Signalman dismissed for taking break

[GusB]

It amazes me how some people think that having a 20 minute break during an 8+ hour shift is unreasonable. I quit my first McJob (draw your own conclusions as to who the employer was) because I was sick and tired of being expected to work for 8 hours and more without a proper break, then not being allowed to go home because the cashier was on their own break and there was nobody there to count the contents of my till! I moved onto food retail shortly afterwards, and having an hour for lunch and 2x15 minute tea breaks (paid) for anything above 8 hours working time was absolute heaven in comparison. This was before the Working Time Directive was in force, and we were governed by the Shops Act. Anything less than 8 hours (but more than 6) and you'd get half an hour, except if your shift covered a "meal time", in which case you were entitled to fifteen minutes longer. The availability of food on the premises also had some bearing on how long you were given. The Working Time Directive was actually a backward step for people in my line of work at the time. Safeway soon tried to weasel their way out of their responsibilities by suggesting that by doing 8-1 before lunch, and 2-5, we weren't entitled to the afternoon tea break because it was less than four hours.

I later moved onto a telecoms company, and they actually scheduled tea breaks. If you happened to be delayed leaving your desk because of an over-running customer, it wasn't a problem - it was 15 minutes from the minute you logged out of your workstation until you logged back in. If you needed a 5 minute breather because of an "attitude-test failure" on the part of your last customer, no eyelids were batted, provided you didn't take the mick.

While none of this specifically relates to the railways, I am slightly baffled that someone in a safety-critical role is expected to work for so long without a proper break. When I was looking at what gov.uk had to say about breaks at work, I was slightly perturbed to discover that a bus or lorry driver can be expected to work for 5 1/2 hours before being allowed a break. I cannot be absolutely sure, but from what I've read on here, it's fairly similar for train drivers. Again, I don't have any concrete knowledge on the subject, but I gather that signallers can work twelve-hour shifts; are they really expected to work for such a long time with only a 20-minute break? That's barbaric.

 

[Highlandspring]

Again, I don't have any concrete knowledge on the subject, but I gather that signallers can work twelve-hour shifts; are they really expected to work for such a long time with only a 20-minute break?

Signallers in single manned boxes work for up to 12 hours without any formal break whatsoever.

 

[Carlisle]

People don't get sacked for trivial reasons nowadays. Unions and courts have (happily) seen to that. There's more to this story than a mere instant dismissal job.

Id disagree with that, whilst it’s not very common on the railway nowadays, it’s certainly not unheard of either, and more common in some other industries.

 

[AlterEgo]

https://www.gov.uk/rest-breaks-work

There are exceptions:
https://www.gov.uk/rest-breaks-work/exceptions

I'm quite surprised that air, sea and road transport is specifically mentioned, but there's nothing about the railway.

You need to read the actual regulations.

Regulation 21:

Other special cases

21. Subject to regulation 24, regulations 6(1), (2) and (7), 10(1), 11(1) and (2) and 12(1) do not
apply in relation to a worker—
(a) where the worker’s activities are such that his place of work and place of residence are distant from one another or his different places of work are distant from one another;
(b) where the worker is engaged in security and surveillance activities requiring a permanent presence in order to protect property and persons, as may be the case for security guards and caretakers or security firms;
(c) where the worker’s activities involve the need for continuity of service or production, as may be the case in relation to—
(i) services relating to the reception, treatment or care provided by hospitals or similar establishments, residential institutions and prisons;
(ii) work at docks or airports;
(iii) press, radio, television, cinematographic production, postal and telecommunications services and civil protection services;
(iv) gas, water and electricity production, transmission and distribution, household refuse collection and incineration;
(v) industries in which work cannot be interrupted on technical grounds;
(vi) research and development activities;
(vii) agriculture;
(d) where there is a foreseeable surge of activity, as may be the case in relation to—
(i) agriculture; (ii) tourism; and
(iii) postal services;

Presumably Network Rail’s position is that the regulation as written certainly isn’t exhaustive, it just says “such as”. I don’t see why a signaller should be any different to any of the jobs or industries included in the regulation as written. It’s not clear whether (b) or ((c) v) would cover a signaller anyway.

