Grimsby train worker sacked, TPE South staff plan strike.

[Flamingo]

In any industry, especially one as safety-critical as the Railway, any perception that there could be serious disciplinary consequences to self-reporting any incident is a very negative thing, and something that I would have thought any sensible employer would do everything they could to avoid..,

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

How did matters go there last Saturday?

Trains ran on Saturday as usual. Sunday however hasn't seen TPE trains for months as they like buses now.

 

[lincolnshire]

Trains ran on Saturday as usual. Sunday however hasn't seen TPE trains for months as they like buses now.

Trains was running this last Sunday( 7th June ) as the engineering work was planned to last for 4 weeks and finished Sunday 31st May. I travelled on the 12-37 Doncaster To Cleethorpes which was 15 mins late from Doncaster and a platform change from 8 to 3B and a doubled up set with just the front set in use.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Oh, good to know. I've stopped using Sunday Trains as it was buses. I can start again.

 

[MrPosh]

The guard failed in his primary responsibility. The duty of care to the passenger. It doesn't matter whom the passenger is or what they are doing. What the guard did was place the life of the passenger at direct risk. By allowing the train to continue knowing the passenger was holding the train is what has caused the sacking. His job was to stop the train. He didn't do that.

Genuine question - does that duty of care exist when the person in question isn't a passenger nor on the station for a legitimate reason?

 

[transmanche]

Genuine question - does that duty of care exist when the person in question isn't a passenger nor on the station for a legitimate reason?

There is a general 'duty of care' even for trespassers (albeit with a lower standard of protection than for 'visitors') under common law and the Occupier's Liability Act 1984 "when the occupier has actual or constructive knowledge that a danger exists and that a trespasser is or may be near it".

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There is a general 'duty of care' even for trespassers (albeit with a lower standard of protection than for 'visitors') under common law and the Occupier's Liability Act 1984 "when the occupier has actual or constructive knowledge that a danger exists and that a trespasser is or may be near it".

I seek clarification on the term "occupier" that is stated above.

Does that term relate to those in ownership (or their management) of a railway station or does it also apply to those transient items such as passenger trains that cannot surely be deemed as an occupier?

 

[transmanche]

I seek clarification on the term "occupier" that is stated above.

Does that term relate to those in ownership (or their management) of a railway station or does it also apply to those transient items such as passenger trains that cannot surely be deemed as an occupier?

The 'occupier' of the land, not the 'occupier' of a vehicle passing through it (although of course we are only discussing dangers at a station - events on-board are another matter).

Case law determines who the occupier is: the more occupational control over the property a party has, the more likely they are to be deemed an occupier. More than one party may be deemed to be an occupier. So in the case of a station, Network Rail and/or the managing TOC would reasonably be deemed to be the occupier. Although other parties may also deemed to be an occupier, depending on the circumstances of the case (e.g. a TOC who isn't the station manager but who employs despatch staff could be deemed to be an occupier).

 

[ComUtoR]

Genuine question - does that duty of care exist when the person in question isn't a passenger nor on the station for a legitimate reason?

A technical answer has already been posted but I would say in broad terms yes it would apply for anyone irrespective of their reason for being there.

Specific to the Guards role I would say that his direct responsibility is to those on board or attempting to board/alight from a train. All railway employees have a responsibility to anyone on railway premises.

We live in such a world where those without legitimate reasons for being there are still protected. Even though I don't personally agree.

No doubt others more clued up on the legalities can post the legal specifics and what laws would cover the plethora of situations that arise.

 

[transmanche]

We live in such a world where those without legitimate reasons for being there are still protected. Even though I don't personally agree.

It seems that it was a railway-related case which led to a change in the law.

Under common law, a trespasser had to demonstrate that he was intentionally or recklessly injured in order to have a successful claim. This changed after British Railways Board v Herrington [1972], when the House of Lords held that an occupier could owe a duty to trespassers on his land, that duty being to avoid negligently injuring them.

The facts of the case were that BR had neglected to maintain the fence next to an electrified railway. A part of the fence has been breached and people (especially children) had been using the breach in the fence to get onto the track. BR had been informed several times, however, they did not take action. On this occasion, a six-year-old child was electrocuted.

This was later clarified by the 1984 Act.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Genuine question - does that duty of care exist when the person in question isn't a passenger nor on the station for a legitimate reason?

For a helpful answer to this question, we could look at British Railways Board v Herrington (1972) AC 877 where the trespassers were injured while trespassing on railway property.

In applying the law of Negligence, a Duty of Care plays an important part, and which is further sub-divided into the questions of foreseeability, proximity and reasonableness.

