Accessing personal mobile phone records

[fabs]

reference the the act and section that allows a manager to seize property has been asked for on a number of occasions in the thread .

Has anyone suggested a manager can sieze a phone?

 

[Llanigraham]

I give up!
I do wish people would read what is actually written.

1/ The seizure of property in respect of an incident on the railway is included in the Contract of Employment. It happens.

2/ The release of activity records from a mobile phone company when a possible criminal act has been committed is covered by the DRA.

2 different subjects covered by 2 different "rules".

 

[fabs]

I can tell you with 100% certainty that (as an investigating manager) I do NOT have the right to sieze anyone's property. I can only ask, if it's refused it looks bad but they have a right to refuse me.
On your TOC it may be different but only a member of the police or RSSB/RAIB/ORR can compel one of my drivers to relinquish their property. That's a fact

 

[AnonymousUser1]

Has anyone suggested a manager can sieze a phone?

it's been repeated suggested ...

 

[AnonymousUser1]

I can tell you with 100% certainty that (as an investigating manager) I do NOT have the right to sieze anyone's property. I can only ask, if it's refused it looks bad but they have a right to refuse me.
On your TOC it may be different but only a member of the police or RSSB/RAIB/ORR can compel one of my drivers to relinquish their property. That's a fact

exactly

which is the only way you are going to be able to link a 'burner' phone to staff by police or designated person seizing it at or immediately after the incident ...

 

[greatkingrat]

I give up!
I do wish people would read what is actually written.

1/ The seizure of property in respect of an incident on the railway is included in the Contract of Employment. It happens.

2/ The release of activity records from a mobile phone company when a possible criminal act has been committed is covered by the DRA.

2 different subjects covered by 2 different "rules".

I don't think anyone disputes that the police can obtain mobile phone records if they suspect a crime has been committed. However that is not the same thing as saying that the employer can obtain mobile phone records, without the employees consent.

 

[BTU]

Pay monthly or prepay users can submit a subject access request (SAR) to their provider. They have call/data log information. (Sorry already answered).
As a manager I've no problem with crew having their mobile in their bag. If it somehow turns itself on and rings (not unknown) please don't answer it! The ringtone will cause a very slight distraction no doubt but that's very temporary.
It's using the device for call/text/Facebook etc that's what will get you disciplined or worse, jailed. I personally think as it's a criminal offence TOCs shouldn't be investigating allegations of mobile use while driving, they should be passed on to the BTP/ORR.
I didn't read that Mr Whalen article you mention but if it's the current court case, he is not being tried for phone use (that's separate and already dealt with).

What if it is left on by mistake but never ever answered but someone calls you but you don't answer, is that a serious offence? Say they asked for your records they could see the phone was on but that doesn't mean you are using it.For the record mine is always switched off.

 

[eriks]

I can tell you with 100% certainty that (as an investigating manager) I do NOT have the right to sieze anyone's property. I can only ask, if it's refused it looks bad but they have a right to refuse me.
On your TOC it may be different but only a member of the police or RSSB/RAIB/ORR can compel one of my drivers to relinquish their property. That's a fact

Why would the RSSB or the RAIB have seizure powers? They can investigate but surely they would need to persuade the police to carry that out?

 

[Raul_Duke]

Why would the RSSB or the RAIB have seizure powers? They can investigate but surely they would need to persuade the police to carry that out?

What are the RAIB’s powers?
The powers of the RAIB and its Inspectors - and the framework for reporting and investigating accidents - are set out in the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 and the Railways (Accident Investigation and Reporting) Regulations 2005. The RAIB Inspectors have the power to:

• enter railway property, land or vehicles;

•seize anything relating to the accident and make records;

•require access to and disclosure of records and information; and

•require people to answer questions and provide information about anything relevant to the investigation

Link:https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...ile/479856/151125_Leaflet_01_Introduction.pdf

 

[fabs]

What if it is left on by mistake but never ever answered but someone calls you but you don't answer, is that a serious offence? Say they asked for your records they could see the phone was on but that doesn't mean you are using it.For the record mine is always switched off.

Certainly would not attract any kind of disciplinary at my TOC. Maybe nothing more than a chat but it'd only be a 'have a proper check next time' type of thing. There's actually a burgeoning just culture at the TOC I work for despite what some seem to think.

