Signalman dismissed for taking break

[ComUtoR]

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).

So if all assumptions are correct then Mr Lee had a genuine believe he was to be relieved for a PNB. Therefore why did he start the process of closing the box knowing that he was to be relieved ? There would be no need to close the box.

If all assumptions are to be assumed as correct then why did two Managers, capable of running the box, choose to dismiss Mr Lee and run the box, rather than relive him and run the box ?

There is ALWAYS more to the story.

 

[LAX54]

According to this article, yes.

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

Could not have been the Jct, as that closed mid 80's ? so must be the station box, which was upgraded to cover the Coastway when Jct / Lyminster / Angmering etc closed.
two things I don't quite follow: he is 60, done 44 years since he was 16, and risks it all so close to retirement, and the other 36 trains an hour, but the 20 min break would only delay 1 train ?

 

[nom de guerre]

So if all assumptions are correct then Mr Lee had a genuine believe he was to be relieved for a PNB. Therefore why did he start the process of closing the box knowing that he was to be relieved ? There would be no need to close the box.

I'm not sure how you've arrived at that conclusion.

From the i article (my italics): "On 8 January, Mr Lee said he arrived at work to be told his break that Thursday was cancelled as there would be no-one to cover for him. He said he had found three other people on the rota who could have covered his break, and informed his manager he would still take the 20 minutes he was entitled to, insisting it was his legal right."

From the YouTube interview on page one of this thread (my italics): "I'd given them four days' notice about needing my break. At first, a manager said he was going to provide me with a break, but, in the same day, changed his mind."

Based on this evidence, it would seem reasonable to assume that Mr Lee therefore did not expect his requested break to be covered. Ergo, he began the procedure of closing the box.

If all assumptions are to be assumed as correct then why did two Managers, capable of running the box, choose to dismiss Mr Lee and run the box, rather than relive him and run the box ?

In the YouTube interview, Mr Lee notes that the reason given for his termination of employment was: "Gross insubordination for refusing a reasonable instruction."

Clearly, as you say, there is more to the story. As BRblue stated upthread: "There is a lot more to this case than what can be put out into the public domain."

 

[LAX54]

It’s obvious - a meal relief cover. Naturally this is massively inefficient as it means having a second person on duty.

Not always, there was talk of a Rlf Sig covering the post, and going from box to box to cut the resident out for 20 mins or so. whether this applied at this location is unknown.

 

[LAX54]

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

Grade 'C'...heck that's going back a few years ! lol in the 70's Arundel Junction and Barnham were Grade C.

 

[Sunset route]

Grade 'C'...heck that's going back a few years ! lol in the 70's Arundel Junction and Barnham were Grade C.

Off topic, just talking about grades.

Crikey if they are using old money then the current Grade 6 is equal to the old Class E in old money, the second highest under BR.

 

[Trackman]

Grade 'C'...heck that's going back a few years ! lol in the 70's Arundel Junction and Barnham were Grade C.

Any idea what grade Ford was before it closed when Arundel took over in 1979?

 

[455refurb]

As has been said there is clearly more to this than we're being told. Sounds like the guy had history, and two managers being sent to the box sounds planned (so there was a witness), and was probably done in the full knowledge of HR. Clearly whatever happened was deemed by the employer as to be so unacceptable that only suspension was warranted.

I have only ever suspended one member of staff in my managerial career and hated every minute of it because you know you're potentially going to cause someone hardship. That was due to suspected theft, which turned out to be proven through the use of hidden CCTV, but of course I couldn't talk about it with the rest of the team. The point I'm making here is that there is always more to something than what's in the public domain.

 

[pt_mad]

Just a thought, that exemption to the working time regulations that Roy Badami quoted a few pages ago, which applied to some railway staff. It said it applied to staff working onboard trains.

So wouldn't it apply to drivers then? But they still absolutely require their personal needs break. So why wouldn't that exemption apply to drivers if the drivers job technically meets the conditions in which the exemption states?

 

[High Dyke]

As previously mentioned there has been a test case by the RMT on this very subject, of which Network Rail have not yet appealed against. Like many other reps there is a push to get meal relief for single manned locations, where it would be appropriate. Network Rail acknowledge this, but have suggested they would need to employ many more signallers to achieve meal relief positions, which they currently seem reluctant to do.

For the record the current Network Rail disciplinary policy cites the following as Gross Misconduct.

Examples of gross misconduct include:

• Serious infringement of health and safety rules
  
• Serous negligence which causes or might cause unacceptable loss, damage or injury
• Breach of Network Rail’s alcohol and drugs policy
• Theft, fraud and deliberate falsification of records
• Physical violence
• Deliberate damage to property
• Serious insubordination
• Misuse of Network Rail’s property or name, including misuse of the email system or the Internet for unauthorised and inappropriate purposes as set out in the Information Security Policy
• Bringing Network Rail into serious disrepute
• Bullying, harassment or discrimination
• Serious breach of confidence (except where a qualifying disclosure is made under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998)

 

[LAX54]

Any idea what grade Ford was before it closed when Arundel took over in 1979?

