UK rail minister got engineer sacked for raising safety concerns

[Iskra]

It wasn’t his place to criticise a client of his employer publicly on social media. Whether the criticism was measured or justified is irrelevant. There are internal channels to raise these issues.

Regarding Hendy’s response, I probably agree with you, but that isn’t relevant to the decision to terminate him. The employer’s duty is ultimately to their shareholders.

He knew what he was doing, in any case. He presumably calculated that it was worth it to him to boost his notoriety and popularity on various social media platforms.

His employer allegedly didn't have a problem or mention them for weeks, until Hendy weighed-in, so they can't have been that concerned. The comments were also tame compared to some of his other views. Apparently, there was also an agreement regarding his media-work with his employer. The comments he said were also nothing new, and nothing that hadn't been said on this forum a hundred times already and had been backed by the ORR (I think) who had taken action over Euston. It is slightly daft, but I can sympathise.

Any decision to terminate Dennis should have been his employers and free of external influence. The fact no action was allegedly taken for weeks until Hendy got involved, does suggest unfairness to me.

A brave move if that is the case, because I can't see anyone else in the railway industry going anywhere near Dennis now. Indeed, it was a brave move to employ him in the first place considering the strong manner in which he advocates his opinions.

 

[Jim the Jim]

I can imagine what Network Rail does with complaints about safety at Euston that are raised through "proper industry channels". Straight in the bin.

This is a publicly owned company running critical national infrastructure; I think that puts a very different light on someone publicly voicing concerns than it might in other contexts.

 

[43066]

I don't personally know tbh - I think it's what he has said that's all. Although in any case he didn't criticise NR he just said the situation was unsafe.

If he claimed Euston was unsafe he *did* criticise NR, because they manage the station!

His employer allegedly didn't have a problem or mention them for weeks, until Hendy weighed-in, so they can't have been that concerned.

They may simply not have been aware of it?

Any decision to terminate Dennis should have been his employers and free of external influence. The fact no action was allegedly taken for weeks until Hendy got involved, does suggest unfairness to me.

This isn’t correct as a matter of law. The reasons for a “fair” dismissal are prescribed by statute and, absent an automatically unfair reason, wouldn’t preclude an employer dismissing someone in these circumstances. Not bringing your employer (or their customers AIUI) into disrepute is a fundamental contractual term, and it is well established that summary dismissal is a reasonable action for an employer to take in these circumstances.

A brave move if that is the case, because I can't see anyone else in the railway industry going anywhere near Dennis now. Indeed, it was a brave move to employ him in the first place considering the strong manner in which he advocates his opinions.

Agreed. He’s made his bed somewhat. Presumably he calculated that it was worth it to him.

 

[WelshBluebird]

We're just repeating the last 16 pages now aren't we?

I think it's telling Hendy apologies for his tone and not what he actually said!
And of course the recent changes to Euston also are quite telling, even if everyone refuses to use the word safety.

 

[Iskra]

If he claimed Euston was unsafe he *did* criticise NR, because they manage the station!



They may simply not have been aware of it?



This isn’t correct as a matter of law. The reasons for a “fair” dismissal are prescribed by statute and, absent an automatically unfair reason, wouldn’t preclude an employer dismissing someone in these circumstances. Not bringing your employer (or their customers AIUI) into disrepute is a fundamental contractual term, and it is well established that summary dismissal is a reasonable action for an employer to take in these circumstances.




Agreed. He’s made his bed somewhat. Presumably he calculated that it was worth it to him.

To clarify, when I said unfair I meant morally, rather than legally.

We're just repeating the last 16 pages now aren't we?

I think it's telling Hendy apologies for his tone and not what he actually said!
And of course the recent changes to Euston also are quite telling, even if everyone refuses to use the word safety.

Indeed, so I'll leave it there.

 

[43066]

To clarify, when I said unfair I meant morally, rather than legally.

For the record, I agree with you. Morals don’t come into it, sadly!

