Signalman dismissed for taking break

[Llanigraham]

Signallers in single manned signalboxes don’t get any statutory breaks at all, the railway’s argument has always been that breaks are not needed due to natural gaps in traffic though they are on duty continuously and available to carry out work at all times. This means a signaller can - when it’s busy - be working uninterrupted for up to 12 hours. In multi-manned locations there is typically a breaks/meal/screen relief signaller rostered for at least some shifts but if there is no cover then no breaks are given.

Exactly, and many people do not realise that.
Sometimes it just isn't possible to get that break, even to go to the loo.

 

[Llanigraham]

There is a right to a rest break if the shift is over 6 hours, not that it has to be taken no later than 6 hours after the shift started. In addition, the law specifically covers those in the railway industry whose job is on board trains or who are responsible for ensuring trains run on time, and states that the rest period can be exchanged for one at a different time. So all in all not quite as clear cut as has been suggested.

I can assure you that there are plenty of single manned 12 hour boxes that have NO meal break cover provided, at ANY time.

 

[farleigh]

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'.)

I do understand it and I think you do too, but perhaps not in great depth. Companies will use it to summarily dismiss a person who does not deserve it. Not always but it happens. Not in this case perhaps but it happens.

 

[Trackman]

slighty OT, I think Arundel is a grade 6, I also thought it was closing and being taken over by 3 bridges ROC.
I had some dealings with it years ago.
back on the subject in hand, I don't think we are hearing the full story.

 

[Dieseldriver]

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.

With the upmost respect and without making a dig, a safety critical role such as Signalling is much different to working in a ticket office.

 

[LAX54]

slighty OT, I think Arundel is a grade 6, I also thought it was closing and being taken over by 3 bridges ROC.
I had some dealings with it years ago.
back on the subject in hand, I don't think we are hearing the full story.

There has to be 'history' here I would have thought, and as he had already advised everyone in advance, and a Manager was already on hand to suspend him, one does have to ask, why the could not have cut him out for 15 mins or so ?

 

[matt_world2004]

Would a signaller be disciplined for taking a break to use a toilet?

 

[nom de guerre]

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

Not if they are insufficiently staffed (see my post on page 1 of this thread).

Several of the '12' have already seen workstations closed for short periods to enable signallers to take... emergency PNBs.

slighty OT, I think Arundel is a grade 6, I also thought it was closing and being taken over by 3 bridges ROC.

Yes, Grade 6. No resignalling plans in the area for CP6, so it should be safe for a few more years yet.

 

[Highlandspring]

Would a signaller be disciplined for taking a break to use a toilet?

Depends how often it happens and how much delay is caused; formal disciplinary action is very unlikely but certainly a discussion with the management if it becomes a regular issue is certainly not unheard of. In the past I’ve closed a signalbox to drive to a nearby station to use the toilet because the box had run out of toilet paper and despite numerous faxes and phone calls to the office none had been delivered. I deliberately delayed an intercity service to make my point and it was very effective. One former colleague used to blame every single delay he caused on being in the toilet which came back to bit him eventually when he was sent to the railway doctor about it...

 

[LAX54]

Not if they are insufficiently staffed (see my post on page 1 of this thread).

Several of the '12' have already seen workstations closed for short periods to enable signallers to take... emergency PNBs.



Yes, Grade 6. No resignalling plans in the area for CP6, so it should be safe for a few more years yet.

It says in the article, he has been on the Railway for 44 years, starting as a Box Boy at 16 and a Signalman ever since, so would this have been Arundel Junction box ?

 

[matt_world2004]

Depends how often it happens and how much delay is caused; formal disciplinary action is very unlikely but certainly a discussion with the management if it becomes a regular issue is certainly not unheard of. In the past I’ve closed a signalbox to drive to a nearby station to use the toilet because the box had run out of toilet paper and despite numerous faxes and phone calls to the office none had been delivered. I deliberately delayed an intercity service to make my point and it was very effective. One former colleague used to blame every single delay he caused on being in the toilet which came back to bit him eventually when he was sent to the railway doctor about it...

So normally 5 mins away from the workstation to relieve oneself shouldnt cause a delay . I presume the drive to a station was unique circumstances in that case.

