RMT Strike Action - Virgin West Coast

[DarloRich]

If the passenger in question has indeed been rude or aggressive it seems like a legitimate reason to refuse travel, the fact they may have an impairment seems like a bit of red herring. I would just like to point out that in my experience the union has rarely balloted for strike action when a member of staff has been dismissed, not unless they think there is something to it. So until further information comes to light this is all just speculation.

That said I feel the need to express my disgust at the notion that I should tolerate aggressive behaviour at work and just do my 'job'. It's that kind of thinking that ends up with gateline assistants getting suckerpunched or guards being grabbed by the throat or spat on by unruly children. Abuse be it physical or verbal should not be tolerated under any circumstances, it should be of no consequence if the person is able bodied or not.

Well said. Will be wasted here once the self righteous union hated builds up steam

I am also fairly certain none of us know the whole story yet many have already passed judgement without any knowledge of the situation.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The TM made an error and was probably having a bad day/journey and dealt with a situation badly. Question would be whether it's a sacking offence or not. Unless the TM was already on a warning/previous misconduct charges surely a warning and customer service/disability awareness training would have sufficed. You've got to be professional but people aren't robots, they make mistakes and can't handle every unreasonable and difficult customer perfectly. If she was abusive to the passenger then it's more clear gross misconduct.

Given what a small but noticeable number of staff do get away with (refusal to do a chunk of their job i.e. revenue, enforcing ticketing rules that don't exist, being rude and obnoxious to passengers), I would be VERY surprised indeed if this was a first "offence". Large businesses don't just sack people like that. They go through a verbal warning and several levels of formal written warning first.

Staff do worse and get away with it because the customer isn't uploading it to social media and it becomes a trial by social media with the staff member made an example of. That's not fair either.

It isn't, but that doesn't mean if a complaint is made with evidence someone should be let off. It means that there should be better management so ALL instances of serious misconduct are dealt with properly and not brushed under the carpet as they mostly are.

I certainly 100% agree that staff (at any place of work!) should never have to put up with abuse or aggression but I suspect the problem here is that the TM made the call on the basis of previous incidents. This passenger wasn't being abusive directly before travel or on trying to board. They had behaved inappropriately before on a different journey. The TM was aware of this and for that reason, even though they were seemingly behaving appropriately this time, refused travel. I'm not so sure that that is a tenable position for the TM to take.

I would agree. If someone is to be banned from a company's services, it is a company level matter, not a matter for individual staff. It would be the same, to use a classic formal example, if a Tesco checkout operator for whatever reason disliked someone and refused to serve them as a result - it is simply not their decision, and that is the nub of the misconduct - acting clearly and wilfully outside her authority. (The guard is in charge of the train, but it doesn't mean the guard is not subject to disciplinary action if in taking an action while in charge they are in breach of company policy).

Where the disability comes in is that were she able bodied but otherwise the same, she could have boarded and taken a seat, then refused to move if asked to leave. I very much doubt the TM would have done anything more in that case than mouthed off to another member of staff and gone to hide in the back cab in a foul mood, coming out only to do the doors (or wherever the Voyager equivalent is).

Well said. Will be wasted here once the self righteous union hated builds up steam

I am not a union hater per-se, they have their uses, though I think they sometimes go too far e.g. on the precise issues surrounding a certain three letters which should not be mentioned. However, in this specific case I am wholly on VTWC's side, and I'm certain there must have been a number more instances of misconduct (of whatever kind or magnitude) to lead to an outright sacking, which the Union are understandably (as they want to win) not mentioning. Just marching someone out basically doesn't occur in large companies in the UK unless the member of staff has done something VERY serious e.g. seriously assaulted a member of staff or customer (which she clearly hasn't), least of all in a heavily Unionised business - so there must be previous. The UK is not the US where you can just do that.