 

[Clarence Yard]

I think the biggest mistake by Hendy was actually putting it in writing. Normally, if a Chief Exec to Chief Exec phone call fails to get a result, then it is a Chair to Chair phone call.

Would I have made that call after he said what he said? Absolutely. I wouldn’t have directly asked for his dismissal but I would have said that the comments were out of order for the employee to make and the chances for future work if something isn’t done about it would have been made obvious in the tone of the phone call. That’s perfectly legal and pressure is quite commonplace in the upper reaches of the commercial world.

As a long term user of Euston, I’ve never felt unsafe. Frustrated & uncomfortable at times, oh yes! Some of the things that have been done to the station the last few years have not helped and the now complete disconnect between the platform workings, train preparation and passenger flow management in the station itself have been astounding.

 

[35B]

I don't personally know tbh - I think it's what he has said that's all. Although in any case he didn't criticise NR he just said the situation was unsafe.

I do certainly concede that criticising a client isn't going to go down well generally with many employers. But it's a bit different when the client is a public body who apparently deliberately ignored safety concerns.

It absolutely is not different when it's a public body, and doubly so when it's about safety claims. It cannot be stressed enough, he chose to go outside industry channels and make safety claims that were outside his professional expertise.

Many contracts, especially with public sector bodies, have very specific clauses around publicity - often to the extent of barring mention of the client identity in public without permission in writing. Those contracts also rely on relationships to work, where trust is key.

What changed was the employer's realisation of the severity of NR's reaction to what had been said. That breach was irreparable while he remained in post and, given that his expertise was related to the UK industry, left his employer in a difficult position. So, bluntly, did his choice of response.

He had choices throughout. Unpleasant choices, certainly, but choices. He chose to stand by his comments, and refused to compromise on what he thought right rather than protect his livelihood. That was his right, and part of me respects him for that. Another part of me thinks that he was a darn fool, and finds the unbending nature of his opinions (reinforced by his doubling down since) deeply worrying in a world that relies on politics being a means of resolving problems, not a zero sum game where if I win you must lose.

 

[modernrail]

I think the biggest mistake by Hendy was actually putting it in writing. Normally, if a Chief Exec to Chief Exec phone call fails to get a result, then it is a Chair to Chair phone call.

Would I have made that call after he said what he said? Absolutely. I wouldn’t have directly asked for his dismissal but I would have said that the comments were out of order for the employee to make and the chances for future work if something isn’t done about it would have been made obvious in the tone of the phone call. That’s perfectly legal and pressure is quite commonplace in the upper reaches of the commercial world.

As a long term user of Euston, I’ve never felt unsafe. Frustrated & uncomfortable at times, oh yes! Some of the things that have been done to the station the last few years have not helped and the now complete disconnect between the platform workings, train preparation and passenger flow management in the station itself have been astounding.

The outright running to trains because of the late calls is dangerous. I had constant rows with the obnoxious gate staff about walking my Mum to the train but there is no way I was having her on that platform when the rush happened. I would not have the same concern about any other station other than perhaps Paddington.

 

[Harpo]

I think the biggest mistake by Hendy was actually putting it in writing

It’s a spectacular piece of un-learning.

Any of those who spent days at BTP Hammersmith nick being interviewed under caution after Ladbroke Grove, confronted by vast printed piles of their own archived e-mails, would counsel against documented comms but at lower organisational levels it’s hard to be off-grid.

It was very noticeable post-Ladbroke, how rare written comms from ‘the grown-ups’ were. There’s a senior OLR person who in their NR days never had their name on any email. Nor did they visit any operational location despite their title. The Railtrack legacy of detachment from the coalface may well continue?

 

[WAB]

What hasn’t helped GD’s case is that he has been trying to pursue this as a social media personality, including encouraging his fan base to leave comments on social media and websites. That approach is not something which combines well with the more traditional outlook of most railway managers, and certainly doesn’t help with future employment.

The time to publicly voice strong opinions in the industry is when you’re older, financially-secure, an expert in your field, and have a strong network of friends. The rest of the time, it’s better to pick your battles. It’s a small world in the higher levels of the industry so it’s easy to get a career-limiting reputation.