A person who isn't a passenger is entitled to a claim for injuries sustained during trespass where the landowner (Network Rail) could reasonably foresee the risk.

 

[12CSVT]

Another genuine question - Does the employer have a duty of care towards the employee ?
(In this case to protect the guard from the likelyhood of being assaulted or spat at by the toerag in the incident at Grimsby)

 

[Flamingo]

Another genuine question - Does the employer have a duty of care towards the employee ?
(In this case to protect the guard from the likelyhood of being assaulted or spat at by the toerag in the incident at Grimsby)

Which is why we are instructed to ALWAYS walk away (regardless of what's going on), and ring for BTP (as if that's any use on a moving train, coming in to an unmanned station). If we do anything other than this, we're not following company instructions...

 

[ComUtoR]

Another genuine question - Does the employer have a duty of care towards the employee ?
(In this case to protect the guard from the likelyhood of being assaulted or spat at by the toerag in the incident at Grimsby)

My assumption is that the Heath and Safety at Work act would cover the employers responsibilities.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Another genuine question - Does the employer have a duty of care towards the employee ?

Definitely!
The relationship between the two is far more apparent than in the case of customers/ passengers/ trespassers, and any negligence by an employer will be captured b a raft of case law.

My assumption is that the Heath and Safety at Work act would cover the employers responsibilities.

It will cover many responsibilities, but there is also a raft of additional legislation, Regulations, formal Guidance (which it might be negligent to disregard), custom and practice (which can carry some persuasive weight) and case law. Negligence is a wide-reaching tort and employment legislation simply adds to the complexity.

 

[joeh917]

It is considered dangerous to lean out of the window of a moving train. If I did this and was injured then my employer would blame me.

So, when I dispatch I train I make sure that it's safe and then look out of the window (as I am required to do) but I don't lean out of the window as the train departs.

If, after the train starts moving, something happens (like surfing) then I can not be held responsible for something I don't see !

I remember many years ago hearing about a lad putting his head out of the window of a moving train and he had his head cut off by a train coming in the opposite direction.

 

[reb0118]

I remember many years ago hearing about a lad putting his head out of the window of a moving train and he had his head cut off by a train coming in the opposite direction.

Was it this chap perchance?

 

[Flamingo]

I've can vouch for several cases of people having heads or other limbs removed because they were out the window and made contact with something trackside. That's why I shudder when I see bloody fools with their heads out the window at 125 mph...

 

[GatwickDepress]

I remember many years ago hearing about a lad putting his head out of the window of a moving train and he had his head cut off by a train coming in the opposite direction.

Also people who put their heads out the window, train enters a narrow tunnel, their head comes in contact with the tunnel face...

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Which is why we are instructed to ALWAYS walk away (regardless of what's going on), and ring for BTP (as if that's any use on a moving train, coming in to an unmanned station). If we do anything other than this, we're not following company instructions...

Yup, this is indeed the case. Its a pity however those who are misdemeanouring know this and use this to get away with whatever they are doing, knowing that there absolutely nothing we can do about it!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Yup, this is indeed the case. Its a pity however those who are misdemeanouring know this and use this to get away with whatever they are doing, knowing that there absolutely nothing we can do about it!

On the other hand, railway infrastructure is not governed by human rules and appears free to exact its own retribution in cases of human terminal stupidity.

 

[joeh917]

1. Reporting the incident would never warrant the sack and it is the guards responsibility to report any and all incidents. Are you suggesting that the guard should have covered up the incident and pretended it never happened ? If that would have happened then the guard would be just as fuggered.

2. Irrespective of the guard sticking his head out the window or not that doesn't in any way absolve the guard from what he should have done. As posted by someone with more inside knowledge there is a suggestion that what is posted is not the precise sequence of events. Again it is not this single action that the guard has been sacked for.

The guard failed in his primary responsibility. The duty of care to the passenger. It doesn't matter whom the passenger is or what they are doing. What the guard did was place the life of the passenger at direct risk. By allowing the train to continue knowing the passenger was holding the train is what has caused the sacking. His job was to stop the train. He didn't do that.

How can you call someone hanging on the side of the train a passenger and this idiot has lost a man he did not even know his job and as a result his family are suffering too, but I don't suppose a low life like that would care.

 

[reb0118]

I heard on the grapevine that TPE conductors are thinking of escalating industrial action company wide if this is not resolved soon.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Grimsby MP, Melanie Onn (Lab) has joined the picket line at Cleethorpes.
Also the conductor's name has been published as Glenn. TPE are still not bothered.

