Signalman dismissed for taking break

[bnm]

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.

Even the most cursory of searches of t'interweb will bring up Employment Tribunal decisions that went against Network Rail.

 

[AlterEgo]

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

It was known in advance that the break would not be covered.

The signaller told management in advance that he would shut down the box and take his break. Management told him directly not to do this.

He does this anyway.

He is fired.

It is very unlikely this is the first time employee and management crossed paths, and as someone suggested it's likely the bloke was a fully paid up member of the Awkward Squad.

 

[BRblue]

It was known in advance that the break would not be covered.

The signaller told management in advance that he would shut down the box and take his break. Management told him directly not to do this.

He does this anyway.

He is fired.

It is very unlikely this is the first time employee and management crossed paths, and as someone suggested it's likely the bloke was a fully paid up member of the Awkward Squad.

For your information... the RMT signalling grade members and Network Rail generally have a very good working relationship and collaborate on many issues.
There is a lot more to this case than what can be put out into the public domain... can everyone please stop jumping too... in a lot of cases the wrong concludions. And await the time when the truth comes out publicly and not via web rumours.
Thanks.

 

[Moonshot]

It was known in advance that the break would not be covered.

The signaller told management in advance that he would shut down the box and take his break. Management told him directly not to do this.

He does this anyway.

He is fired.

It is very unlikely this is the first time employee and management crossed paths, and as someone suggested it's likely the bloke was a fully paid up member of the Awkward Squad.

And got what he deserved.

 

[AlterEgo]

For your information... the RMT signalling grade members and Network Rail generally have a very good working relationship and collaborate on many issues.
There is a lot more to this case than what can be put out into the public domain... can everyone please stop jumping too... in a lot of cases the wrong concludions. And await the time when the truth comes out publicly and not via web rumours.
Thanks.

Oh yes, there's lots more to this case, and I haven't jumped to any conclusions.

 

[Mag_seven]

And await the time when the truth comes out publicly and not via web rumours.

I thought it had come out publicly as per the link in the OP?

 

[Warwick]

I'll just say one more thing...
Remember the rail hero at Lymington?

 

[pt_mad]

Roy Badami said:

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

Guys, I think we may have solved it here with this.

According to Roy Badami's post (which I can now no longer find up the thread for some reason, deleted?), there is an exception in the entitlement to a break when the above applies.

What is not clear, is whether all three conditions must apply or just one individual (i).

Point one and three would almost certainly apply to signallers.

Also these points could potentially apply to dispatchers as well as far as I can see there? Does anyone know if dispatchers are legally entitled to an official break?


If so then the working time regulations would exclude signallers from a legal enforceable break. If indeed the above quote is correct and applies.

Can anyone clarify?

 

[mrcheek]

I'll just say one more thing...
Remember the rail hero at Lymington?

since Im guessing most people wont have a clue, and since I was kinda bored, I decided to be helpful to other forum members, and google it:

first article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-sacked-stopping-accident-Lymington-Pier.html

but, a later article:
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/9337300.Railworker_withdraws_unfair_dismissal_claim/

ooh, we had a thread on it too!
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...tto-will-continue-to-fight-for-his-job.46014/

 

[greyman42]

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...

What would be the problem with being sent to the railway Doctor? Did he not have a genuine medical condition?

 

[Clip]

For your information... the RMT signalling grade members and Network Rail generally have a very good working relationship and collaborate on many issues.
There is a lot more to this case than what can be put out into the public domain... can everyone please stop jumping too... in a lot of cases the wrong concludions. And await the time when the truth comes out publicly and not via web rumours.
Thanks.

problem with that is that nr cant divulge their side of it nor his employment history unless it goes to a tribunal and as such all we can do is speculate

 

[Tetchytyke]

Even the most cursory of searches of t'interweb will bring up Employment Tribunal decisions that went against Network Rail.

Well quite. And getting rid of an awkward member of staff this way is often beneficial to a company. ETs that order reinstatement, rather than a simple financial compensation order, are rarer than rocking horse poo. And even if specific reinstatement is ordered, as happened with a mental health nurse up here, if the company (in that case an NHS trust) ignores the order for long enough it ends up being a financial order anyway.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I've never seen safety compromised because of money.

Corners are cut all the time. Clapham Junction. Hatfield. Potters Bar. Greyrigg.

 

[falcon]

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)

Just to clarify farleigh.
In the railway industry there is an agreed disciplinary system for misconduct. Within it there is what is called clause 9 gross misconduct. Clause 9 is your are charged with gross misconduct which will result in dismissal unless unproven.

It is a seperate clause which means you are sacked unless the charge is unproven. Unlike a normal disciplinary not under clause 9 which considers all options.

In this case he was charged with gross misconduct by way of insubordination unless it is unproven he will be sacked. I hope that helps.

 

[Highlandspring]

Network Rail doesn't use the old BR disciplinary procedures.

 

[SussexMan]

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

What is not clear, is whether all three conditions must apply or just one individual (i).

Doesn't the word "or" give us the answer?

 

[HH]

Doesn't the word "or" give us the answer?

