went right up the hierarchy of their major customer.

He's not a whistleblower, he's a commentator and writer about the railways and has been for some time, with the knowledge, blessing and encouragement of his former employer, until NR got involved.

 

[Iskra]

Disposing of this "troublemaker" cost them nothing, and Hendy may even have enjoyed writing the email.

It is far cheaper than trying to fix Euston.

Indeed, all the risk was Systra's and any subsequent fall-out costs theirs too. They are the real idiots here for caving in to blackmail, exposing themselves to a backlash and all the associated costs. Hendy's behaviour is poor, but Systra are just as lacking in integrity.

(I'm not a Dennis fan more generally, although he occasionally raises some interesting points and he knows how to use a crayon well )

 

[WelshBluebird]

I think you can make a slight inference that it was something they both had to do and could do. If they didn't think gross misconduct would stack up, they wouldn't have done it at risk of tribunal.

Employment law in the UK is pretty weak for an employee who has been there for under 2 years though. There was basically no risk of a tribunal because of that. Basically if you want to get rid of someone, you can just do it as long as you are sure the case doesn't fall into one of a few narrowly defined reasons. You could maybe make an argument under the whistleblower reasoning (which is one of those narrowly defined reasons), but given the topic we are talking about was already well known about and NR had partially done something about it (even if it hasn't solved the issue), I'm not certain such a line of argument would suceed!

 

[Taunton]

He's not a whistleblower, he's a commentator and writer about the railways and has been for some time, with the knowledge, blessing and encouragement of his former employer, until NR got involved.

That's just playing with words. If any contractor "encourages" their staff to act like this in public towards their principal customer then their management want their heads examined.

 

[Horizon22]

Employment law in the UK is pretty weak for an employee who has been there for under 2 years though. There was basically no risk of a tribunal because of that. Basically if you want to get rid of someone, you can just do it as long as you are sure the case doesn't fall into one of a few narrowly defined reasons. You could maybe make an argument under the whistleblower reasoning (which is one of those narrowly defined reasons), but given the topic we are talking about was already well known about and NR had partially done something about it (even if it hasn't solved the issue), I'm not certain such a line of argument would suceed!

Indeed. I don't think whistleblower reasoning can work as it was well known - as thousands of passengers at Euston can also attest to! This wasn't some hidden, major systems or procedural failure that would have huge consequences months or years down the line. Whether Network Rail are dealing with it properly and actively can be discussed in the other thread.

 

[josh-j]

Personally I am a fan of Gareth but to be honest I don't think that should matter - and neither should the legalities of this situation matter too much except for Gareth personally.

The bigger point here I think is that Hendy is setting up a denialist and defensive attitude towards safety concerns, as well as acting in a frankly unethical manner even if what he has done is within the law.

And I think that does matter, because it will lead to safety incidents and because public bodies should be headed by people who behave with propriety, not people who act like children taking criticism personally and lashing out. I mean come on, the *chair* of NR going out of his way to get a specific engineer fired. It's ridiculous and childish.

 

[Iskra]

People have already fallen over at Euston and people running behind have collided with them

I wonder if any figures are in the public domain about the number of accidents on the Euston concourse and platforms?

 

[The Middle]

True, but he is extremely knowledgeable on railways.

Extremely opinionated does not equate to being extremely knowledgeable. He is a (consultant) track engineer however likes to push his 'single source of truth according to Gareth Dennis' about all aspects of the railway and call anyone who disagrees a childish name. He has been incredibly naive if he thought this wouldn't one day impact his "day job" if it continued.

 

[Wolfie]

No it's not legally questionable to say you won't do business with someone because their employees are causing PR harm to your business.

Except of course that Network Rail is a publicly owned company subject to a whole swathe of legislation relating to how contracts are awarded. You better believe that DfT will be looking hard at this (and for propriety reasons the investigation will be run by the Permanent Secretary and Hendy will not be informed).

I was involved in an evaluation in another department which touched on Ministers' actions. They absolutely were not informed.

 

[Horizon22]

I wonder if any figures are in the public domain about the number of accidents on the Euston concourse and platforms?

Something you could FOI as it's a Network Rail managed station. Slips, trips and falls are quite common at most high footfall stations though so ideally you want a comparison with say, all London terminals and work that out as a ratio by passenger numbers (fairly crude but as good as it gets).