Pretty sure when I worked it, it was a 'B'

 

[LAX54]

As previously mentioned there has been a test case by the RMT on this very subject, of which Network Rail have not yet appealed against. Like many other reps there is a push to get meal relief for single manned locations, where it would be appropriate. Network Rail acknowledge this, but have suggested they would need to employ many more signallers to achieve meal relief positions, which they currently seem reluctant to do.

For the record the current Network Rail disciplinary policy cites the following as Gross Misconduct.

Examples of gross misconduct include:

• Serious infringement of health and safety rules
  
• Serous negligence which causes or might cause unacceptable loss, damage or injury
• Breach of Network Rail’s alcohol and drugs policy
• Theft, fraud and deliberate falsification of records
• Physical violence
• Deliberate damage to property
• Serious insubordination
• Misuse of Network Rail’s property or name, including misuse of the email system or the Internet for unauthorised and inappropriate purposes as set out in the Information Security Policy
• Bringing Network Rail into serious disrepute
• Bullying, harassment or discrimination
• Serious breach of confidence (except where a qualifying disclosure is made under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998)

And I don't think any of those could be made to stick in this case.

 

[krus_aragon]

And I don't think any of those could be made to stick in this case.

As a layman, "serious insubordination" would seem the most likely charge of that list for Network Rail to claim.

 

[bramling]

As a layman, "serious insubordination" would seem the most likely charge of that list for Network Rail to claim.

Every railwayman is likely to have had good reason to disobey a manager's instruction at some point in their career. Normally when being asked to breach a procedure and do something which would lead to a dangerous situation.

 

[Trackman]

Pretty sure when I worked it, it was a 'B'

Thanks, is that higher than a 'C'? ( in old money)

 

[LAX54]

Think it says in an Conidtions of Service book a break between 3rd and 5th hour, so starting at 1400, 1700 would be the earliest, I have know some people who need a 'poo' to be gone for over 10 mins, if he has 36 trains an hour, then whatever time he 'goes' something will stop, and I have no doubt such things happen 7 days a week, 24 hours a day over the network, any delay goes down as an 'O' code anyway, in the past you could have just let a train run up to the home signal and wait, but there are now instructions if a train is to be held, it is do be done where possible in a station, even more so in this hot weather, so I cant see really he has / is doing that much wrong

 

[LAX54]

Thanks, is that higher than a 'C'? ( in old money)

No, A, then B and C up to a D and top grade E (E being the current Grade 6)

 

[Trackman]

No, A, then B and C up to a D and top grade E (E being the current Grade 6)

thanks, seen old NR documents about the ye-olde grading, never took much notice.

 

[Trackman]

https://assets.publishing.service.g..._Rail_Infrastructure_Ltd_UKEAT_0316_16_BA.pdf

 

[furnessvale]

Every railwayman is likely to have had good reason to disobey a manager's instruction at some point in their career. Normally when being asked to breach a procedure and do something which would lead to a dangerous situation.

If that is the case, surely it will come out in the wash?

 

[silverfoxcc]

When i worked in retail. shop was open from 9-17.30
Three people rostered and there was to be two people on duty at all times... company rules
So lunches were staggered.
Until there was an illness and only two on duty
back then 1999( has it changed since?) you were not allowed to work more than 5 and half hours and at the end on that period, a minimum of 30 mines could be taken. This was for both office and retail staffing.
So we rang the HO and requested cover from the nearest branch. They told us it couldnt be done. Just told them that at 14.30 the shop would close so we could both take a break. Told we couldn't do it. I just said that if we didn't then a report would be going in to the HSE, and put the phone down
At 14.25 a manager from another branch spitting feathers,etc. So we stood our ground and told him BY LAW e had to have a break whether HO liked it or not.
Nothing more was heard despite threats at the time

Now as it appears that a lot of the TOC rely on drivers doing O/T on weekends to keep the service running, surely the Union would be on this guys side?
Plus when i worked for BA we were a 24/7/365 service and worked it as such on a 6 on 3 off rota. The customer was paramount.
Where has it all gone wrong??

 

[Tom Quinne]

Rumours of a national ballot...
I for one want to know the FULL story before I put an X in the box.

 

[nom de guerre]

Rumours of a national ballot...
I for one want to know the FULL story before I put an X in the box.

Indeed...

 

[BRblue]

Rumours of a national ballot...
I for one want to know the FULL story before I put an X in the box.

+1
And from both sides.

 

[LAX54]

When i worked in retail. shop was open from 9-17.30
Three people rostered and there was to be two people on duty at all times... company rules
So lunches were staggered.
Until there was an illness and only two on duty
back then 1999( has it changed since?) you were not allowed to work more than 5 and half hours and at the end on that period, a minimum of 30 mines could be taken. This was for both office and retail staffing.
So we rang the HO and requested cover from the nearest branch. They told us it couldnt be done. Just told them that at 14.30 the shop would close so we could both take a break. Told we couldn't do it. I just said that if we didn't then a report would be going in to the HSE, and put the phone down
At 14.25 a manager from another branch spitting feathers,etc. So we stood our ground and told him BY LAW e had to have a break whether HO liked it or not.
Nothing more was heard despite threats at the time

Now as it appears that a lot of the TOC rely on drivers doing O/T on weekends to keep the service running, surely the Union would be on this guys side?
Plus when i worked for BA we were a 24/7/365 service and worked it as such on a 6 on 3 off rota. The customer was paramount.
Where has it all gone wrong??

