Signalman dismissed for taking break

[moggie]

Not forgetting that his appeal was against sacking for gross misconduct as well. So presumably it's now accepted by NR that either his action didn't amount to Gross Misconduct - i.e those who found he had were mistaken in their judgement or NR on the balance of probability thought their chances of winning their case at a tribunal was odds on zero in the context of the previous legal precedent against them.
Either way common sense and pragmatism has prevailed and JL should be allowed to get on with his job (or have a happy retirement if that's his choice) and not be treated like a piece of something on the sole of a shoe but as a professional who clearly takes his role with the upmost seriousness instead of working while fatigued just waiting to make an error.

 

[mpthomson]

Bizarre, contradictory and unnecessarily patronising post. Have you read my previous posts in this thread? You don't even seem to know the difference between an investigation and a disciplinary hearing.

I'm quite aware of HR processes thank you, as I've already pointed out I conduct investigations, disciplinary and appeal hearing for the company I work for. HR can provide the best advice in the world, but if it isn't followed it means nothing.

The dismissal had been upheld at appeal already. It's only after further discussion that the decision was reversed, that is not demonstrating the soundness of the appeals process as whatever caused the employee to be reinstated should have been picked up during the appeal stage, not after it. That is very unusual.

Reinstatement after a failed appeal is very rare and probably an acknowledgement that the process was not sound at some point. Not following processes/policy correctly is a simple and controllable error so whoever made it, can expect to be asked questions even if only informally. Which part of that are you disagreeing with?

Not any of the above I'm afraid. I'm a senior manager who hears a lot of high level disciplinaries as part of my role and I know a substantial amount about the process and legislation regarding this having been through tribunals and heard appeals for dismissals in the past (and reversed them on more than one occasion).

The system worked because at the end of the day the right result was reached. Neither you nor I know why there were issues with both the disciplinary and appeal, though it's probable as other posters have said that there's a procedural problem with what's happened. CEOs can't/don't just decide to reverse the result of an HR process (massive conflicts of interest if this was allowed to happen), however much the RMT would like you to believe that this is what's happened, it will have happened as part of a defined procedure.

You seemed to be gloating that managers would be in trouble for this. They won't. If it's procedural, even down to how the suspension was carried out then it should have been HR that picked it up and stopped the process. Guidance/retraining for those involved (IF it turns out that it's procedural, and I'd stress that we don't know and we aren't going to know either)? Definitely. Investigations into the managers involved? Not appropriate.

 

[philthetube]

Not forgetting that his appeal was against sacking for gross misconduct as well. So presumably it's now accepted by NR that either his action didn't amount to Gross Misconduct - i.e those who found he had were mistaken in their judgement or NR on the balance of probability thought their chances of winning their case at a tribunal was odds on zero in the context of the previous legal precedent against them.
Either way common sense and pragmatism has prevailed and JL should be allowed to get on with his job (or have a happy retirement if that's his choice) and not be treated like a piece of something on the sole of a shoe but as a professional who clearly takes his role with the upmost seriousness instead of working while fatigued just waiting to make an error.

I suspect that NR didn't want to hear what might have been said at a tribunal about the working conditions so decided not to risk a bad ruling.

 

[ComUtoR]

The dismissal had been upheld at appeal already. It's only after further discussion that the decision was reversed, that is not demonstrating the soundness of the appeals process as whatever caused the employee to be reinstated should have been picked up during the appeal stage, not after it. That is very unusual.

I suspect that the reinstatement was more of a political decision.

 

[TPO]

Not forgetting that his appeal was against sacking for gross misconduct as well. So presumably it's now accepted by NR that either his action didn't amount to Gross Misconduct - i.e those who found he had were mistaken in their judgement or NR on the balance of probability thought their chances of winning their case at a tribunal was odds on zero in the context of the previous legal precedent against them.
Either way common sense and pragmatism has prevailed and JL should be allowed to get on with his job (or have a happy retirement if that's his choice) and not be treated like a piece of something on the sole of a shoe but as a professional who clearly takes his role with the upmost seriousness instead of working while fatigued just waiting to make an error.

....I think this is the key thing.

Theory aside, these days employment law is in reality very little protection- UNLESS you (a) have a very good case and (b) are in a union and they support your case. The latter is very important as it's been mentioned to me (by an employment lawyer friend) that an (ex-)employee can be in for £30k to take an employment tribunal, and (a) very few employees not supported by a union can afford this and (b) what you get- even if you win- is heavily limited (unless a discrimination claim when damages can be uncapped). So the reality is that if the employer is determined to get rid of someone, chances are they will succeed in many cases. Admittedly this sort of behaviour is probably rarer in the rail sector than in some other industries because of rail sector being unionised- but it can still happen. As a mentor once told me- remember, HR is there to help the employer, not to ensure fair play.

TPO

 

[14xxDave]

As a mentor once told me- remember, HR is there to help the employer, not to ensure fair play.

TPO

I was also told that that's when the section changed from 'personnel' to human resources as you were a resource not a person anymore.....

 

[AndrewE]

...As a mentor once told me- remember, HR is there to help the employer, not to ensure fair play.

I was also told that that's when the section changed from 'personnel' to human resources as you were a resource not a person anymore...

That was exactly my experience outside the railway (but back in the public sector) at the end of my career. Disgraceful, you wonder how they have a "Professional Association!" Empty words!

 

[ex signaller]

I know Peter Lee. One of the best, and the best he gave was due Peter's own professionalism and that of our superb manager, Brian Anderson, who retired before this took place. Peter gave the management four days notice of his intention to take a break. Anderson would have reacted to cover it, by making a few calls, even if he had to work it himself He could work Arundel easily (worked Three Bridges 1A). Perhaps certain persons can't work Arundel. Peter also found three signallers willing to cover his planned break. One thinks of the expression about rope and hanging! Since I took VR in March 14 I know how things have changed (as expected). I can only put this down to just thinking OMg. New boys take note - this shouldn't have been allowed to happen. It was in certain people's gift to prevent it. What did happen was simply "come into my parlour". OMg.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was also told that that's when the section changed from 'personnel' to human resources as you were a resource not a person anymore.....

Some particularly American companies went further. I've worked for a company in which it was called "Leadership and Change Management" - no people in there, just "change" - i.e. redundancies and working harder.

 

[ex signaller]

The facts about Arundel. It is literally non stop, either level crossing operation, and or route setting. S&T and P-way find it hard to get line blockages. There is no 20 break between trains on the late shift. That is why NR had to provide meal break relief. They failed to do so for Peter Lee 20 times before this happened and financially compensated him He always seemed to be the "he'll be OK man". It reached the point way before the 20th time where all Peter wanted was the break. Peter was one of a small band of Signallers, not afraid to speak out. Since our superb manager retired, some of us felt that we became the 'old school' few. New brooms came in 'out with the old' ? , OMg.

Furthermore, Arundel has 4 neighbouring boxes 2 cctv level crossings and an AHB, Occupational crossings, Ford junction and Arundel junction. Had an Abs Block neighbour once (Barnham) Its only a 6, a joke when Littlehamopton is a 5. I've seen Salisbury when it was double manned as a 6. Arundel is on a par. Easily a 7, and its always been single manned.
Peter Lee took this is his stride. Small wonder they reinstated him.

 

[Mojo]

This thread is nearly two years old. Please do not dig up old threads.