 

[Bromley boy]

What would be the charge though because as far as I am aware the act of using a mobile phone while train driving isn't actually illegal like it is for road vehicles.

It was only brought in as a policy by the rssb following the Chatworth crash in LA in 2008 and only then as more of a "best practice" type thing. Has it since been ratified in law?

Using a mobile in a driving cab definitely isn't illegal. Indeed it is necessary on occasion, for instance when speaking to maintenance about a faulty GSMR. Obviously the train would be stationary in this scenario.

Other than this specific scenario the use of any form of electronic device is strictly prohibited in accordance with most TOCs' disciplinary policies. This is widely drawn to include Kindles etc. that aren't strictly speaking "communication" devices.

My TOC also reserves a contractual right to request phone records. I suspect this may not be enforceable. It seems a bit of a stretch to imagine someone being dismissed for refusing to provide private information, which I imagine would be subject to the data protection act. This is why CCTV and eyewitness evidence is important when these cases are investigated.

Needless to say my phone is always on "airplane" mode and stowed in my bag to avoid any unpleasantness!

 

[eriks]

What are the RAIB’s powers?
The powers of the RAIB and its Inspectors - and the framework for reporting and investigating accidents - are set out in the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 and the Railways (Accident Investigation and Reporting) Regulations 2005. The RAIB Inspectors have the power to:

• enter railway property, land or vehicles;

•seize anything relating to the accident and make records;

•require access to and disclosure of records and information; and

•require people to answer questions and provide information about anything relevant to the investigation

Link:https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...ile/479856/151125_Leaflet_01_Introduction.pdf

Stand corrected - thank you for the clarification. I suspect most people like me find it reassuring.

 

[ComUtoR]

My TOC also reserves a contractual right to request phone records.

I've heard of more Drivers having their jobs saved by providing them than refusing. It's like the D&A Policy. Refusal is an admission of guilt.

I suspect this may not be enforceable.

It is enforceable because people generally don't refuse. Why would you ? Especially since you can get caught out by CCTV evidence just as easily.

Needless to say my phone is always on "airplane" mode and stowed in my bag to avoid any unpleasantness!

Please turn it off. You are 100% risking your job in doing so. Also consider that at my TOC we lost a Driver recently for having an electronic device on in the cab; which wasn't even a mobile.

We have lost a few over the years for mobile use and a semi recent one was just because he was seen looking at his phone (he read a text message)

We have even had members of the pubic report Drivers mobiles, reported them having conversations (GSMR/Commentary driving) and even ringing sounds etc.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

Why would the RSSB or the RAIB have seizure powers? They can investigate but surely they would need to persuade the police to carry that out?

why wouldn't they ?

Trading Standards, Environmental Health, HSE inspectors / enforcement as well as UKBA/ Immigration and HMRC people have various 'police powers' as do ' not a Constable' NCA Operational personnel and although it's stretching it and irrelevant to seizure PCSOs and HETOs have various 'police powers' ...

 

[Bromley boy]

I've heard of more Drivers having their jobs saved by providing them than refusing. It's like the D&A Policy. Refusal is an admission of guilt.



It is enforceable because people generally don't refuse. Why would you ? Especially since you can get caught out by CCTV evidence just as easily.



Please turn it off. You are 100% risking your job in doing so. Also consider that at my TOC we lost a Driver recently for having an electronic device on in the cab; which wasn't even a mobile.

We have lost a few over the years for mobile use and a semi recent one was just because he was seen looking at his phone (he read a text message)

We have even had members of the pubic report Drivers mobiles, reported them having conversations (GSMR/Commentary driving) and even ringing sounds etc.

I appreciate the spirit of your comment mate. Rest assured airplane mode is "off" to all intents and purposes. The phone is disconnected from the network so cannot make or receive calls or communications of any kind. It's also in my bag out of sight. I don't even use my phone when passing in a non-driving cab as I want to be "whiter than white".

I do think the policy is slightly heavy handed. We are allowed books and newspapers in the cab to look at after changing ends, so why can't we look at a kindle? Also even more silly is the fact that our rule book, wons/pons etc are all carried on a company issued iPad which we cannot use in the cab!