 

[DarloRich]

I am not a union hater per-se, they have their uses, though I think they sometimes go too far e.g. on the precise issues surrounding a certain three letters which should not be mentioned. However, in this specific case I am wholly on VTWC's side, and I'm certain there must have been a number more instances of misconduct (of whatever kind or magnitude) to lead to an outright sacking, which the Union are understandably (as they want to win) not mentioning. Just marching someone out basically doesn't occur in large companies in the UK unless the member of staff has done something VERY serious e.g. seriously assaulted a member of staff or customer (which she clearly hasn't) - so there must be previous.

You have no idea what has occurred.

And yes, basically, marching someone out of a big company DOES happen. It happens on a regular basis. I have dealt with several such cases over the years. Company policy is often igonred by mangers ( often lower/mid level ones) making a presumptive decision and that leads to problems.

Neither you nor I know the full story. One of us has jumped to a conclusion.

EDIT - your conclusion may well be correct but I dont have enough info to judge

 

[Tetchytyke]

The crux of the issue is that the RMT alledge the video has been edited for effect and doesn't tell the whole story.

They also say it was unfair because it was a short-formed train (why that is mitigation is unclear) and said there were two wheelchair passengers on board (there weren't), so I'll be taking what the RMT say with a pinch of salt. They also don't say what was supposedly edited out; if the passenger was effing and blinding, they'd presumably have said so.

If the passenger in question has indeed been rude or aggressive it seems like a legitimate reason to refuse travel, the fact they may have an impairment seems like a bit of red herring.

The autism is relevant- more severe levels of autism can result in aggression- but there's nothing to suggest that this person was abusive. If she had been, the RMT would surely have said so.

She's just awkward- as many people with autism can present as- and there's no rule against that. As I said, I work with challenging people all day and every day; it's tough sometimes, but it's the job. If a TM can't keep their cool under pressure then they're not suited to the job.

 

[mmh]

Luckily it's not for union-bashers on the Internet to judge what's right and wrong. That people make wrong decisions is a major reason for the existence of unions.

As for "being rude is no reason to deny someone service," go into a pub and abuse the staff and see how long you last. Or your local corner shop. Why are railway staff different?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Being rude, blunt or clipped is not the same as being abusive. Particularly where that's caused by a disability and the staff well know that.

But in any case it would not be bar staff who would ban someone from a pub, it would be the landlord. So even if she justified a ban the guard is the wrong person to impose that.

 

[Mintona]

The RMT members would’ve have voted for strike action if they didn’t think it was worth it. There must be more to this story than meets the eye.

 

[gazzaa2]

Given what a small but noticeable number of staff do get away with (refusal to do a chunk of their job i.e. revenue, enforcing ticketing rules that don't exist, being rude and obnoxious to passengers), I would be VERY surprised indeed if this was a first "offence". Large businesses don't just sack people like that. They go through a verbal warning and several levels of formal written warning first.

You'd certainly think so.

If staff were sacked every time they were rude to a customer or a diffuclt customer put in a complaint there'd be a lot more trains cancelled due to a lack of staff.

We don't know the full story/situation here as it'd be a bit outrageous if the train manager had an otherwise impeccable record and was sacked just for this.

 

[ComUtoR]

I would be VERY surprised indeed if this was a first "offence". Large businesses don't just sack people like that. They go through a verbal warning and several levels of formal written warning first.

I am not aware of Virgins disciplinary policy but at my TOC, and indeed other places I have worked in my career, a Gross Misconduct charge comes with a penalty of dismissal. No previous warnings or other disciplinary action is required. A single offense of Gross Misconduct can, and will, get you sacked.

 

[Monty]

They also say it was unfair because it was a short-formed train (why that is mitigation is unclear) and said there were two wheelchair passengers on board (there weren't), so I'll be taking what the RMT say with a pinch of salt. They also don't say what was supposedly edited out; if the passenger was effing and blinding, they'd presumably have said so.

The Union's previous press releases indicate that the passenger was being aggressive and abusive, I don't think there would be any need to elaborate the the language used (if this indeed the case) but it will most certainly be discussed between up between the relevant parties.