 

[philthetube]

It wasn’t his place to criticise a client of his employer publicly on social media. Whether the criticism was measured or justified is irrelevant. There are internal channels to raise these issues.

Regarding Hendy’s response, I probably agree with you, but that isn’t relevant to the decision to terminate him. The employer’s duty is ultimately to their shareholders.

He knew what he was doing, in any case. He presumably calculated that it was worth it to him to boost his notoriety and popularity on various social media platforms.

One thing we don't know is if he followed these internal channels.

If he did and nothing happened what should he, or anyone else, do next.

 

[Harpo]

I can’t imagine there would be any internal route (i.e. through his employer) for Dennis to raise concerns about Euston unless they had an active role in its management.

As a member of the public (that’s all he is) he had the same channels as the rest of us to raise specific concerns.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

What hasn’t helped GD’s case is that he has been trying to pursue this as a social media personality, including encouraging his fan base to leave comments on social media and websites. That approach is not something which combines well with the more traditional outlook of most railway managers, and certainly doesn’t help with future employment.

The time to publicly voice strong opinions in the industry is when you’re older, financially-secure, an expert in your field, and have a strong network of friends. The rest of the time, it’s better to pick your battles. It’s a small world in the higher levels of the industry so it’s easy to get a career-limiting reputation.

It doesn't seem that approach has done people like Elon Musk any harm...

 

[Harpo]

It doesn't seem that approach has done people like Elon Musk any harm...

Untouchable high profile mega-rich platform-owning US industrialist versus junior UK engineer known only to trainspotters on social media?

 

[mpthomson]

Maybe an employment tribunal has come to a conclusion?

I don't think Dennis had been employed by Systra for long enough. It's two years unless the claim relates to a DEI breach.

Exactly. If I were a potential employer I might see the way he's been dealing with this as a liability.

The proper forum is an employment tribunal and not, as you say, the court of public opinion. It's actually rather immature the way he's been carrying on.

He'd been employed less than 12mths. He's not eligible for one as what happened to him couldn't be considered discrimination under a protected characteristic.

 

[Goldfish62]

He'd been employed less than 12mths. He's not eligible for one as what happened to him couldn't be considered discrimination under a protected characteristic.

Thanks.

Junior UK engineer known only to trainspotters on social media?

Yes, I'd never heard of him until all this blew up.

 

[Starmill]

It is irrelevant whether (a) I think Hendy over-reacted or (b) what I think of the objective truth of what he said about Euston. The consequences of those are separate.

I'd argue Dennis wasn't really relevant to anything. No matter what he had said it still wouldn't have justified threatening to unlawfully bias procurement. I really don't think Dennis is important at all, he could have called Hendy every name under the sun and falsely alleged he was a serious criminal, and it would have still been wrong to respond using this threat. It's absolutely bizarre that people are allowing their focus on him to cloud their judgment.

Would I have made that call after he said what he said? Absolutely.

Brave of you to admit childishly threatening to break the law to get your way on a public forum. No wonder the industry is in such a dreadful mess if you're not only willing to do that but to also a) hide it from the public and b) admit this intention on a public forum. The sooner people who would do as you and Hendy reach their retirement, I think the better we'll all be for it.

That’s perfectly legal

It absolutely is not.

pressure is quite commonplace in the upper reaches of the commercial world.

Commercial? Fine, or course. Public money on the other hand? Absolutely not. Particularly when we're talking many tens of billions per Parliament.

 

[35B]

I'd argue Dennis wasn't really relevant to anything. No matter what he had said it still wouldn't have justified threatening to unlawfully bias procurement. I really don't think Dennis is important at all, he could have called Hendy every name under the sun and falsely alleged he was a serious criminal, and it would have still been wrong to respond using this threat. It's absolutely bizarre that people are allowing their focus on him to cloud their judgment.

I don't know where the idea that procurement would be illegally biased comes from. Even in public sector procurement, there are choices about which suppliers one deals with.