 

[ComUtoR]

How can you call someone hanging on the side of the train a passenger and this idiot has lost a man he did not even know his job and as a result his family are suffering too, but I don't suppose a low life like that would care.

Because it is me being professional. Because as a member of Traincrew it is not my job to pass judgement. Because I have a legal responsibility to act in the safety of the passenger regardless of what they are doing of the kind of person they are.

The "idiot" as you say lost the Guard his job. That is not the case. The Guard lost himself his job. If that "idiot" had died this thread would be very different.

TPE have taken the correct stance in that those members of staff who take a risk with the lives of the public or ignore company policy must be take to task.

It is almost impossible to make a judgement to what is right or wrong in this case as not all facts have been posted. There is always something going on behind the story that are much more pertinent to the case. It was posted on the first page (iirc) that other information is missing.

As a staff member I can say with absolute clarity and fact. He is a passenger and it is our job to protect him. Both the joy and problem of this forum is that we like to hear the staff perspective and what is the correct procedures with various things. Sadly it is not always what we want to hear.

 

[joeh917]

Because it is me being professional. Because as a member of Traincrew it is not my job to pass judgement. Because I have a legal responsibility to act in the safety of the passenger regardless of what they are doing of the kind of person they are.

The "idiot" as you say lost the Guard his job. That is not the case. The Guard lost himself his job. If that "idiot" had died this thread would be very different.

TPE have taken the correct stance in that those members of staff who take a risk with the lives of the public or ignore company policy must be take to task.

It is almost impossible to make a judgement to what is right or wrong in this case as not all facts have been posted. There is always something going on behind the story that are much more pertinent to the case. It was posted on the first page (iirc) that other information is missing.

As a staff member I can say with absolute clarity and fact. He is a passenger and it is our job to protect him. Both the joy and problem of this forum is that we like to hear the staff perspective and what is the correct procedures with various things. Sadly it is not always what we want to hear.

To be a passenger you surely have to be inside the train and also he did not pay to travel, if this had not happened the conductor would still have his job so this lad has in affect got him the sack just because he decided to fool around.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To be a passenger you surely have to be inside the train and also he did not pay to travel, if this had not happened the conductor would still have his job so this lad has in affect got him the sack just because he decided to fool around.

There is, AIUI, a very clear procedure to follow in such instances (to stop the train), and he didn't follow it. The procedure, AIUI, does not allow for discretion.

That said, I think a sacking is over the top. Though I would say a meeting without tea and biscuits would be necessary.

 

[bnm]

Once he started to fool around there were correct procedures the guard should have followed. It appears those weren't followed, putting Mr Idiot at greater risk than he was already putting himself.

 

[hounddog]

To be a passenger you surely have to be inside the train and also he did not pay to travel, if this had not happened the conductor would still have his job so this lad has in affect got him the sack just because he decided to fool around.

You appear to be having great difficulty grasping the concept of being disciplined for not following the correct procedure. Yes if the person hadn't been fooling around there wouldn't have been any issue but he was and the guard didn't deal with the situation correctly.

 

[ComUtoR]

To be a passenger you surely have to be inside the train

If you are on the platform you are still considered a passenger/customer/whatever. If you are within that boundary fence for whatever reason it is the responsibility of the railways to protect you and maintain a safe environment. I don't think you would accept that if you were standing on the platform waiting for a train that the TOC isn't responsible for you until you get on that train.

and also he did not pay to travel,

How does the Guard know ? How does anyone know if you hold a ticket until you are asked to present it ? Should we check each time before we protect them ? Should it be the case where unless you have a ticket then the railway has zero responsibility for you and you travel at your own risk ?

if this had not happened the conductor would still have his job

It happens all the time. Train surfing is nothing new and it will happen again. It is not what happened that caused the job loss. It is the Guards actions. Not only that. The Guard showed that he wasn't able to protect a member of the public. Should that employee be allowed to continue in his role ? What if that Guard as on your train and had a flagrant disregard for your safety ? What other things has the Guard done ? Do you truly believe that this single offense has got him the sack ?

so this lad has in affect got him the sack just because he decided to fool around.

What the lad did has no relevance. Train surfing is pretty minor in relative terms to what happens on a daily basis throughout the network. If the Guard had hit the emergency button and the lad died then I would say it was his fault. If he fell of hurt himself whilst playing on the side of the train then I would say it is his fault. The Guard failed to stop the train. That is HIS fault.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The procedure, AIUI, does not allow for discretion.

Rightly so. TPE have little choice to act. The safety of the public must not be compromised.

Whilst I may/may not agree with the sacking I do understand it. I am not defending TPE in any way and I would hope that they have followed procedure and that this isn't a sacking for an isolated incident.