Yet another example of how the railway treats its staff as children rather than trained professionals in my view.

Re the phone records, I think more evidence than someone's say so is needed. Anyone can make an allegation maliciously and unless there is irrefutable evidence such as a photo or cctv why should a driver need to prove themselves innocent?

Even a photo isn't conclusive. I have had occasion to use a mobile phone in a cab when speaking to maintenance about a faulty GSMR. If a passenger had photographed me from the platform it would doubtless have been uploaded to twitter, cue the inevitable sh*t-storm.

 

[ComUtoR]

I appreciate the spirit of your comment mate. Rest assured airplane mode is "off" to all intents and purposes. The phone is disconnected from the network so cannot make or receive calls or communications of any kind. It's also in my bag out of sight. I don't even use my phone when passing in a non-driving cab as I want to be "whiter than white".

It's not worth the risk. As I stated we just lost a Driver because he had an electric device on. If your phone is on, your breaking policy and can lose your job. Your 'whiter than white' is looking a little grey.

I do think the policy is slightly heavy handed. We are allowed books and newspapers in the cab to look at after changing ends, so why can't we look at a kindle? Also even more silly is the fact that our rule book, wons/pons etc are all carried on a company issued iPad which we cannot use in the cab!

It's very heavy handed and for good reason.

Yet another example of how the railway treats its staff as children rather than trained professionals in my view.

On one hand I agree. They often treat us like children but my other hand is slapping me in the face saying that those are the rules and professional behaviour means we respect them. Even ASLEF has a campaign for us to switch off in the cab. The other problem is that there are some who would use their phones because it's not specifically banned. There is also the litigious nature of the world we live in. Liability is taken seriously. Another reason is what do you suppose will happen if there was an incident and the RAIB investigated and it was found the Drivers mobile was on (even in airplane mode) ?

Even a photo isn't conclusive. I have had occasion to use a mobile phone in a cab when speaking to maintenance about a faulty GSMR. If a passenger had photographed me from the platform it would doubtless have been uploaded to twitter, cue the inevitable sh*t-storm.

Sucks don't it.

One of the incidents I know of involved a Driver being reported by an off duty police officer. She heard a conversation in the cab and believed the Driver was on the phone. Suffice to say that nothing happened to the Driver but it was still investigated.

If we are doing our jobs correctly then there is no fear from the social media feeding frenzy.

 

[signallerscot]

Meanwhile in signalboxes up and down the land signallers are treated like adults and are allowed to use their discretion when it comes to mobile phone use. And rightly so.

 

[lejog]

A very good point. None of this has anything to do with a network provider.

I believe another issue is the time that an SMS is sent isn't always the time it appears on a bill- I'm sure due to the VAT element it can't be charged (even if inclusive) until it has been received the other end. I have vague recollections of a significant financial loss in a bank I used to work at where the time a client sent an SMS wasn't the same as on the providers records. Would appreciate clarification on this from any telecoms experts

Any phone call generates a call record (wiki) stored within the network itself which potentially contains any data relating to the call except its contents. Call records for SMS messages will contain a log of the times of all significant events from sending to receipt (which of course may be days later). Any request made under RIPA is for the actual call record, so will have a record of all the relevant times.

While call records obviously form the basis of billing, billing systems will only be interested in the time used to charge for the message and is to appear on the bill, which as you say may not be the time sent.

So it depends what you mean by "provider's records". Its not an issue if you have access to the correct records.

 

[GB]

It's not worth the risk. As I stated we just lost a Driver because he had an electric device on. If your phone is on, your breaking policy and can lose your job. Your 'whiter than white' is looking a little grey.

Unless you work for the same company it is slightly wrong to make a blanket statement as each company has their own policy. Our personal equipment can be on but should be on silent. We are permitted to use them in the cab while not undertaking SC duties...ie driving/talking to the signaller etc.

Company issued phone and ipads are expected to be on at all times. The phone should also be on silent and not used untill appropriate. Ipad is used for rule books, pons, wons and TAS but mustn't be touched while moving.

It's very heavy handed and for good reason.

I see no good reason to be so heavy handed to the extent of disciplining someone just because a device is "on".