Hull Trains Strike over dismissal

[dk1]

They can be - they’re able to remain members but not attend branch etc. which would of course be totally inappropriate.

Never known it and would be shocking to know they’re driving trains whilst other members are striking. That would be beyond belief.

 

[43066]

Never known it and would be shocking to know they’re driving trains whilst other members are striking. That would be beyond belief.

Yes agreed mate. I doubt managers who chose to remain in ASLEF would ever do that - I just mean they can remain in the union even after leaving the driver grade.

 

[dk1]

Yes agreed mate. I doubt managers who chose to remain in ASLEF would ever do that - I just mean they can remain in the union even after leaving the driver grade.

Ah yes. I would imagine most go over to TSSA.

 

[styles]

I speak as a (very) small employer, but the thing I don't understand about all of this is that if an employee is a good conscientious worker why would an employer want to get rid of them ?
On the other hand if the employee is not so good or conscientious then why should the employer be expected to keep employing them ?

Hard to comment on this specific case as details are scarce.

But in a more general sense, if the working relationship between an employee and an employer breaks down, that can be the end of it, and it's also a perfectly legal reason to dismiss an employee. Note though that there are 'automatically unfair' reasons for dismissal, which includes taking action or proposing to take action over health and safety issues.

What you would expect is for an employee to sit down with an employee and work out how to remedy the working relationship. Whether that happened here or not, I'm not sure, but I'd expect so as I doubt any train operating company (open access or franchise) would make rash decisions about dismissals without at least trying to fix an issue.

I suppose the question really is - did the employee and the employer end up in a deadlock over this safety issue? If the employee is adamant it's a critical issue to address, and possibly is even refusing to undertake some duties because of it, or causing significant disruption because of it; but the employer feels it's not an issue which needs addressing or not in the way the employee expects; and neither side will budge, they may have determined that the position is untenable.

I am assuming that if the union is backing the worker on this, that they believe the safety concern being raised is reasonably important, or that the employer hasn't taken all the right steps in trying to come to an agreement over it.

 

[Bald Rick]

I know drivers and signallers who have stepped up to management, moved to TSSA (in a couple of cases under local pressure from the branch), and then have gone back to driving / signalling and been ‘blackballed’ when trying to get back into ASLEF / RMT as they had been ’management’ !

 

[43066]

I know drivers and signallers who have stepped up to management, moved to TSSA (in a couple of cases under local pressure from the branch), and then have gone back to driving / signalling and been ‘blackballed’ when trying to get back into ASLEF / RMT as they had been ’management’ !

Probably depends on how they behaved when they were managers. I know several managers who have remained in ASLEF, albeit you naturally wouldn’t expect them to be attending branch etc.

 

[mikeg]

Article about this in the Torygraph (£) states the driver fell asleep at the controls, allegedly. That said the Telegraph has form for union-bashing.

I'll keep the quotes to a minimum for copyright purposes, but the article is here: Train driver who sparked 56-day strike fell asleep at controls

Mick Whelan, the general secretary, condemned Hull Trains for its “failure to act responsibly” and suggested the driver had been sacked because he had reported a “safety concern”.

But a letter seen by The Telegraph reveals the unnamed driver had experienced “fatigue matters” while at the controls of Hull Trains’ 125mph services on more than one occasion.

Aslef is demanding that the driver be fully reinstated to his job, but Hull Trains bosses believe he poses an unacceptable safety risk to passengers. Martijn Gilbert, the managing director, said the discovery of the fatigue incidents presented “a safety risk that we could not ignore”.

A source familiar with the case said the driver himself had revealed that he had fallen asleep at the controls – but had only mentioned it in passing some time later.

Nigel Roebuck, an Aslef organiser, previously said the driver had been working “for more than 20 years with a completely clean safety record” prior to being sacked.
Recommended
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/17/train-drivers-strike-56-days-row-colleague-sacked/
However, in a letter sent to Mr Roebuck and Mr Whelan, Mr Gilbert revealed that the man had been supported through a number of “previous similar issues”.
The letter, sent to all Hull Trains staff and seen by The Telegraph, said: “The disclosures made by this driver, especially against a backdrop of previous similar issues where full support and feedback was given, presented us with a safety risk that we could not ignore.