 

[ComUtoR]

It amazes me how some people think that having a 20 minute break during an 8+ hour shift is unreasonable. I quit my first McJob (draw your own conclusions as to who the employer was) because I was sick and tired of being expected to work for 8 hours and more without a proper break, then not being allowed to go home because the cashier was on their own break and there was nobody there to count the contents of my till!

Because some forumites believe that employees should be seen and not heard. It's perfectly acceptable on the basis that :

You should work extra hours, unpaid, because its 'good culture'
You should work extra hours, unpaid, because 'everyone else does'
You should work extra hours, unpaid, because 'you serve the public'
72hr long weeks above and beyond your contract are acceptable because 'your a manager'
'if you don't like it' quit
'you signed up for it' so its acceptable
It happens in other industries 'so it should happen to you too'
Refusing anything outside of your contract, terms, or legal right is because 'your being militant'

I find it odd when threads like this appear. The 'safety culture' on railway really is one of money first, safety second. If they can get the absolute minimum done, at the absolute edge of the law, they will.

'Gross misconduct' is a tricky one. There is a long list of charges that result in a gross misconduct charge. The list is very much all encompassing and refusing to do as your told does come under that umbrella. I refused to carry out something I knew that was 100% against the rulebook. I was told in no uncertain terms that if I refused the next time it would fall under 'refusing a management instruction' It didn't matter if the Manager was wrong, only that I refused. If I had carried out the instruction I would be breaking the rulebook and would be up on a gross misconduct charge.

 

[Journeyman]

I can see this from both angles, and I'm not sure who is to blame the most here - we're clearly not getting the whole story.

Sadly, the railway is full of fully-paid-up members of the Awkward Squad, and a lot of them are older time-servers like this guy who joined up when you could get away with murder on BR. They didn't set the quality bar very high. I've come across lots of them - people who will demand everything they're entitled to but will do the absolute bare minimum in return. I regularly dealt with a supervisor who made a colossal big deal about childcare preventing them from working loads of shifts, which made them a practically useless employee, but whenever there was a strike, those issues would magically disappear and they'd be on a picket line at 4.30 in the morning.

On the other hand...some managers can be real bastards, and I've been on the receiving end of that. I was once taken on in a customer service role dealing with a colossal backlog of complaints for a bus company. The manager previously responsible for complaints, who had created the job through staggering incompetence, knew I'd expose their incompetence. They made my life absolute hell and had me on a load of trumped-up disciplinary charges within 4 months. I was forced to quit before being given the boot.

I suspect there's issues on both sides here.

 

[farleigh]

He was found guilty of "Gross Misconduct" the penalty for which is dismissal I believe.

I disagree with your assertion that everybody found guilty of GM deserves the sack. Those found guilty includes those who were not guilty but found guilty (either by mistake or mischief). They do not deserve dismissal.

IMHO your very black and white view is not suitable for a manager or leader.

(He may of course have deserved the sack but your statement I have an issue with)

 

[Clip]

Because some forumites believe that employees should be seen and not heard. It's perfectly acceptable on the basis that :

You should work extra hours, unpaid, because its 'good culture'
You should work extra hours, unpaid, because 'everyone else does'
You should work extra hours, unpaid, because 'you serve the public'
72hr long weeks above and beyond your contract are acceptable because 'your a manager'
'if you don't like it' quit
'you signed up for it' so its acceptable
It happens in other industries 'so it should happen to you too'
Refusing anything outside of your contract, terms, or legal right is because 'your being militant'

I find it odd when threads like this appear. The 'safety culture' on railway really is one of money first, safety second. If they can get the absolute minimum done, at the absolute edge of the law, they will.

