• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Signalman dismissed for taking break

Status
Not open for further replies.

mr_jrt

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2011
Messages
1,400
Location
Brighton
Just read this in the local rag: http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/16359961.sacked-after-44-yearsover-taking-a-break/
A SIGNALMAN who had worked on the railway for 44 years has been sacked over a 20 minute break.

Peter Lee, 60, from Littlehampton started working for the railway at age 16, but was sacked after taking the break as it meant he was disobeying a direct order.

Mr Lee took his employer Network Rail to a grievance procedure in 2015, winning the right to an uninterrupted 20 minute meal break – and has been receiving them ever since.

But when Mr Lee checked the rota four days before his shift in January this year, he realised there was no one to replace him.

“When I found out there was no one on the rota I told them that I needed my break.

“And again, on the day I advised them that I was going to take the break.”

Mr Lee said that after making safety assurances he went to take the break - but was suspended on the spot, and subsequently sacked....
I was just curious if anyone could provide a bit more context to how this sort of situation would normally be handled and if anything was handled incorrectly here? Seems strange to prevent a safety-critical member of staff from taking a break - we've seen before what happens when safety-critical workers are made to forgo their breaks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

farleigh

Member
Joined
1 Nov 2016
Messages
1,145
Not saying who was right or wrong but there is a little more to this dispute. I sympathise hugely with the signalman but he was aware of alternative workings if cover was not available.

IMO dismissal was draconian, particularly given his service.
 

Clip

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2010
Messages
10,822
I would say there is far more to this than he is telling.

if he was told not too maybe the person he spoke to told him to hold on as his relief was held up somehow and thus any sane person would do just that in a single manned box at that time and not be so stubborn about it.


however in saying that we will probably never know the full details and as such have to live with a petition and a hashtag for it all.

Anyone know whih union he may have been in as im surprised theres nothing from them about fighting it in the story either so maybe he wasnt with one or maybe they know the full details and have decided its a fight not worth having. who knows but i expect pages of speculation
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Clip

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2010
Messages
10,822
oh and if he was as safety concious as he claims then he forgot the first rule of being safe - dont do anything that could put yourself or others in danger.
 

Brissle Girl

Established Member
Joined
17 Jul 2018
Messages
2,480
It seems as though he had an "agenda", having won a grievance case on exactly the same point three years ago, and it sounds as though he may have been waiting for an opportunity to make the point. Unfortunately for him, NR appear to have called his bluff.
 

Mag_seven

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
1 Sep 2014
Messages
9,994
Location
here to eternity
I wonder if he was in the RMT and they were involved and if he is considering going to an industrial tribunal?
 

Roy Badami

Member
Joined
12 Oct 2014
Messages
108
From the link:
An employment tribunal in November featuring another Network Rail worker found that employees that work shifts longer than 6 hours were entitled to a 20 minute break – but this is currently being appealed by the company.


Network Rail said a process for financial recompense has been agreed for when a meal break is not able to be provided.

The requirement for a 20 minute rest break on shifts of 6 or more hours is a requirement of the Working Time Regulations; I'm rather surprised this needed to go to an Employment Tribuinal in the first place or that Network Rail is appealing that ruling.

I'm also rather surprised that Network Rail thinks they can get out of complying with the Working Time Regulations by means of "financial recompense" to the employee.

I'm presumably missing something here, but I'm not quite sure what....
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,035
Location
No longer here
It seems as though he had an "agenda", having won a grievance case on exactly the same point three years ago, and it sounds as though he may have been waiting for an opportunity to make the point. Unfortunately for him, NR appear to have called his bluff.

This is how it appears to me too.
 

Jamm

Member
Joined
9 Jun 2018
Messages
33
Isn't legal advice for those who are given a potentially law-breaking instructions unless it seriously endangers one's or anyone's safety is to follow the instruction anyway then take the institution who gave the bad instruction to a court afterwards?
 