I know that, in my line of work, public comments about my employer's customers where I'm engaged in that work could cause both termination of contracts and effective inability to win new work.

The links between Dennis, railway engineering, his employer and NR were obvious and highly visible.

That doesn't mean that Hendy and NR didn't overreact; just that the response to that reaction is just as overblown.

 

[InTheEastMids]

I'd argue Dennis wasn't really relevant to anything. No matter what he had said it wouldn't have justified threatening to unlawfully bias procurement. I really don't think Dennis is important at all. It's absolutely bizarre that people are allowing their focus on him to cloud their judgment.

Completely agree with this. Several things can be true at the same time

GD can be unwise/naive to say what he said, and is certainly highlighting why journalism, campaigner, politician and engineer are all separate jobs.
Systra appeared to be pretty happy with the idea that he'd raise their public profile, but do not really appear to have thought about what they'd do if he said something controversial. Arguably, what the CEO of Systra *should* have done if they suspected that this was a threat to intervene in procurement was report Hendy to Network Rail under NR's own whistleblowing policy:
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Network-Rail-Speak-Out-Policy-2023.pdf

This includes reporting: • Anything that endangers health and safety or the environment • Fraud or corruption • Criminal activity, including theft • Dishonesty in dealing with customers and suppliers, including conflicts of interest

NR should have realised that this is what it looked like, and not doubled down to protect Hendy. As they're now busily implementing most of the things GD was suggesting, they don't look brilliant.

But the absolute nub of the issue is Hendy's behaviour. If one of my suppliers took to (social) media in a way that I thought brought us into disrepute in a materially damaging way, the first thing I would do is ring my commercial manager and see what recourse we had in our contracts with them, and then call somebody from the supplier to let them know we're not happy - i.e. processes should exist to deal with the situation that arose. What I wouldn't do is fire off a letter to their CEO on headed notepaper that threatened them with exclusion from future procurements, without getting somebody from legal and/or procurement to check my wording, or to consider the idea that the letter could be released under FOI or DPA subject access request.
I am paid a lot less than Hendy was.

 

[Starmill]

I don't know where the idea that procurement would be illegally biased comes from. Even in public sector procurement, there are choices about which suppliers one deals with.

I know that, in my line of work, public comments about my employer's customers where I'm engaged in that work could cause both termination of contracts and effective inability to win new work.

The links between Dennis, railway engineering, his employer and NR were obvious and highly visible.

That doesn't mean that Hendy and NR didn't overreact; just that the response to that reaction is just as overblown.

As has already been pointed out again and again, Hendy made it clear from the words in his internal email he was movtiated by personal gain because of his beef with Dennis. All public money has to be managed in accordance with the principles set out in Managing Public Money (non-discrimination, equal treatment, transparency, mutual recognition and proportionality) and all public sector workers are briefed on these duties - certainly a such a senior public sector worker would know about them. If a contract were of requisite value and type, brining your personal dislike of one person into the procurement process, as evidenced by the email, and awarding it differently as a result, would likely be a breach of the Public Contract Regulations 2015. I wouldn't call it illegal so as to not muddy any waters about the possibility of criminal penalties, but it clearly would be unlawful to follow through. It would also be extraordinarily unethical for a Peer to actually do as has been threatened. Finally, the supply chain are rightly worried about exactly this and are making the point both publicly and privately - that's why Hendy was specifically asked, and that's why Hendy gave a half-apology. As to whether the reaction to the admitted improper conduct is disproportionate, it may well be in your eyes. I suspect if Hendy weren't now a Minister of the Crown in a government which has only just taken office a few months ago this would have been swept away by events far more readily. A Minister will, of course, be held to a high standard - higher certainly than others.