The autism is relevant- more severe levels of autism can result in aggression- but there's nothing to suggest that this person was abusive. If she had been, the RMT would surely have said so.

She's just awkward- as many people with autism can present as- and there's no rule against that. As I said, I work with challenging people all day and every day; it's tough sometimes, but it's the job. If a TM can't keep their cool under pressure then they're not suited to the job.

Autism or not if the guard feels threatened or that the safety of the train is endangered they should have the right to refuse travel. It's irrelevant that the behaviour is unintentional.

 

[randyrippley]

If you search for her on the internet there are accusations of her indulging in slander and cyberbullying

And she has history of incidents on trains - anyone know what happened to the staff after this one?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-45056781

"Northern Rail has apologised after a passenger who is disabled was told she could not travel with her mobility scooter despite being sold a ticket.
The 31-year-old, who has autism and the debilitating Ehlers-Danlos syndromes, filmed her experience on board a train on her way to a wedding on Thursday.
Northern Rail said it was investigating and apologised for the "distress"."

 

[theking]

Being rude, blunt or clipped is not the same as being abusive. Particularly where that's caused by a disability and the staff well know that.

But in any case it would not be bar staff who would ban someone from a pub, it would be the landlord. So even if she justified a ban the guard is the wrong person to impose that.

Stop coming out with these stupid comparisons they are nothing close to relevant and it's obvious with your posts you have an agenda.

The train guard is the land lord.
The train guard is the store manager not a checkout operator.


The train manager is in charge of the train they make the decision whether someone travels or not it is their train and they have to deal with any fall our after.

Just like any other business, what do you expect, the managing director to be consulted for every operational decision made by every employee.

I'm no fan of the RMT but people don't just strike for the sake of it and no doubt the company like many condones low level minor abuse by telling staff to ignore it or move away.

Disabled people are not from the land of milk and honey, they are humans and just as vindictive and nasty as the rest of society.

 

[yorkie]

If the passenger in question has indeed been rude or aggressive it seems like a legitimate reason to refuse travel, the fact they may have an impairment seems like a bit of red herring. I would just like to point out that in my experience the union has rarely balloted for strike action when a member of staff has been dismissed, not unless they think there is something to it. So until further information comes to light this is all just speculation.

In 2013 they supported Swansea football hooligan Andrew Davies and called for a strike on GWR.

A train manager for the company (who is a member of this forum) informed me that it wasn't the done thing to vote against such matters but most people abstained from voting. But of those who did vote, a majority voted for strike action, even though it was totally unfounded.

There isn't any need to speculate about what was in the original video, either.

That said I feel the need to express my disgust at the notion that I should tolerate aggressive behaviour at work and just do my 'job'. It's that kind of thinking that ends up with gateline assistants getting suckerpunched or guards being grabbed by the throat or spat on by unruly children. Abuse be it physical or verbal should not be tolerated under any circumstances, it should be of no consequence if the person is able bodied or not.

There can be no serious suggestion that there was a risk of any of these things happening in this incident.

I also refer you to this post:

I managed to find the video. It's quite a frustrating watch, with endless histrionics and weeping, as well as some very put-upon station staff. The TM doesn't make too much of an appearance, but more on her later:
A number of things spring to mind:

1) I've come across this woman before - likely on this site, from a previous incident?
2) It seems the only issue was that the TM was someone that "Agony Autie" complained about before and this is the reason she was denied travel. The TM seems to suggest that the complainant has been abusive to her in the past. In the video, the complainant asserts that the TM "was disciplined". I used to work for Virgin in their complaints team and can categorically say that at no point would the internal outcome or any disciplinary following any complaint be made known to a complainant. This does not happen.
3) The complainant is a very difficult and unpleasant person who cannot manage conflict. The complainant does literally nothing to assist in any de-escalation, becomes needlessly hysterical, etc etc. This is likely at least in part due to her autism.
4) I feel sorry for the station staff who were put in a very awkward position.
5) Regardless of whether the complainant is or is not a difficult person, I feel sure she has been treated less fairly than someone without a disability. None of us can say whether or not she has been abusive in the past. This notwithstanding, had she been able-bodied, she would have simply got on the train without fuss and the TM likely unaware of their presence.
6) I feel this incident raises issues surrounding the concept "it's the guard's train, whatever they say goes" - yes, but up to a point.
7) I don't get why the TM felt so unable to convey the complainant one stop to Chester, a journey of what, 20-25 minutes?
8) The whole situation seems to stem mostly from the TM exercising unnecessary power over the complainant, when it would seem easier to just let them travel.
9) I believe this is the train: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/Y81538/2019/05/17/advanced - it accrued a 22 minute delay at Crewe solely due to this incident, and ended 28 late at destination. That's disruption for hundreds of people on the train and failed PPM with associated performance penalty for the TOC.
10) The TM was allegedly calling the police on the complainant at the time the video was shot. It is not clear exactly why, but it cannot have been for something terribly serious as other staff intervened and treated her with quite a lot of respect given the circumstances.

The TM should have just let the complainant travel. Nobody comes out of this looking good, but I wouldn't like to be Virgin defending a discrimination claim here!

Ah, that incident. I'm in full support of VTWC and the passenger, then.

IIf anyone isn't then serious questions need to be asked about that person's judgement.

Luckily it's not for union-bashers on the Internet to judge what's right and wrong. That people make wrong decisions is a major reason for the existence of unions.

I am a member of a Union myself. The reason for the existence of the Unions is not to act in the way the RMT behave. If my Union did this, it would not be tolerated by it's members.

As for "being rude is no reason to deny someone service," go into a pub and abuse the staff and see how long you last. Or your local corner shop. Why are railway staff different?

Every member of railway staff did their job very well, except one. I suspect you have not seen the video; you can't be saying this after having seen it, surely?!

The RMT members would’ve have voted for strike action if they didn’t think it was worth it. There must be more to this story than meets the eye.

Yes but they thought it was worth it to call a strike on GWR over the sacking of a Swansea City hooligan who trashed a train (the football hooligan happened to be a member of railway staff who was off duty), so what they think is worth it is what most normal people would consider to be absurd.

The train manager is in charge of the train they make the decision whether someone travels or not it is their train and they have to deal with any fall our after.

The TM cannot go beyond their remit. This one did.

I'm no fan of the RMT but people don't just strike for the sake of it and no doubt the company like many condones low level minor abuse by telling staff to ignore it or move away.

The RMT have history of calling strikes without reasonable justification.

Disabled people are not from the land of milk and honey, they are humans and just as vindictive and nasty as the rest of society.

Surely the same applies to Train Managers then! While the vast majority are sound, it's not unheard of for a minority to behave very badly indeed. No-one is suggesting all disabled people behave impeccably anyway so I really do not get your point at all.

 

[185]

Perhaps the best suggestion I've heard so far would be for the TM to walk off, disengage with the customer, go sick and refuse to move the train any further on the grounds of the previously *alleged* abusive behaviour or false complaint. Now, it seems the entire compay's staff have voted to refuse to move their trains.

As there are bodycams provided for TM staff at VT, I would suggest the RMT strongly consider telling all staff at all TOCs issued with one, to make use of them, regardless of how uncomfortable, unfashionable or style cramping they may be. The evidence collected is vital to ensure company investigations are fair, honest and real-evidence based rather than, wishy-washy 'personal statement' based.

No-one should be threatened, abused, assaulted in their workplace, regardless of our modern society's 'reasons to behave like that'. I do recall an abusive man at a Glaswegian branch Aldi tearing into poor checkout staff over lack of bread rolls, surprisingly it was other customers who assisted and errr... 'resolved' the complaint.

 

[yorkie]

I do recall an abusive man at a Glaswegian branch Aldi tearing into poor checkout staff over lack of bread rolls, surprisingly it was other customers who assisted and errr... 'resolved' the complaint.