ForTheLoveOf

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2017
Messages
6,416
I don't see the signalman as having any kind of agenda. It's his legal right to have a break during a shift of 6 hours or longer; if NR had planned him without one that is a breach of the Working Time Directive and as far as I see it he was fully entitled to stop working when he did. Tired signallers are more likely to make errors - I wouldn't want a fatigued signaller controlling a train I'm in!

I really don't see why NR have sacked him. He was exercising his legal employment rights. Even if he had been there for less than 2 years (the cutoff of lots of employment rights) he would possibly still have a case for unfair dismissal as it may be deemed retaliatory for exercising legal rights, and thus an 'automatically unfair dismissal'.
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,035
Location
No longer here
I don't see the signalman as having any kind of agenda. It's his legal right to have a break during a shift of 6 hours or longer; if NR had planned him without one that is a breach of the Working Time Directive and as far as I see it he was fully entitled to stop working when he did. Tired signallers are more likely to make errors - I wouldn't want a fatigued signaller controlling a train I'm in!

I really don't see why NR have sacked him. He was exercising his legal employment rights. Even if he had been there for less than 2 years (the cutoff of lots of employment rights) he would possibly still have a case for unfair dismissal as it may be deemed retaliatory for exercising legal rights, and thus an 'automatically unfair dismissal'.

It’s not clear whether he has a legal right to a meal break. The Working Time Directive has exemptions as you’d expect for jobs where continuity of service must be maintained, like signallers.

Who would cover his break?
 

Highlandspring

Established Member
Joined
14 Oct 2017
Messages
2,778
Signallers in single manned signalboxes don’t get any statutory breaks at all, the railway’s argument has always been that breaks are not needed due to natural gaps in traffic though they are on duty continuously and available to carry out work at all times. This means a signaller can - when it’s busy - be working uninterrupted for up to 12 hours. In multi-manned locations there is typically a breaks/meal/screen relief signaller rostered for at least some shifts but if there is no cover then no breaks are given.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
I don't see the signalman as having any kind of agenda. It's his legal right to have a break during a shift of 6 hours or longer; if NR had planned him without one that is a breach of the Working Time Directive and as far as I see it he was fully entitled to stop working when he did. Tired signallers are more likely to make errors - I wouldn't want a fatigued signaller controlling a train I'm in!

I really don't see why NR have sacked him. He was exercising his legal employment rights. Even if he had been there for less than 2 years (the cutoff of lots of employment rights) he would possibly still have a case for unfair dismissal as it may be deemed retaliatory for exercising legal rights, and thus an 'automatically unfair dismissal'.

Presumably it all boils down to what procedure is in place for what happens if the meal relief isn’t available at the agreed time. Then if he was given an instruction by his manager which he declined then he will have breached his terms of employment. Clearly it would depend on whether that instruction was deemed reasonable, which goes back to what the procedures say.

Meal reliefs are a pain for certain grades. It’s a pain providing them as it means having a second person on duty - especially a problem if there aren’t a string of locations where he can provide meal reliefs one after another. Likewise many staff don’t like them, as by ditching them by some kind of “local arrangement” it likely means more rest days. A difficulty then arises when some people actually, not unreasonably, want them. It’s not unreasonable to want some undisturbed time to eat or take a break knowing that something isn’t going to kick off. Train staff get it without question, yet for signalling and incident response grades it’s a can of worms.
 

Clip

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2010
Messages
10,822
I don't see the signalman as having any kind of agenda. It's his legal right to have a break during a shift of 6 hours or longer; if NR had planned him without one that is a breach of the Working Time Directive and as far as I see it he was fully entitled to stop working when he did. Tired signallers are more likely to make errors - I wouldn't want a fatigued signaller controlling a train I'm in!

I really don't see why NR have sacked him. He was exercising his legal employment rights. Even if he had been there for less than 2 years (the cutoff of lots of employment rights) he would possibly still have a case for unfair dismissal as it may be deemed retaliatory for exercising legal rights, and thus an 'automatically unfair dismissal'.
they have a right to that break if they work over 6 hours however it is not determined when that break has to be and it certainly isnt stated that you have that right at 6 hours into your shift.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

All Line Rover

Established Member
Joined
17 Feb 2011
Messages
5,221
Isn't legal advice for those who are given a potentially law-breaking instructions unless it seriously endangers one's or anyone's safety is to follow the instruction anyway then take the institution who gave the bad instruction to a court afterwards?