 

[generalnerd]

Article about this in the Torygraph (£) states the driver fell asleep at the controls, allegedly. That said the Telegraph has form for union-bashing.

I'll keep the quotes to a minimum for copyright purposes, but the article is here: Train driver who sparked 56-day strike fell asleep at controls

We’ll just have to see what HT says about it

Or radio Humberside/look north

 

[mikeg]

We’ll just have to see what HT says about it

Or radio Humberside/look north

Indeed. Any of those are probably more reliable than the Telegraph. It really has gone downhill...

 

[Chester1]

Indeed. Any of those are probably more reliable than the Telegraph. It really has gone downhill...

I agree with that as a general assessment of the Telegraph but it's a really specific claim against one person and they will get sued if it is wrong.

 

[Sealink]

And of course, a question which was raised about the awful Croydon tram crash, is was the rostering the reason a driver allegedly fell asleep?

 

[NSEWonderer]

Article about this in the Torygraph (£) states the driver fell asleep at the controls, allegedly. That said the Telegraph has form for union-bashing.

I'll keep the quotes to a minimum for copyright purposes, but the article is here: Train driver who sparked 56-day strike fell asleep at controls

Assuming Torygraph is correct, who leaked this information? Wouldn't be the Union.

 

[Bigfoot]

Assuming Torygraph is correct, who leaked this information? Wouldn't be the Union.

Will probably have been First Group to try and stir the media.

 

[Lemmy99uk]

Will probably have been First Group to try and stir the media.

Or another employee who is concerned.

 

[generalnerd]

On a slightly different note, one would have to wonder about what could happen to hull trains if these strikes persist.

The managers should cover it for a bit but after a while (especially if the strike is not called off) hull trains could struggle. I don’t think we’d recover locally (ok that’s a bit of an overstatement, but it wouldn’t be good) if hull trains goes bankrupt.

 

[Russel]

On a slightly different note, one would have to wonder about what could happen to hull trains if these strikes persist.

The managers should cover it for a bit but after a while (especially if the strike is not called off) hull trains could struggle. I don’t think we’d recover locally (ok that’s a bit of an overstatement, but it wouldn’t be good) if hull trains goes bankrupt.

Putting the rights and wrongs of whatever has happened to one side...

It must be on the minds of anyone at HT striking that they are potentially putting themselves out of work.

 

[JamesT]

Assuming the Telegraph reporting is accurate, is failing to report falling asleep at the controls normally a dismissible offence?

 

[OxtedSignaller]

If it is in fact correct that the driver has fallen asleep on multiple occasions, the driver has not reported any issues and Aslef are defending this it sets a very worrying precedent for safety.

I can also see where the TOC is coming from, as you can imagine what the headlines and stories would be if the driver had fallen asleep and caused a derailment despite knowing they had done the same thing beforehand.

 

[Krokodil]

Assuming the Telegraph reporting is accurate, is failing to report falling asleep at the controls normally a dismissible offence?

What does "falling asleep" mean though? Properly dropping off is going to activate the vigilance equipment and there's little chance of that not being noticed. However "microsleeps" can happen without you even realising. There is also a fear that reporting fatigue can blow back onto the individual - management may just say that they need to sort out their home life, rather than looking at whether rostering and diagramming is fatiguing.

 

[Snow1964]

Assuming the Telegraph reporting is accurate, is failing to report falling asleep at the controls normally a dismissible offence?

It depends on wording of employment contract.
There are normally employment clauses that say must present yourself in a state fit for work that is safe (not drunk, drugged, unwell, severely sleep deprived etc).

On its own would probably get a talking too and warning, if it was a repeat, or led to a safety breach, or started lies to cover it up, and maybe other irregularities, then appropriate action would be based on cumulative result (and dismissal could be appropriate)

But exactly what happened is not public so not for me to guess.

 

[generalnerd]

If it is in fact correct that the driver has fallen asleep on multiple occasions, the driver has not reported any issues and Aslef are defending this it sets a very worrying precedent for safety.

If you don’t mind sharing, are there any other articles?

Edit: cancel that, I thought you put it is in fact correct , not if it is in fact correct. My apologies.

 

[PLY2AYS]

If it is in fact correct that the driver has fallen asleep on multiple occasions, the driver has not reported any issues and Aslef are defending this it sets a very worrying precedent for safety.