Completely agree with this. Several things can be true at the same time

GD can be unwise/naive to say what he said, and is certainly highlighting why journalism, campaigner, politician and engineer are all separate jobs.
Systra appeared to be pretty happy with the idea that he'd raise their public profile, but do not really appear to have thought about what they'd do if he said something controversial. Arguably, what the CEO of Systra *should* have done if they suspected that this was a threat to intervene in procurement was report Hendy to Network Rail under NR's own whistleblowing policy:
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Network-Rail-Speak-Out-Policy-2023.pdf


NR should have realised that this is what it looked like, and not doubled down to protect Hendy. As they're now busily implementing most of the things GD was suggesting, they don't look brilliant.

But the absolute nub of the issue is Hendy's behaviour. If one of my suppliers took to (social) media in a way that I thought brought us into disrepute in a materially damaging way, the first thing I would do is ring my commercial manager and see what recourse we had in our contracts with them, and then call somebody from the supplier to let them know we're not happy - i.e. processes should exist to deal with the situation that arose. What I wouldn't do is fire off a letter to their CEO on headed notepaper that threatened them with exclusion from future procurements, without getting somebody from legal and/or procurement to check my wording, or to consider the idea that the letter could be released under FOI or DPA subject access request.
I am paid a lot less than Hendy was.

Exactly. Dennis is someone few people have heard of who has as far as I can see no formal role in the industry (not to denigrante him, maybe I've missed something I genuinely don't know). Hendy is the second most senior person the railway industry has... It's fair to ask if there wouldn't be someone of better quality available.

 

[35B]

As has already been pointed out again and again, Hendy made it clear from the words in his internal email he was movtiated by personal gain because of his beef with Dennis. All public money has to be managed in accordance with the principles set out in Managing Public Money (non-discrimination, equal treatment, transparency, mutual recognition and proportionality) and all public sector workers are briefed on these duties - certainly a such a senior public sector worker would know about them. If a contract were of requisite value and type, brining your personal dislike of one person into the procurement process, as evidenced by the email, and awarding it differently as a result, would likely be a breach of the Public Contract Regulations 2015. I wouldn't call it illegal so as to not muddy any waters about the possibility of criminal penalties, but it clearly would be unlawful to follow through. It would also be extraordinarily unethical for a Peer to actually do as has been threatened. Finally, the supply chain are rightly worried about exactly this and are making the point both publicly and privately - that's why Hendy was specifically asked, and that's why Hendy gave a half-apology. As to whether the reaction to the admitted improper conduct is disproportionate, it may well be in your eyes. I suspect if Hendy weren't now a Minister of the Crown in a government which has only just taken office a few months ago this would have been swept away by events far more readily. A Minister will, of course, be held to a high standard - higher certainly than others.

The ethics are the same whether a peer or a commoner; I accept that ministerial status brings a different focus. As for the role of the Public Contract Regulations, call me unconvinced - even accepting the premise that Hendy was motivated by his prior beef with Dennis.

 

[Horizon22]

I don't personally know tbh - I think it's what he has said that's all. Although in any case he didn't criticise NR he just said the situation was unsafe.

By default it is criticising NR; by saying the situation is unsafe, ultimately it means criticising NR’s management of the station is unsafe as they have a duty of care.

 

[Starmill]

The ethics are the same whether a peer or a commoner; I accept that ministerial status brings a different focus. As for the role of the Public Contract Regulations, call me unconvinced - even accepting the premise that Hendy was motivated by his prior beef with Dennis.

Ultimately if I were on the other side of the table and submitting proposals, then I would be entitled to rely on the scoring system under the tender process as a matter of contract. The scoring system is regulated, and it's done to ensure firstly that public money is managed well in value terms and secondly to ensure compliance with conflict avoidance and the other principles such as transparency. If the scores were changed by Hendy so as to disadvantage Systra and advantage the second place submission, as his threat would imply, then it's a really simple matter that this is unlawful and the loser has a claim against the procuring office. This is standard with all large public sector awards, not only Network Rail.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Brave of you to admit childishly threatening to break the law to get your way on a public forum. No wonder the industry is in such a dreadful mess if you're not only willing to do that but to also a) hide it from the public and b) admit this intention on a public forum. The sooner people who would do as you and Hendy reach their retirement, I think the better we'll all be for it.

