Exactly. When a split second decision has a potentially safer outcome than what the 'rulebook' says, then it's disgusting to punish the employee for using their common sense and 'breaking' the rules. It sounds like TPE see following the rules hard and fast, no exceptions, as more important than preventing someone dying/being dismembered. From what I've read so far (but there may well be more to it) TPE management's attitude is vile.
Surely a review of the 'rules' is more appropriate, rather than disciplinary action? The conductor may well have more years in the job than the person sacking him, yet they know best? I really don't think a sacking was a fair response to a non-incident.
It's a difficult balance to get right, because following the Rule Book is one of the most important things expected of railway staff. When asked by staff "should I do X?", the standard response should always be "Do what the Rule Book says, consider everything from the point of view you might need to justify your action in a court of law and how to ensure your back is covered". The Rule Book is there for a reason, and the saying "every rule is written in blood" is very true.
However, speaking from experience, when dealing with an issue involving train staff, I will always listen to what the member of staff says, and consider their actions in the context of the heat of the moment. I certainly wouldn't automatically seek to discipline someone just because they haven't followed the letter of the Rule Book. It doesn't help that some railway rules can be quite vague - the current London Underground Rule Book contains 'grey areas' where it doesn't totally clarify in precise detail what you can and can't do. I've heard it said that this is partly deliberate in order to give some flexibility in deciding how to manage an incident. I often find myself looking back to older publications when a member of staff asks "what should I do in X situation?", simply because they tend to give much more detailed information, whilst it's not ideal quoting superseded documentation, I don't regard it as acceptable to quote my own opinion without having at least something in print to back it up.
I think a lot of the time problems develop when there are managers who don't have trains experience. This doesn't mean they have to have been drivers for XX years, but in my view appreciation and knowledge of railway procedures, and some experience of what it's like on the front of a train, is essential for dealing with trains incidents. I know one particular manager who can quote the Rule Book inside out, but if anyone asks her "why" a particular rule exists, she has no idea.
In my view, taking things down the disciplinary route unnecessarilydoesn't help anyone. It means the employee concerned is off the trains for weeks. Drivers are paid to drive trains, not to sit at home or in the messroom stood down. You also have to release union reps and staff to do the hearing, which is again a waste of resources. There are situations where it's appropriate or unavoidable, for example if there is evidence the employee has deliberately violated procedures, or if their actions were reckless or endangered safety. However I always take the view it should be the last resort, when you've considered or tried all other options.