'Gross misconduct' is a tricky one. There is a long list of charges that result in a gross misconduct charge. The list is very much all encompassing and refusing to do as your told does come under that umbrella. I refused to carry out something I knew that was 100% against the rulebook. I was told in no uncertain terms that if I refused the next time it would fall under 'refusing a management instruction' It didn't matter if the Manager was wrong, only that I refused. If I had carried out the instruction I would be breaking the rulebook and would be up on a gross misconduct charge.

Who are these people and which posts are you and GusB talking about here because I can't see anything the sort apart from people pointing out factual information regarding breaks.


Unless you and GusB think that people shouldn't be pointing out factual information and if so then maybe facts have no place in your world or this forum and we should post hearsay and conjecture?

 

[whhistle]

Anyone know whih (sic) union he may have been in as im surprised theres nothing from them about fighting it in the story either

I'm sure I read it was the RMT.

There was a post on a Facebook group that got out of hand about it.

I'm also rather surprised that Network Rail thinks they can get out of complying with the Working Time Regulations by means of "financial recompense" to the employee.
I'm presumably missing something here, but I'm not quite sure what....

Unless the worker signed out of the working time directive so they can work more than 40 hours a week (or whatever it is).
Not sure how this would affect breaks though... and poor of NR to get rid of breaks if so.


I can't really pass much comment as I haven't seen the whole picture.

I can't help but feel we'd get a more rounded view if some people who are "union through and through" or "been working here for 40 years" shut up. In the latter case, loyalty isn't how employment works these days (not saying anyone here has specifically been like that).

It's also made the Daily Mail today, but can't link to it at the moment.

 

[LAX54]

There is more to this, than just 'taking a break', there is history here, but obviously we do not know what this is, there is one odd point, it was said he never got to take the break as he was suspended before he could take it? So, based on that, there must have been someone there that could have let him take a break ??

As for entitled breaks, Signallers do not get breaks as a 'norm', Manual boxes take a break when traffic allows, PSB's do get rostered breaks, but even then if they are running short due to leave or sickness, then they too have to work through, in some cases 12 hour shifts, they will take a PNB to go to the loo, and it can delay trains whilst they do, but it's always an OC delay to go with it.

It is time the situation was addressed properly, back in the 60s to 80's traffic levels were a lot lower, Signallers could get 10 to 15 mins between trains, but we now run such an intense service on many lines, this is quite difficult, even to take a quick poo !

Littlehampton has between 10 and 14 trains an hour, with a rough 7 to 8 minute section

Gross Misconduct is one of the actions that can result in Instant Dismissal. (of course can be, and would be appealed)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Network Rail’s position is that VDU regulations do not apply to signallers, even those who work VDU based signalling workstations.

To some extent those regulations are a bit old fashioned anyway - modern day screens are very high quality and don't cause anything like the issue old ones did[1], also LCDs and OLEDs don't give off radiation in the way CRTs did.

[1] Particularly not very modern high resolution ones like Apple retina displays which are intended to be essentially equivalent to reading a piece of paper.

 

[LAX54]

Just read the DAILY MAIL article, this says he was at Arundel ? so was this the mini-PSB ? if so, a tad more than 14 an hour, and longer sections too.

 

[LAX54]

To some extent those regulations are a bit old fashioned anyway - modern day screens are very high quality and don't cause anything like the issue old ones did[1], also LCDs and OLEDs don't give off radiation in the way CRTs did.

[1] Particularly not very modern high resolution ones like Apple retina displays which are intended to be essentially equivalent to reading a piece of paper.

Rest assured staring at 7 x 21" signalling screens for 8 hours, with poor quality graphics certainly can give rise to headaches ! 8 hours on a similar NX panel nowhere near as bad !

 

[BRblue]

Just read the DAILY MAIL article, this says he was at Arundel ? so was this the mini-PSB ? if so, a tad more than 14 an hour, and longer sections too.

It is indeed Arundel... a lot busier box.

 

[LAX54]

It is indeed Arundel... a lot busier box.