So pretty much the polar opposite of this incident then, where the (excellent) station staff were consoling the passenger and apologising profusely to her and offering to get her a free taxi.

 

[Bald Rick]

Luckily it's not for union-bashers on the Internet to judge what's right and wrong. That people make wrong decisions is a major reason for the existence of unions.

It’s also not for the union to judge what is right or wrong. If there is an unresolved difference of opinion between the company, and the union representing a member of staff, regarding the process for dealing with such an issue, or the result, then that can only be determined (judged) by an Employment Tribunal.

It seems odd that industrial action has been called before an Employment Tribunal has been concluded, or even pursued. Unless someone can confirm that it has been?

 

[Mag_seven]

It seems odd that industrial action has been called before an Employment Tribunal has been concluded, or even pursued. Unless someone can confirm that it has been?

Indeed, thats why I have already asked the question, though no-body seems to be able to confirm:

Does anyone know if the dismissed employee has been to an industrial tribunal and if so what was the finding?

In addition has due process been followed e.g. disciplinary hearing etc. There is so much we don't know in this case.

 

[Bald Rick]

Indeed, thats why I have already asked the question, though no-body seems to be able to confirm:

In addition has due process been followed e.g. disciplinary hearing etc. There is so much we don't know in this case.

Agreed. I knew you had asked, and wanted to reinforce the point.

Had it gone to an ET, then someone would have mentioned it, so it is reasonable to assume at this point that it hasn’t. And that is the odd thing. If the RMT are sufficiently exercised and convinced about the case that they feel the need to call a strike, which will cost many of their members a couple of hundred pounds, then surely they should place their trust in an Employment Tribunal? Because if the ET ruled against Virgin, they would have made their case and plenty to shout about regarding Virgin’s use of HR process.

Alternatively, perhaps the RMT are not sufficiently confident of winning an ET, and therefore called action in the hope that Virgin will change their position, not wishing to lose income at the very end of their franchise, when the ‘problem’ would be the next franchise holders to deal with. A tactic that has been used repeatedly before.

Open question: Would the RMT pursue such a course of action if this was a member of staff in a job that would not have the potential to cause wholesale disruption to the company and passengers? Eg a member of catering crew.

It seems to me that regardless of the case, the RMT are using inappropriate tactics to attempt to force Virgin to reverse their decision without having first taken the Employment Tribunal route, which is the proper place for such decisions.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Alternatively, perhaps the RMT are not sufficiently confident of winning an ET, and therefore called action in the hope that Virgin will change their position, not wishing to lose income at the very end of their franchise, when the ‘problem’ would be the next franchise holders to deal with. A tactic that has been used repeatedly before.

That's an interesting point. I'd suggest ALL matters like this would be best resolved via a tribunal.

All Unions should be campaigning for, as in other areas, is for due process to be followed (as it should be in 100% of cases), nothing more. Not reinstatement of their "brother" or "comrade" if they've done wrong.

 

[ScottGallagher]

It's rare for strike action on VT, aside from this grieveance could it partly be the RMT using it to lay down a marker for the next lot of management under First in case they have something up their sleeve they have got wind of?

 

[Clip]

It's rare for strike action on VT, aside from this grieveance could it partly be the RMT using it to lay down a marker for the next lot of management under First in case they have something up their sleeve they have got wind of?

I highly doubt that - and it seems a bit tin foil hat if im honest.

Unless we have the HR department roll along and inform us i guess we will probably never know the full situation here.

 

[Tetchytyke]

That's an interesting point. I'd suggest ALL matters like this would be best resolved via a tribunal.

The problem is enforcing decisions at an ET. Whilst it is possible for the ET to specifically order reinstatement it is unusual, with the ET usually awarding money. And even if reinstatement is ordered, there have been numerous cases of employers ignoring it; if they frustrate long enough, it turns into a money order anyway.

But the RMT will defend all sorts of weird and wonderful people if their face fits- Steve Hedley was defended to the hilt despite repeatedly beating up his girlfriend- so I wouldn't read much into that either.

