Hull Trains Strike over dismissal

[Dogbox]

The dismissal is a massive overreaction, this driver raises fatigue issues and is treated like this, how many other drivers feeling fatigued will now just remain quiet out of fear of losing their jobs. A better way forward would have been to place the driver on light duties while an investigation took place, at worst being permanently removed from driving duties and given a different role in the company would have been a better outcome for all involved.

 

[generalnerd]

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

The only other article I can find is from the daily mail, seemingly only parroting what the telegraph has said

There’s also this from the daily mail, trying to cause a stir about pay despite hull trains not receiving a penny of government money

 

[Snow1964]

The dismissal is a massive overreaction, this driver raises fatigue issues and is treated like this, how many other drivers feeling fatigued will now just remain quiet out of fear of losing their jobs. A better way forward would have been to place the driver on light duties while an investigation took place, at worst being permanently removed from driving duties and given a different role in the company would have been a better outcome for all involved.

Having been involved in couple of HR meetings in the past (as a representatives observer), doesn't always go as neatly as you describe. Some people resent investigations, or having duties changed to new role, especially when they discover they will get downgraded pay backdated from day of start of light duties.

There are always too sides to this, and some people do not easily accept they are no longer fit enough to do a job, but only ok for lighter lower paid job, so alternative solution becomes enforced.

 

[AlterEgo]

The dismissal is a massive overreaction, this driver raises fatigue issues and is treated like this, how many other drivers feeling fatigued will now just remain quiet out of fear of losing their jobs. A better way forward would have been to place the driver on light duties while an investigation took place, at worst being permanently removed from driving duties and given a different role in the company would have been a better outcome for all involved.

Are you privy to all of the circumstances?

 

[fabs]

There’s a lot more to this story. Am surprised it has taken this long for stuff to start dripping out.
Can’t see this getting to a tribunal.

 

[Dogbox]

Having been involved in couple of HR meetings in the past (as a representatives observer), doesn't always go as neatly as you describe. Some people resent investigations, or having duties changed to new role, especially when they discover they will get downgraded pay backdated from day of start of light duties.

There are always too sides to this, and some people do not easily accept they are no longer fit enough to do a job, but only ok for lighter lower paid job, so alternative solution becomes enforced.

I'm sure the driver would prefer their duties being changed to a different role than being dismissed. When you're removed from driving for medical reasons you usually retain your salary, not sure how it works at HT though.

I just think other avenues could have been explored before this knee jerk decision was made.

 

[Horizon22]

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!

The sequence of events is going to play a massive part here.

If you are say you are fatigued and it’s not taken seriously / it is deemed suitable for you to continue and an incident occurs then you would have a legitimate complaint that you raised your concerns as appropriate.

If you have an incident and then raise fatigue as a factor, then will of course be more scrutiny on why you didn’t raise this before signing on / reporting fit for duty / starting safety critical duties.

Now this is all “by the book” and the realities of the situation is that if every safety-critical member of staff refused to work if they felt fatigued/tired then the rail industry would barely operate but at the end of the day people need to be aware that this could be an ultimate outcome if an incident happened. And as I said earlier, we know nothing of the overall background and whether this individual had other incidents or factors involved.

 

[ExRes]

I'm sure the driver would prefer their duties being changed to a different role than being dismissed. When you're removed from driving for medical reasons you usually retain your salary, not sure how it works at HT though.

I just think other avenues could have been explored before this knee jerk decision was made.

How do you actually know this was a 'knee jerk decision'? unless you're privy to the drivers personal record then surely it's only your view

 

[Dogbox]

How do you actually know this was a 'knee jerk decision'? unless you're privy to the drivers personal record then surely it's only your view

Yes it is my view
I didn't say I know
I said "I" think

The company has admitted privately that it's made a mistake, hence the word kneejerk. For clarity this is my view.

 

[185]

"...despite admitting, privately, that it has made a mistake in what it did and the way it went about it – and unfairly sacked a train driver who did nothing more than raise a safety concern in a company meeting."

I don't doubt that this bit of what of Aslef stated in the press release did in fact happen - as FG would be suing for slander by now if it was indeed false..

Remember, if it's not safe, don't do it... (FirstGroup). Making safety reports is also unsafe!

 

[Clarence Yard]

No, they wouldn’t. They would just let the due processes take their course. Suing people in an industrial dispute is just silly.

When I posted earlier that there was more to this case than just what the Union are saying, I was careful not to opine (despite being asked to) because the driver concerned has appeal/tribunal rights and that is where this should be decided, not in the media.

What I can say is there was a chain of events here and it didn’t start with the driver reporting his safety concerns.

 

[Moonshot]

No, they wouldn’t. They would just let the due processes take their course. Suing people in an industrial dispute is just silly.