So you are right and everyone else is wrong? I don’t think so.

I would never have directly threatened Systra or demanded a dismissal - I am not as daft as Hendy. I would have discussed the statement in terms of unacceptability and the reasons why. You don’t need to threaten Systra because as a Company Chair ringing up another Company Chair, that will immediately ring alarm bells at the other end that Systra might have an issue that could affect their business relationship with NR. It’s an obvious implication.

I would be looking for a verbal assurance that there would be no repeat of those allegations from any employee of that particular firm.

There is nothing remotely illegal in that.

What would be illegal is if I tried to influence the scoring in any procurement contracts and bring in criteria that were not part of the corporate evaluation process. But I suspect that previous performance and co-operation with my Company might well be part of any evaluation and scored accordingly.

 

[185]

He'd been employed less than 12mths. He's not eligible for one as what happened to him couldn't be considered discrimination under a protected characteristic.

A whistleblowing claim does not require 2 years' service - it is like a victimisation claim, because it relates to being subjected to a detriment because of something the worker did that affords protection, in this case a “protected disclosure.”

We're just repeating the last 16 pages now aren't we?

I'd say this discussion is far from closed, given Hendy's half-hearted excuse. I like Hendy, he occasionally does talk some sense, but on this he's absolutely wrong and should use his position (again) this time to quickly put matters right for Mr Dennis.

 

[Amlag]

It is more than a coincidence that noticeably ‘gone to ground’ Hendy’s belated apology for the tone of his letter to Systra was announced at the time the world was distracted by the US Election; a time to try and bury bad news,
which it seems hasn’t exactly worked as hoped for by Hendy.

 

[35B]

A whistleblowing claim does not require 2 years' service - it is like a victimisation claim, because it relates to being subjected to a detriment because of something the worker did that affords protection, in this case a “protected disclosure.”

A status which Dennis has explicitly not claimed, and which is very restrictive about going public.

Ultimately if I were on the other side of the table and submitting proposals, then I would be entitled to rely on the scoring system under the tender process as a matter of contract. The scoring system is regulated, and it's done to ensure firstly that public money is managed well in value terms and secondly to ensure compliance with conflict avoidance and the other principles such as transparency. If the scores were changed by Hendy so as to disadvantage Systra and advantage the second place submission, as his threat would imply, then it's a really simple matter that this is unlawful and the loser has a claim against the procuring office. This is standard with all large public sector awards, not only Network Rail.

There's little to add to what @Clarence Yard has said, except that there are many, many, ways that public sector bodies can and do influence who are allowed to bid for work, and that allow them to consider relationships where they wish to. Entirely legally.

 

[Starmill]

So you are right and everyone else is wrong? I don’t think so.

It's nothing to do with me. It's a straightforward statement of the law, and more importantly than the law, the ethical good conduct of senior public officials and Ministers. These high standards in public life are something which the current party of government have staked their reputation on. Note that this standard is significantly higher than the general obligation to follow the law and treat your fellow human beings with respect which I do of course practice at all times, and which all should be doing willingly.

There's little to add to what @Clarence Yard has said, except that there are many, many, ways that public sector bodies can and do influence who are allowed to bid for work, and that allow them to consider relationships where they wish to. Entirely legally.

That's all totally fine. But that's not what Hendy said. He said if you don't sack Dennis I'll interfere with the existing process to stop you winning.

 

[ainsworth74]

A whistleblowing claim does not require 2 years' service - it is like a victimisation claim, because it relates to being subjected to a detriment because of something the worker did that affords protection, in this case a “protected disclosure.”

Whilst if anyone has brought Network Rail into disrepute and tarnished their reputation it's Hendy not Dennis, I'm still not convinced what Dennis did was whistleblowing. He certainly called a spade a spade and that appears to have triggered Hendy to react in a stupid way. But I don't think that what he did was whistleblowing, or at least to the level required for statutory protection he could rely on at an Employment Tribunal.