 

[Westcoast-ting]

I’ve not read the entire thread but from contacts within the company it was a massive overreaction to dismiss the member of staff.

Their is still a massive breakdown of respect from the strike days when the management were acting as a train managers.

 

[Skie]

When Rebecca started work she found that instead of a 10 car set the train was made up of only 5 cars and therefore very busy. If this was not bad enough a passenger who had sensory issues and had to wear sound cancelling headphones and needed assistance from Rebecca was having a panic attack. Also on-board was a passenger with dementia who kept pressing the alarm in the toilet.

--snip--

Rebecca did tell the passenger that she could not get on the train with her mobility scooter as it was overcrowded. Being a 5 car set this was not untrue and was a reason for Rebecca’s decision. Quite rightly Rebecca also had to take into account the aggressive nature of this individual and the potential problems that could occur on a packed train.

Sounds like a fair but imperfect reaction, especially when a taxi was also offered. Unless the TM has said something abhorrent (and there's no evidence of this on the edited video posted by this lady) then it seems like dismissal is way over the top.

 

[Westcoast-ting]

Sounds like a fair but imperfect reaction, especially when a taxi was also offered. Unless the TM has said something abhorrent (and there's no evidence of this on the edited video posted by this lady) then it seems like dismissal is way over the top.

Virgin has lots of staff in jobs they have been promoted to from lower roles, many have had no training and are under pressure to perform. Lots of managers looking out for each other.

 

[Carlisle]

Comes across as one of those strikes that’s likley to get resolved one way or another to a sufficiently

The problem is enforcing decisions at an ET. Whilst it is possible for the ET to specifically order reinstatement it is unusual, with the ET usually awarding money. .

Then perhaps a compromise to avoid a strike might be Virgin offering now to re instate the train manager if the ET rules in her favour.

 

[Carlisle]

Company policy is often igonred by mangers ( often lower/mid level ones) making a presumptive decision and that leads to problems.

Yes, I’ve seen that a few times too,
Small groups of managers almost running a company within a company, & acquaintances in senior management either turning a blind eye or sometimes actively supporting junior colleagues dodgy practices, providing things get done & nothing goes sufficiently wrong to reflect badly on them

 

[driver_m]

Having read this thread, I am not surprised to see the reaction from the usual suspects on here. I am going to personally message the Mods on here and invite them to withdraw that statement about the RMT being bonkers, especially when you don’t know the full facts from that extremely one sided video.

I dearly want to put a defence in here of Becca as I know her personally but 1. I think most people on here have already made up their minds and even facts staring them in the face won’t change them. And 2. I’m doing absolutely nothing to jeopardise her case.

I will say though that I’m absolutely disgusted with those of you who have drawn your conclusions without getting both sides of this.

 

[nedchester]

Having read this thread, I am not surprised to see the reaction from the usual suspects on here. I am going to personally message the Mods on here and invite them to withdraw that statement about the RMT being bonkers, especially when you don’t know the full facts from that extremely one sided video.

I dearly want to put a defence in here of Becca as I know her personally but 1. I think most people on here have already made up their minds and even facts staring them in the face won’t change them. And 2. I’m doing absolutely nothing to jeopardise her case.

I will say though that I’m absolutely disgusted with those of you who have drawn your conclusions without getting both sides of this.

Agreed.

I think the fact that she has previous “form” with both Virgin and Northern should start the alarm bells ringing but it seems not. I can’t help thinking that this kind of person goes looking for issues.....after all it makes good viewing for her vlog........

As I have said in a previous career I worked with children who were severely on the autistic spectrum so understand the condition quite well. Autistic people DO tend to see things in a very black and white way and I suspect that includes people on this forum.

 

[syorksdeano]

All this talk of Sister Hughes this and Sister Hughes that had got me thinking..... Do you think when everyone walks out in strike they should sing this as they are leaving the depot or following Mick Cash