When I posted earlier that there was more to this case than just what the Union are saying, I was careful not to opine (despite being asked to) because the driver concerned has appeal/tribunal rights and that is where this should be decided, not in the media.

What I can say is there was a chain of events here and it didn’t start with the driver reporting his safety concerns.

Is the driver actually exercising those rights?

 

[styles]

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

It can be, but it would normally involve some other steps.

If a colleague pointed out that you were up playing FIFA until 4am before your 7am shift on a regular basis, and you knew you were regularly falling asleep or having fatigue issues, you could perhaps expect to jump to dismissal, especially if you're just argumentative about it.

On the other end of the spectrum, if you've got 20 years clean record, then in your 50s seem to develop a pattern of fatigue, it could point to a medical problem. My dad is a driver and was taken off a couple of times while they got his sleep apnea under control, a condition he developed after 40 years as a driver. He got a CPAP machine and made some lifestyle changes and now it's all under control, medical obs are good, and he's driving again fine. There's a good chance he'll retire with 50 years of experience as a driver.

Somewhere in the middle are things like redeploying people into non safety critical roles if they have developed medical conditions which are incompatible with being a driver; or non-dismissal disciplinary action to give a driver a chance to come to work better rested, etc.

Of course, we have very little detail of this particular case, what the causes are, what actions have been suggested, what options have been explored and how both sides have responded. Am sure it'll all come out at some point.

 

[185]

No, they wouldn’t. They would just let the due processes take their course. Suing people in an industrial dispute is just silly.

And thus, this company are still clearly are the silliest in the UK. Solicitor Mr Robinson, of Ford & Warren solicitors hired by FirstGroup threatened legal action against both their former driver and Aslef in 2009, mid tribunal, I recall the letter sent was published online and only served to encourage both driver & union to contact even more media outlets than they already had.

Like I said. I don't doubt the unions comments are true.

 

[Clarence Yard]

The very senior management at FG has changed since those days. In that era and the years before, they would do that on a whim, just to put people down. Some at FG would really enjoy doing it too.

It’s very different now. The (some would say) malign influence of the Lockhead/Finch era, which lingered a bit after their departure, has now long gone.

Hull Trains has a good record when it comes to dealing with illness and disabilities. It pioneered the use of a Type 1 diabetic as a main line driver, when nobody else would take him on, thus opening up that possibility for other companies to follow.

I do doubt the union but then I know a little more about the circumstances. There were other events that occurred in this saga before he reported the safety issue. Given those circumstances, I am surprised that the union has taken this course of action but there may be a wider agenda at play here.

 

[Gemz91]

I'm sure the driver would prefer their duties being changed to a different role than being dismissed. When you're removed from driving for medical reasons you usually retain your salary, not sure how it works at HT though.

I just think other avenues could have been explored before this knee jerk decision was made.

I fully agree that other avenues should have been explored before dismissing the driver.

However, what alternative duties would be available at Hull Trains for the driver to apply for? At a larger toc, I’d expect roles such as ticket office, station staff, station maintenance people to be available. With HT being such a small company, would there necessarily be other duties for the driver to apply for? Or would it be assumed they’d create a vacancy for them?

 

[driverd]

I do doubt the union but then I know a little more about the circumstances. There were other events that occurred in this saga before he reported the safety issue. Given those circumstances, I am surprised that the union has taken this course of action but there may be a wider agenda at play here.

I think, from the unions perspective, it's perhaps more the context. As I understand it, the straw that broke the camels back was a comment made in a safety brief. This, to my mind, would be an appropriate and sensible location to share experience and learning. To discipline somebody for doing precisely that seems to set a very dangerous precedent, that thoroughly undermines a just safety culture - even if there were previous issues to resolve.

From what I've heard along the grape vine (not a HT employee myself or especially close to anyone at HT), it's this line the union are mainly pushing. Drivers should not feel afraid of sharing safety concerns, especially those for which live in a gray area (I've never worked for an operator that specifies action to be taken in the event of a microsleep occurance - much more focus is given to the far more vague "fatigue").

It's also been discussed earlier in this thread and it's a well known fact within the industry - when you're asking train crew to move from 5-6 shifts where you finish work between midnight and 3 am, to ones that require you waking up between 2am and 6am after just a couple of days off - with the best will in the world, our body clocks simply aren't designed to do that. You essentially live your life in a state of jetlag, and inevitably, sometimes that takes its toll. Until operators come up with a more resilient plan to deal with this, we're going to have to accept that the risk exists - simply not talking about it and pretending like it doesn't happen (and setting a precedent that says staff who talk about it get disciplined) is absolutely something the union should be fighting against.

 

[IanXC]

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.