No. End of.

You seem to be thinking of the legislation laying out specific rules on health and safety matters - e.g. that you can't refuse to attend work just because you think a certain way of working, which doesn't pose any immediate safety risk, isn't the best way of working.
 

Brissle Girl

Established Member
Joined
17 Jul 2018
Messages
2,480
I don't see the signalman as having any kind of agenda. It's his legal right to have a break during a shift of 6 hours or longer; if NR had planned him without one that is a breach of the Working Time Directive and as far as I see it he was fully entitled to stop working when he did. Tired signallers are more likely to make errors - I wouldn't want a fatigued signaller controlling a train I'm in!

I really don't see why NR have sacked him. He was exercising his legal employment rights. Even if he had been there for less than 2 years (the cutoff of lots of employment rights) he would possibly still have a case for unfair dismissal as it may be deemed retaliatory for exercising legal rights, and thus an 'automatically unfair dismissal'.
There is a right to a rest break if the shift is over 6 hours, not that it has to be taken no later than 6 hours after the shift started. In addition, the law specifically covers those in the railway industry whose job is on board trains or who are responsible for ensuring trains run on time, and states that the rest period can be exchanged for one at a different time. So all in all not quite as clear cut as has been suggested.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
It’s not clear whether he has a legal right to a meal break. The Working Time Directive has exemptions as you’d expect for jobs where continuity of service must be maintained, like signallers.

Who would cover his break?

It’s obvious - a meal relief cover. Naturally this is massively inefficient as it means having a second person on duty.
 

randyrippley

Established Member
Joined
21 Feb 2016
Messages
5,079
Legal right?
Its been a few years, but my memory of the Working Time Directive was that a break was a legal necessity, not a right. The employee is not allowed to refuse the break.
Presumably, if he'd been working in a power box there's a chance the VDU regulations would be relevant as well - and that would mandate an hourly break
 

Highlandspring

Established Member
Joined
14 Oct 2017
Messages
2,778
Presumably, if he'd been working in a power box there's a chance the VDU regulations would be relevant as well - and that would mandate an hourly break
Network Rail’s position is that VDU regulations do not apply to signallers, even those who work VDU based signalling workstations.
 

Warwick

Member
Joined
10 Apr 2018
Messages
353
Location
On the naughty step again.
People don't get sacked for trivial reasons nowadays. Unions and courts have (happily) seen to that. There's more to this story than a mere instant dismissal job.
 

GusB

Established Member
Associate Staff
Buses & Coaches
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
6,545
Location
Elginshire
It’s not clear whether he has a legal right to a meal break. The Working Time Directive has exemptions as you’d expect for jobs where continuity of service must be maintained, like signallers.

https://www.gov.uk/rest-breaks-work
Workers have the right to one uninterrupted 20 minute rest break during their working day, if they work more than 6 hours a day. This could be a tea or lunch break.

The break doesn’t have to be paid - it depends on their employment contract.
There are exceptions:
https://www.gov.uk/rest-breaks-work/exceptions
Exceptions
Workers aren’t entitled to the 3 general types of rest break if they work in:

  • the armed forces, emergency services or police and they’re dealing with an exceptional catastrophe or disaster
  • a job where they freely choose what hours they work (like a managing director) or where the work is not measured (ie no set hours)
  • sea transport
  • air or road transport (known as ‘mobile’ workers)
Air, sea or road transport workers may be covered by special rules that give them different rest rights.

Mobile workers not covered by any special rules usually have the right to regular rest so that their health and safety (or anyone else’s) isn’t put at risk.

There are also special rules for young workers and for lorry and coach drivers.
I'm quite surprised that air, sea and road transport is specifically mentioned, but there's nothing about the railway.
 