I was thinking the same.

 

[farleigh]

Just to clarify farleigh.
In the railway industry there is an agreed disciplinary system for misconduct. Within it there is what is called clause 9 gross misconduct. Clause 9 is your are charged with gross misconduct which will result in dismissal unless unproven.

It is a seperate clause which means you are sacked unless the charge is unproven. Unlike a normal disciplinary not under clause 9 which considers all options.

In this case he was charged with gross misconduct by way of insubordination unless it is unproven he will be sacked. I hope that helps.

OK fair enough sir. Thank you for taking the time to explain it.

 

[Warwick]

Corners are cut all the time. Clapham Junction. Hatfield. Potters Bar. Greyrigg.

Much water has flowed under the bridge since those incidents.

 

[pt_mad]

Doesn't the word "or" give us the answer?

In that case then, if it's just one of the three conditions which must apply for there to be an exception to being allowed a legal break, that explains this scenario entirely.

 

[Moonshot]

Much water has flowed under the bridge since those incidents.

Indeed it has , and ever since railways were invented, lessons have been learned from incidents, just like every other industry such as aviation or oil.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Much water has flowed under the bridge since those incidents.

Perhaps, but it does refute the specific point I quoted.

 

[bramling]

Much water has flowed under the bridge since those incidents.

Yes, however never underestimate the risk of complacency setting in. There are people in the industry who want a clean scorecard, either for personal kudos or financial bonus reasons, or who are just people who panic if they think the powers that be will be on their case if the job stops for whatever reason. These people are highly dangerous.

Where I am there is one individual who is notorious for this, such that plenty of people have had some pretty major scrapes with this particular manager when he has instructed them to do things which are both unsafe and well against procedures. It would only take a an unconfident newby to be pressurised / bullied into doing something highly dangerous.

 

[swt_passenger]

Perhaps, but it does refute the specific point I quoted.

I think you meant to write “does not refute”...

 

[noddingdonkey]

If, through an earlier grievance, he has an agreement in place for an uninterrupted break, that trumps minimum required by the letter of the law.

If, as stated, he pointed out the rostering issue four days in advance and nothing had been done about it, that's NR's negligence rather than an emergency situation where expecting some goodwill and cooperation might be reasonable.

Reading between the lines it sounds like the "disobeying an order" angle could be a manager looking to deflect the buck after screwing up the rosters and failing to act when this was pointed out in good time.

 

[HH]

Reading between the lines it sounds like the "disobeying an order" angle could be a manager looking to deflect the buck after screwing up the rosters and failing to act when this was pointed out in good time.

Sounds a good story, but I really can't see HR letting this happen. Even NR are not that incompetent.

 

[whhistle]

There is a lot more to this case than what can be put out into the public domain... can everyone please stop jumping too... in a lot of cases the wrong concludions (sic). And await the time when the truth comes out publicly and not via web rumours.
Thanks.

People will always form opinions based on what they have read.
I understand not everything can come out yet/ever, but you won't stop people making conclusions based on the evidence presented at that point in time. Many won't admit they were wrong later to save face too.

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

Perhaps the managers were not signaller competent?


What many people seem to be forgetting here is this secret-not so secret history and what the guy has been specifically sacked for.

From what I have read:

• There was no cover available (whether this wasn't planned, I don't know).
• Network Rail had been "told off" about this previously, in 2015. From then on, they provided cover.
• When cover wasn't available, a premium payment was made. This payment had been accepted many times before (since 2015 I assume) by the signaller in question.
• He's been sacked for disobaying a clear and direct order from his line manager.

What I'd like to know:

• What was the signallers shift? Did he purposfully take his break when he knew it would start getting really busy?
• Why was he not happy to accept the premium payment this time round?
• Did he genuinely know there would be no cover available?
• Did the managers tell him prior to the 5pm break time that there was no cover available?

 

[Tetchytyke]

I really can't see HR letting this happen. Even NR are not that incompetent.

I can, especially if he's as awkward with HR. Bear in mind HR will usually take the manager's word when "investigating".

There will probably me a bit more to this, but I really also wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't.

 

[nom de guerre]

Perhaps the managers were not signaller competent?

Three points.

1) Network Rail LOMs usually have to 'sign' at least some of the boxes/panels/workstations in their area. In my experience, LOMs responsible for single-manned areas typically 'sign' most, if not all of 'their' boxes (and are often used to provide emergency cover when a box might otherwise have to close).

2) In the video embedded to the first page of this thread, Mr Lee states that he initially believed the two managers had arrived at the box to provide him with his 20-minute break. This implies that at least one of the two managers was qualified to work the box.

3) Although Mr Lee began the process of closing the box, this was not completed and the box remained open even after he was suspended. The presumption, therefore, is that once Mr Lee relinquished his duties, one, or both of the managers worked the box (which would only be possible if they 'signed' it).

What was the signallers shift?

According to this Daily Heil article, Mr Lee was working an eight-hour late turn (1400-2200).

 

[nom de guerre]

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 ?

According to this article, yes.

"I started here as a box boy when I was 16".