Train conductor sacked for referring to ‘alcohol-free caliphate’ on Facebook

[deltic]

Re your last para if he did something contrary to RMT policy are they obliged to represent him? I wouldn't imagine that Muslim members would be far from keen on them doing so for example. I am a TU member myself (not RMT) but genuinely don't know what the answer would be.


Exactly

I note on the RMT website in relation to employment tribunals it states

Legal representation is not automatic and is provided by the union in cases that have reasonable prospects of success.

 

[Wolfie]

I note on the RMT website in relation to employment tribunals it states

That in itself potentially says a lot.

 

[35B]

That in itself potentially says a lot.

...which may be interesting if he wins the case and questions get asked about the basis of the union's assessment of the case's chances of success.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The comment is as moronic as it is ignorant - anyone thinking there's nothing wrong with it should ask themselves why on earth would he mention anything to do with muslamic culture when talking about pubs reopening? Rhetorical question of course, the answer is obvious.

Sacking him seems a little strong mind you if he's done nothing to bring his employer in to it... As stupid as the comment was.

As unpleasant as I find many of his publicly stated opinions, those opinions alone should not mean he loses his job.

If an investigation showed that he had allowed those views to affect his work, such as being more lenient with people of a certain background than with others (please note I have no idea if his role would allow this in terms of penalty fares and so on, it's just a hypothetical) then that's another matter altogether. But actions matter, not thoughts.

The vast majority of us do think that these opinions are negative, but can anyone think of a worse/less productive way to change someone's mind than to entirely ostracise them and remove their income?

 

[35B]

As unpleasant as I find many of his publicly stated opinions, those opinions alone should not mean he loses his job.

If an investigation showed that he had allowed those views to affect his work, such as being more lenient with people of a certain background than with others (please note I have no idea if his role would allow this in terms of penalty fares and so on, it's just a hypothetical) then that's another matter altogether. But actions matter, not thoughts.

The vast majority of us do think that these opinions are negative, but can anyone think of a worse/less productive way to change someone's mind than to entirely ostracise them and remove their income?

The other side of that is that the employer's legitimate interest is not in trying to change his mind*, but in protecting their relationship with their other staff and their customers. His case on fairness will be resolved on questions of what his contract did or did not allow him and his employer to do, and whether the employer followed due process in the way that they applied the disciplinary process.

* - my employer has public stances that I don't agree with, and others that I do. There is no expectation that I agree with them, save that where I disagree, it behoves me not to do so in a way that puts me in tension with that employer.