Roy Badami

Member
Joined
12 Oct 2014
Messages
108
Ok, interesting. So, there is an exception in the Working Time Regulations 1998 (as amended by the Working Time (Amendment) Regulations 2003) to the requirement to provde a rest break:
where the worker works in railway transport and—
(i) his activities are intermittent;
(ii) he spends his working time on board trains; or
(iii) his activities are linked to transport timetables and to ensuring the continuity and regularity of traffic

This replaces the earlier blanket exception for the entire rail sector.

EDIT: So (ii) is clear - and not relevant to signallers. (i) may or may not be the case, depending how busy the box is, and I'm not sure I completely understand what (iii) refers to.

EDIT^2: If you want to look it up, it's Regulation 21 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, as amended by Regulation 5 of the Working Time (Amendment) Regulations 2003. Of course, there may be other subsequent amendments that I missed - I've not researched this thoroughly - I'm just going by the legislation linked on the HSE web site.
 
Last edited:

farleigh

Member
Joined
1 Nov 2016
Messages
1,145
There was a directive that specified that if no cover was available then he was entitled to extra pay which he had claimed on many occasions.
Still did not deserve the sack IMO
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
People don't get sacked for trivial reasons nowadays. Unions and courts have (happily) seen to that. There's more to this story than a mere instant dismissal job.

I wouldn’t bank on that. People do get dismissed when managers try to stitch someone up and fail to appreciate that it could all fall apart at a tribunal. Especially if personal clashes come into play or someone is a particular thorn in the side for whatever reason - which in some cases can simply be that someone is actually trying to follow their company’s own rule book.
 

Lemmy99uk

Member
Joined
5 May 2015
Messages
459
Its been a few years, but my memory of the Working Time Directive was that a break was a legal necessity, not a right. The employee is not allowed to refuse the break.

The Working Time Regulations simply state that a worker is ENTITLED to a 20 minute break if a shift is over 6 hours.
It makes no recommendations about when that break should be taken and it does not compel the employee to take the break.
 

Jamm

Member
Joined
9 Jun 2018
Messages
33
No. End of.

You seem to be thinking of the legislation laying out specific rules on health and safety matters - e.g. that you can't refuse to attend work just because you think a certain way of working, which doesn't pose any immediate safety risk, isn't the best way of working.

No. What I'm saying is that I am unaware specific duties of the signaller and what risks it poses if the station is unattended/closed therefore, I cannot determine whether it poses a health & safety risk if one is were to be required to work without taking a rest.

Therefore, what I'm saying is that the legal advice as stated in my previous post is often given to those with non-safety critical positions (i.e. follow the instruction, take them to a court afterwards) is because of the fact a lot of companies sack their employees for refusing to follow an instruction whether that instruction is legal or illegal. A court case could take years, and a sack could be devastating to one's personal situation away from work.
 

nom de guerre

Member
Joined
24 Nov 2015
Messages
774
Signallers in single manned signalboxes don’t get any statutory breaks at all, the railway’s argument has always been that breaks are not needed due to natural gaps in traffic though they are on duty continuously and available to carry out work at all times.

As you say, dedicated meal breaks for signallers at single-manned locations have traditionally been viewed as unnecessary and impractical. But recently, there have been hints of a change in policy, at least in the South East: two single-manned areas now have/shortly will have a dedicated mobile meal break relief (a signaller who travels between single-manned boxes, providing a meal break at each in turn).

One of those areas includes Peter Lee's former box (although AIUI, resourcing issues mean full cover has yet to be implemented).


In multi-manned locations there is typically a breaks/meal/screen relief signaller rostered for at least some shifts but if there is no cover then no breaks are given.

... which can lead to, for example, the Paddington workstation at TVSC being closed for 20 minutes while the signaller on duty has an emergency PNB. And that's far from the only such incident.

A former LOM in my area once threatened to call the police when a signaller on a very short-staffed team closed a workstation - safely - for a 20-minute emergency PNB. Unsurprisingly, the police were not contacted and the signaller was not disciplined; in fact, they remain at the same location to this day. An interesting contrast with the punishment meted out to Mr Lee following his supposed "gross insubordination"...

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top