I’m not sure you can definitively say that for certain. Where is your proof?

Surely the reason that ASLEF are defending it is because it is either something the driver feels IS unsafe, and therefore HAS reported it…
Or in their eyes; the company hasn’t followed due process, because there is no proof that the driver has fallen asleep… hence his 20 years clean driving licence.

To throw around ‘it is in fact correct’ and ‘has’ is dangerously definitive wording…

 

[generalnerd]

To throw around ‘it is in fact correct’ and ‘has’ is dangerously definitive wording…

I’ve misread OxtedSignaller’s post, he does say ‘if it is in fact correct’

I apologise.

 

[Snow1964]

hence his 20 years clean driving licence.

I don't think a long history of something not happening is any proof either

There are always stories of people that crash vehicles or have an accident, and it's first time they have done so in decades of driving. Sudden events can happen, people's bodies deteriorate as they get older, even if they don't recognise it.

 

[Backroom_boy]

I’m not sure you can definitively say that for certain. Where is your proof?

Surely the reason that ASLEF are defending it is because it is either something the driver feels IS unsafe, and therefore HAS reported it…
Or in their eyes; the company hasn’t followed due process, because there is no proof that the driver has fallen asleep… hence his 20 years clean driving licence.

To throw around ‘it is in fact correct’ and ‘has’ is dangerously definitive wording…

I could be wrong as details are scant but I thought it was the driver self reporting a 'near miss' of being fatigued.

If it's a repeat issue I can see management feeling justified in sacking them, but also the union thinking it was abuse of process.

 

[officewalla]

Train driver who sparked 56-day strike fell asleep at controls

Union called walkout over member’s dismissal, but letter reveals he had had experienced ‘fatigue matters’

www.telegraph.co.uk

This article would it seem explains why the driver was sacked (original post) and a bit of detail for those who think the driver was sacked unfairly to read. I don't know if the link is behind a firewall btw.
Have been asked to provide copy of the prose in the link but as it is already quoted in a previous post so I will not repeat it here. Suffice to say, a letter from HT to all drivers states that the driver was a repeat sleeper on watch. Micro sleep or full on is not disclosed. No mention of rosters or any other issues so at face value, the company has the driver bang to rights. More to follow no doubt.

 

[Horizon22]

And of course, a question which was raised about the awful Croydon tram crash, is was the rostering the reason a driver allegedly fell asleep?

Well there doesn’t seem to be any RAIB investigation regarding this and nobody seems very aware of any consequences - outside a presumably on the day cancellation - so it depends how thorough (and public) the investigation is. Of course HT has sacked the driver so they are presumably relatively confident that it was not a rostering or structural issue that led to the incident. That is not to say companies cannot make mistakes but they appear to be standing their ground.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Mar 2025 ==

If it's a repeat issue I can see management feeling justified in sacking them, but also the union thinking it was abuse of process.

This seems to be the most logical reading and then it sits somewhere between those two viewpoints. There is still lots of speculation overall and ultimately, unless it goes through tribunal, we may never know all the specifics.

 

[generalnerd]

This seems to be the most logical reading and then it sits somewhere between those two viewpoints. There is still lots of speculation overall and ultimately, unless it goes through tribunal, we may never know all the specifics.

I agree. I wouldn’t be surprised if it does go to tribunal.

My mother is using hull trains to go to London today and she noticed that they didn’t acknowledge the strike action anywhere in obvious, although she did notice limited services.

 

[PLY2AYS]

I’ve misread OxtedSignaller’s post, he does say ‘if it is in fact correct’

I apologise.

You’re absolutely right… I’m going to blame not having a morning coffee and apologise for also misreading his post.

I don't think a long history of something not happening is any proof either

There are always stories of people that crash vehicles or have an accident, and it's first time they have done so in decades of driving. Sudden events can happen, people's bodies deteriorate as they get older, even if they don't recognise it.

This is true, but by all accounts, the driver was self reporting his fatigue.
Something to definitely be aware of for all of us on the railway though!

 

[mpthomson]

Article about this in the Torygraph (£) states the driver fell asleep at the controls, allegedly. That said the Telegraph has form for union-bashing.

I'll keep the quotes to a minimum for copyright purposes, but the article is here: Train driver who sparked 56-day strike fell asleep at controls

It's reported in every media source, not just the Telegraph...