 

[LAX54]

So normally 5 mins away from the workstation to relieve oneself shouldnt cause a delay . I presume the drive to a station was unique circumstances in that case.

That depends You are not supposed to have a train in the section, so will be, or could be held in the previous section, if AB, maybe under TCB it would trundle up to the first stop signal, you are also supposed to tell the box each side you are leaving your box for a while.

 

[Journeyman]

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.

In 25 years on the railway, I've never seen any evidence at all to suggest this is the case. I've never seen safety compromised because of money. The safety record on the railway is fantastic, because the safety culture is so ingrained.

 

[bramling]

In 25 years on the railway, I've never seen any evidence at all to suggest this is the case. I've never seen safety compromised because of money. The safety record on the railway is fantastic, because the safety culture is so ingrained.

What does happen sometimes is complacency - perhaps someone too keen to do something motivated by a performance scorecard, a bonus payment, creep points, reputation, or even just a desire to finish on time. I wouldn’t say people deliberately set out to do unsafe things, however they may well fail to think through what the possible consequences may be. I can think of one very serious near-miss caused by such attitudes.

The railway safety record is so good because there are so many layers of safety that it normally takes a number of failings or errors before something bad happens. But it only takes a chain of events to start chipping away at those layers, and when this starts to happen things can go wrong surprisingly quickly.

 

[Journeyman]

What does happen sometimes is complacency - perhaps someone too keen to do something motivated by a performance scorecard, a bonus payment, creep points, reputation, or even just a desire to finish on time. I wouldn’t say people deliberately set out to do unsafe things, however they may well fail to think through what the possible consequences may be. I can think of one very serious near-miss caused by such attitudes.

I agree with you there, I've seen similar things myself, and it's vital that these things are spotted and dealt with. What the previous poster was implying is that evil fatcats are deliberately endangering people by refusing to spend money to resolve known safety issues, and that's something I've never seen any evidence of at all.

 

[Dunnyrail]

What does happen sometimes is complacency - perhaps someone too keen to do something motivated by a performance scorecard, a bonus payment, creep points, reputation, or even just a desire to finish on time. I wouldn’t say people deliberately set out to do unsafe things, however they may well fail to think through what the possible consequences may be. I can think of one very serious near-miss caused by such attitudes.

The railway safety record is so good because there are so many layers of safety that it normally takes a number of failings or errors before something bad happens. But it only takes a chain of events to start chipping away at those layers, and when this starts to happen things can go wrong surprisingly quickly.

Very good news now, but also please remember the incidents at Ambermule and Connington. Both in their way sad lapses of Safety and Competance. The Railways of today are much safer due to them and many occurring, but lapses can and do still today sadly occur.

 

[hooverboy]

It’s not clear whether he has a legal right to a meal break. The Working Time Directive has exemptions as you’d expect for jobs where continuity of service must be maintained, like signallers.

Who would cover his break?

in safety critical role the rules are quite simple. you carry on until relieved,or you are a danger to those you are trying to help(fatigue etc)

you want properly safety critical role..lets try paramedic.
Walking out and demanding a break because your 4 hours is up and you are due 15 minutes respite is just not an option, end of.
you have a scenario to deal with, you complete it..THEN you take your break.

legal standing of this is basically hypocratic oath..do no harm. your leaving a situation /casualty would potentially cause danger and harm to them/other individuals in the surroundings, so it is not permitted.

 

[bramling]

in safety critical role the rules are quite simple. you carry on until relieved,or you are a danger to those you are trying to help(fatigue etc)

you want properly safety critical role..lets try paramedic.
Walking out and demanding a break because your 4 hours is up and you are due 15 minutes respite is just not an option, end of.
you have a scenario to deal with, you complete it..THEN you take your break.

legal standing of this is basically hypocratic oath..do no harm. your leaving a situation /casualty would potentially cause danger and harm to them/other individuals in the surroundings, so it is not permitted.

Closing a signal box isn’t the same as performing life-saving surgery on someone though. It may be disruptive, perhaps highly disruptive at the right time and place, however it’s not necessarily unsafe.

It’s surprising how much of a difference there is between train crews, especially drivers, and signalling grades, plus some operational management roles. The former is very tightly controlled with regard to rest periods and breaks, the latter much less so.