I was Box Boy at Arundel Junction in 72, and that box was busy then ! (Grade C) they were upgrading of Arundel with a panel was in progress when I left the area, so I imagine that box is quite busy now with the Mid Sussex, and Coastway signalling, I assume it fringes with 3 Bridges and Barnham ?

 

[Robertj21a]

RMT seem very quiet about it.

 

[Iskra]

The Working Time Regulations simply state that a worker is ENTITLED to a 20 minute break if a shift is over 6 hours.
It makes no recommendations about when that break should be taken and it does not compel the employee to take the break.

Pretty sure it does say it shouldn’t be at the start or end of a shift.

 

[LAX54]

Signalling grade (Except IECC/PSB etc) take a break as traffic permits, Unions have been trying to get a mobile M/R to cover smaller single manned boxes, where M/R is provided in a Powerbox, breaks can indeed be at the start or end of a shift, as the staff can't all take a break at the same time !
Some Working Time Regs do not apply to the Railway.

 

[AndrewE]

RMT seem very quiet about it.

Maybe they know they are onto a winner and are keeping their powder dry? Especially if it could be about to set a very important precedent...

 

[whhistle]

there is one odd point, it was said he never got to take the break as he was suspended before he could take it? So, based on that, there must have been someone there that could have let him take a break ??

No.
It seems he intended to take his break at 5pm, but NR did not provide cover.
In the (30 minute process) of shutting down systems to take a break, two managers arrived and suspended him there and then.

I guess the managers only arrived because they had alerts the signaller was shutting systems down.

Why it requires certain systems to be shut down, I don't know. When I take a break, I just go.


Interesting though, the Daily Mail says:
"A spokesman for Network Rail said Mr Lee had closed a signal box 'at the height of the weekday rush hour', a claim he refutes."
But that IS what happened.
Okay, if you're being absolutely pedantic about it, he didn't get the opportunity to fully close it (as the article also states) but when you start logging systems off or whatever, you've started the process.

Network Rail goes on to say that following his grievance in 2015, cover for breaks was now in place, but when cover could not be found, a financial payment was made. It suggests the signaller in question has accepted this payment over 20 times in the past.

It's starting to sound more and more like the signaller is at fault here.
He wasn't sacked for taking a break. He was sacked for not following a specific instruction from his manager.

And signallers wonder why Network Rail want just 12 boxes.
Would solve many problems like this.

 

[LAX54]

No.
It seems he intended to take his break at 5pm, but NR did not provide cover.
In the (30 minute process) of shutting down systems to take a break, two managers arrived and suspended him there and then.

I guess the managers only arrived because they had alerts the signaller was shutting systems down.

Why it requires certain systems to be shut down, I don't know. When I take a break, I just go.



.

I think he had advised Managers earlier on in the shift, so they were well aware in advance, as for shutting systems down, don't follow that, I can understand making sure all trains clear of his area however, and this would take a bit of time !

As for just 12 boxes, no it would not solve the issue, they can still end up running short due to AL and Sickness, and be in the same situation where there is no M/R in a Powerbox /ROC to cut staff out. Unless you have enough staff to cover all eventualities, then its always a risk, and its not always a rare risk at that !

 

[HH]

Don't know about signallers, but Ticket Office staff in one window stations generally don't have a rostered meal break. They take a break as and when they can; however, they are paid for the full shift.

 

[Mag_seven]

I disagree with your assertion that everybody found guilty of GM deserves the sack. Those found guilty includes those who were not guilty but found guilty (either by mistake or mischief). They do not deserve dismissal.

IMHO your very black and white view is not suitable for a manager or leader.

(He may of course have deserved the sack but your statement I have an issue with)

Read my post properly please - I am not making any assertion that he "deserved" the sack. I am pointing out that contractually I suspect the penalty for "Gross Misconduct" is dismissal right or wrong as that may be.

 

[Darandio]

RMT seem very quiet about it.

They are awaiting delivery of the latest thesaurus to see what new and emotive words they can use in their press release.