All of that being true I suspect that Hull Trains is the only ECML open access operator whose bankruptcy would elicit any response/additional services/purchase of the assets from LNER/DfT.

 

[GordonT]

All of that being true I suspect that Hull Trains is the only ECML open access operator whose bankruptcy would elicit any response/additional services/purchase of the assets from LNER/DfT.

Would it need to come to a situation of bankruptcy for the company to exit? Could the owning group not simply decide to close the company down if revenues were eventually impacted by an intractable strike with no concessions from management forthcoming?

 

[generalnerd]

All of that being true I suspect that Hull Trains is the only ECML open access operator whose bankruptcy would elicit any response/additional services/purchase of the assets from LNER/DfT.

The local MP’s would certainly call for it

 

[43066]

Would it need to come to a situation of bankruptcy for the company to exit? Could the owning group not simply decide to close the company down if revenues were eventually impacted by an intractable strike with no concessions from management forthcoming?

Why on earth do you imagine an owning group would close a profitable operation rather than seeking a solution? Thankfully Hull Trains management don’t have endless taxpayer cash to sustain losses, so a solution will need to be reached, and quickly.

 

[GordonT]

Why on earth do you imagine an owning group would close a profitable operation rather than seeking a solution? Thankfully Hull Trains management don’t have endless taxpayer cash to sustain losses, so a solution will need to be reached, and quickly.

Surely it's not difficult to envisage a scenario where sustained industrial action would eventually erode profitability (short of bankruptcy) with closing the company being an option for the owning group.

 

[Ericscollar]

It won’t affect services much as 5 of the managers are all driver managers, so them (and the drivers with RMT not aslef) can keep the service going with only two trains missed per day

Must be a reassuring to have a manager like that

 

[Egg Centric]

Just got off a Hull Trains service and it was noticeable how cautiously it was being driven so I assume it was a driver manager. Are all the normal drivers on full strike then (the above is quite confusing about which days but I hadn't assumed it was every day)? Does that mean they're (not) working for free? Seems a heckuva sacrifice to make.

 

[styles]

Just got off a Hull Trains service and it was noticeable how cautiously it was being driven so I assume it was a driver manager. Are all the normal drivers on full strike then (the above is quite confusing about which days but I hadn't assumed it was every day)? Does that mean they're (not) working for free? Seems a heckuva sacrifice to make.

Are you sure this isn't some confirmation bias? I mean, objectively-speaking, if we compared that service to the same service over the past 3 months, would it be any different in terms of its passing of timing points, arrival/departure times?

 

[generalnerd]

Just got off a Hull Trains service and it was noticeable how cautiously it was being driven so I assume it was a driver manager. Are all the normal drivers on full strike then (the above is quite confusing about which days but I hadn't assumed it was every day)? Does that mean they're (not) working for free? Seems a heckuva sacrifice to make.

It is a full strike, only driver managers driving. I don’t see why they’d be more cautious though

 

[Falcon1200]

Just got off a Hull Trains service and it was noticeable how cautiously it was being driven so I assume it was a driver manager.

Did the train lose time in each section and run late as a result?

 

[Krokodil]

It is a full strike, only driver managers driving. I don’t see why they’d be more cautious though

Less confident than someone who does the job every day

 

[Snow1964]

Might be a complete coincidence, but RMT have just issued a circular on managing fatigue

RMT BRIEFING DOCUMENTS ON MANAGING RAIL STAFF FATIGUE​

Please see:

• RMT reps briefing document on ORR Managing Rail Staff Fatigue guide. You can find this here: https://bit.ly/4j9cu4f
• RMT reps briefing document on report the union commissioned from Greenwich University “Night Work and its impact on RMT workers and their families”. You can find this here: https://bit.ly/4jhsBwZ

Both documents are also on RMT Fatigue page of h&s section of RMT web site: https://www.rmt.org.uk/about/health-and-safety/safety/fatigue/, along with the reports to which they refer and other information on fatigue.

Please bring the contents of this circular to the attention of relevant members.

Yours sincerely
Eddie Dempsey
General Secretary

RMT BRIEFING DOCUMENTS ON MANAGING RAIL STAFF FATIGUE

www.rmt.org.uk

 

[Egg Centric]

Did the train lose time in each section and run late as a result?

In fairness no. Well it was a bit late to Grantham but I think that's down to problems with a level crossing judging by what I saw out of the window.

Are you sure this isn't some confirmation bias? I mean, objectively-speaking, if we compared that service to the same service over the past 3 months, would it be any different in terms of its passing of timing points, arrival/departure times?

No I am not sure. Indeed it's first time I've taken Hull trains so it's possible they even have a different professional driver policy.

I am sure it was driven cautiously though compared to LNER. It sort of drifted into platforms (and certainly at Doncaster it had the road)