Perhaps it’s because drivers work as individuals whereas others work as part of small rosters, where there will always be people who try to make the shift work fit their own needs. The industry seems to tolerate this, perhaps because they rely on goodwill as a substitute for not having enough staff?

 

[driver_m]

If that is correct that it is a grade 6 signalbox, then he is fully justified in wanting a break. Most powerboxes are grade 7 or 8, so one below that shows you that it's a difficult box. A basic box is a grade 2 so we're not taking a straightforward up and down train every half an hour.

 

[Trackman]

I've just watched the video, he said they employed two people to cover his break, and when the MOM's came in he assumed it was the two people covering his break. So is the box double manned?

 

[Tom Quinne]

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.

The problem is increased believe it or not with ROCs...

 

[nom de guerre]

If that is correct that it is a grade 6 signalbox, then he is fully justified in wanting a break. Most powerboxes are grade 7 or 8, so one below that shows you that it's a difficult box. A basic box is a grade 2 so we're not taking a straightforward up and down train every half an hour.

Arundel is a Grade 6, yes.

It's not necessarily as clear cut as that, though.

If the "straightforward" G2 is an Absolute Block box with a lever frame and a set of manual gates, the signaller will be required to do far more per train during normal running than a colleague manning a G7/8 workstation equipped with ARS.

Arguably a busy, single-manned G6 represents a bit of a short straw: much of the workload of a G7/8/9 centre, but no official breaks and no colleagues/SSM to assist if you need a quick toilet break etc. Having said that, my last single-manned box was a busy G6 and I rarely found it difficult to take a break between trains.

 

[nom de guerre]

I've just watched the video, he said they employed two people to cover his break, and when the MOM's came in he assumed it was the two people covering his break. So is the box double manned?

No, it's a single-manned box.

I suspect the "two people" referred to is the total number of extra staff recruited to facilitate the break cover.

 

[Banana]

Grade C is a busy box. What???? You can read the whole of Wikipedia on one shift.

 

[HH]

With the upmost respect and without making a dig, a safety critical role such as Signalling is much different to working in a ticket office.

It's different from a safety perspective, which is stating the bleeding obvious, but in terms of jobs on the railway not have rostered meal breaks it is the same. They go back to BR days.

 

[pt_mad]

Ok, interesting. So, there is an exception in the Working Time Regulations 1998 (as amended by the Working Time (Amendment) Regulations 2003) to the requirement to provde a rest break:

Where the worker works in railway transport and—
(i) his activities are intermittent;
(ii) he spends his working time on board trains; or
(iii) his activities are linked to transport timetables and to ensuring the continuity and regularity of traffic


This replaces the earlier blanket exception for the entire rail sector.

EDIT: So (ii) is clear - and not relevant to signallers. (i) may or may not be the case, depending how busy the box is, and I'm not sure I completely understand what (iii) refers to.

EDIT^2: If you want to look it up, it's Regulation 21 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, as amended by Regulation 5 of the Working Time (Amendment) Regulations 2003. Of course, there may be other subsequent amendments that I missed - I've not researched this thoroughly - I'm just going by the legislation linked on the HSE web site.

Can i just enquire, does the employee have to meet all three conditions: i, ii and iii for the exemption to apply. Or just one of the three descriptions?

 

[winks]

if NR couldn’t provide a relief signalman that day and the guy in question starts shutting down the box regardless then Network Rail seem justified in their actions - whether it amounted to Gross Misconduct is another question, probably it did.

 

[Moonshot]

if NR couldn’t provide a relief signalman that day and the guy in question starts shutting down the box regardless then Network Rail seem justified in their actions - whether it amounted to Gross Misconduct is another question, probably it did.

Network Rail are a big employer and have been around a long time. They will have all bases covered as far as employment law goes. There is clearly more to this story than is being disclosed. No one sacks employees on a whim.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Network Rail are a big employer and have been around a long time. They will have all bases covered as far as employment law goes.

Your first sentence in no way actually means the other, despite you trying to imply it does.
Back in the real world there are many examples of large and well established employers who should know better breaking employment laws.

 

[Deafdoggie]

The fact they couldn't find cover for a break, but could find two managers to dismiss him, implies they knew what they were doing, and that there is more to this