To be able to cover everything properly, would of course need more staff, and as such cost more, and no doubt not employed fully through the year, so they don't have them, We had an additional Relief shift at our box, but in the Winter they did have days, sometimes weeks with little work, but in the summer had stacks to cover, so the shift was done away with, never to return, ever since cover has always been tight and sometimes we run short, and a lot of rest days worked to cover, but the headline costs are cheaper

 

[LAX54]

+1
And from both sides.

+ many others I have spoken to !

 

[Trackman]

hope the link works
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DiNLjmSXUAAmxrw.jpg:large

 

[Iskra]

That's an interesting update.

But still doesn't clarify the situation around exactly why/how the employee was suspended, or the exact reason for the dismissal. Without those two bits of information, no conclusion can be reached.

Interesting that his dismissal was upheld at appeal. That means two managers (and potentially) HR advice concur on this issue- I do investigations/disciplinary's and appeals for my company and that to me says we aren't getting a full story here, there must be more to it.

If all is as stated though, he should walk a tribunal...

 

[causton]

There is another copy if that one doesn't work.

And if all else fails, here is a quick transcript below:

RMT SUSSEX COAST BRANCH - JUSTICE PETER LEE #istandwithpeterlee


Our member Peter Lee was a loyal employee of Network Rail, he was employed as a signaller for a total of 44 years. He had an unblemished record. In that time he was never subjected to any form of disciplinary procedure, he was what any reasonable person would describe as a model employee.

Based at Arundel signal box in West Sussex he worked turns that on many occasions were as long as 12 hours. Like all our colleagues in the signalling grade his job had a great deal of responsibility to it. Any mistake on his behalf could have the most dire of consequences. About 5 years ago Peter made a legitimate complaint to his line manager. His complaint was that none of his turns of duty included a break and he was expected to work turns of duty as long as 12 hours without one.

Peter was very patient and even pointed out to his managers that he was asking for nothing more than that was not contained within the Working Time Directive that deals with rest breaks. Peter put his complaint within the company's internal grievance procedure and after a wait of some 8 months he was granted a 20 minute break that he requested. At all timed our member was asked nothing that he was not entitled to under statutory law.

Peter then had a change of line manager, who appeared to either have no concept of the law or the agreement that had been reached.

The RMT were already in a legal argument with Network Rail over this issue when he made us, the local branch of the RMT aware of his problem. The Sussex Coast RMT branch advised him to hang fire as an employment tribunal was imminent, that appeal was on the grounds that NR were not exempt from the Working Time Directive owing to the nature of the work.

The appeal was heard by his Honour Judge Shanks in November 2017 at the Employment Appeals Tribunal in London Blackfriars. At the end of his hearing His Honour handed down the ruling that NR were not exempt from the WTD in relation to the rest breaks and were therefore in violation of the law.

From the date of his hearing to January 16th 2018 our member continued to request his 20 minute break which was being refused despite the ruling. After being patient for over five years our member decided to exercise his legal rights, he informed his line manager that he would be taking a break. NR local managers suspended our colleague for exercising his legal right. They kept him on suspension for over four months and then sacked him at the disciplinary hearing on May 18th 2018 for gross misconduct. This decision has disgracefully been upheld at appeal since.

The Sussex Coast branch of the RMT are appalled that our member has been treated in such a way. They will be fighting in every avenue open to them to ensure that not only justice for Peter Lee but for all our signalling colleagues.
This case exposes NR's total contempt for safety. Fatigue has no place in an industry that has to maintain the highest possible standards to ensure that safety. The Working Time Directive is a piece of legislation that is in place to ensure just that.

Your Safety is being put at risk. You are using a railway where signallers who are controlling trains who are working long hours fatigued for the want of a rest break. It cannot be acceptable that when they ask for their legal rights they are bullied and intimidated by the threat of the sack. These regulations are there not only for the benefit of our members, they are there for your safety.

 

[Trackman]

That's an interesting update.

But still doesn't clarify the situation around exactly why/how the employee was suspended, or the exact reason for the dismissal. Without those two bits of information, no conclusion can be reached.

Interesting that his dismissal was upheld at appeal. That means two managers (and potentially) HR advice concur on this issue- I do investigations/disciplinary's and appeals for my company and that to me says we aren't getting a full story here, there must be more to it.

If all is as stated though, he should walk a tribunal...

I agree, we are missing vital facts.

A HRBP would definitely be involved (Most are at MK Quadrant now) and ultimately pull/push the lever so to speak ('scuse the pun), and send/queue the data changes .
Legal advise would be taken, so everything is watertight.