 

[LAX54]

Read my post properly please - I am not making any assertion that he "deserved" the sack. I am pointing out that contractually I suspect the penalty for "Gross Misconduct" is dismissal right or wrong as that may be.

'Gross Misconduct' is a reason for your P45 on the spot, but it is fairly rare, normally suspended first pending investigation and the rest, so there has to be something behind this that is more serious than this incident, which in itself is not overly dangerous.

 

[AlterEgo]

I disagree with your assertion that everybody found guilty of GM deserves the sack. Those found guilty includes those who were not guilty but found guilty (either by mistake or mischief). They do not deserve dismissal.

IMHO your very black and white view is not suitable for a manager or leader.

(He may of course have deserved the sack but your statement I have an issue with)

Do you not understand what gross misconduct is?

Gross misconduct is behaviour, on the part of an employee, which is so bad that it destroys the employer/employee relationship, and merits instant dismissal without notice or pay in lieu of notice. (Such dismissal without notice is often called 'summary dismissal'.)

 

[theageofthetra]

Because some forumites believe that employees should be seen and not heard. It's perfectly acceptable on the basis that :

You should work extra hours, unpaid, because its 'good culture'
You should work extra hours, unpaid, because 'everyone else does'
You should work extra hours, unpaid, because 'you serve the public'
72hr long weeks above and beyond your contract are acceptable because 'your a manager'
'if you don't like it' quit
'you signed up for it' so its acceptable
It happens in other industries 'so it should happen to you too'
Refusing anything outside of your contract, terms, or legal right is because 'your being militant'

I find it odd when threads like this appear. The 'safety culture' on railway really is one of money first, safety second. If they can get the absolute minimum done, at the absolute edge of the law, they will.

'Gross misconduct' is a tricky one. There is a long list of charges that result in a gross misconduct charge. The list is very much all encompassing and refusing to do as your told does come under that umbrella. I refused to carry out something I knew that was 100% against the rulebook. I was told in no uncertain terms that if I refused the next time it would fall under 'refusing a management instruction' It didn't matter if the Manager was wrong, only that I refused. If I had carried out the instruction I would be breaking the rulebook and would be up on a gross misconduct charge.

If so I'd love to see that manager explaining his actions to a judge led enquiry.

 

[theageofthetra]

'Gross Misconduct' is a reason for your P45 on the spot, but it is fairly rare, normally suspended first pending investigation and the rest, so there has to be something behind this that is more serious than this incident, which in itself is not overly dangerous.

All too often though it is used to avoid paying a notice period. I've also seen it used to get rid of employees without paying a redundancy payment. In that case the employee was doing what dozens of others did on a regular basis but was singled out because of long service and would have required a very substantial redundancy payment.

 

[Warwick]

I wouldn’t bank on that. People do get dismissed when managers try to stitch someone up and fail to appreciate that it could all fall apart at a tribunal. Especially if personal clashes come into play or someone is a particular thorn in the side for whatever reason - which in some cases can simply be that someone is actually trying to follow their company’s own rule book.

"...it could all fall apart at a tribunal".
Which is - in effect - what I said. Companies have to be very careful to have all the paperwork in order and have all the "i"s dotted and the "t"s crossed before dismissal."

 

[Alteran Ancient]

You should work extra hours, unpaid, because its 'good culture'
You should work extra hours, unpaid, because 'everyone else does'

These two apply not only to the public service industry, but are also quite prevalent in private organisations, e.g. tech start-ups and financial institutions. It's a workplace culture I completely refuse to adopt. If there's a deadline, I might stay an extra hour or two, but I'll be keeping tally and taking those hours back later in the week.

In the long run, burnout isn't healthy or safe - you should be using any and all holiday allowances you are given, and shouldn't bend to pressure to skip breaks or stay on longer than your fair share because someone called in sick or because your relief is consisntely running late. If you become fatigued and then have a lapse of judgement that results in something bad happening, that's potentially on your head.