UK rail minister got engineer sacked for raising safety concerns

[Iskra]

No it's not legally questionable to say you won't do business with someone because their employees are causing PR harm to your business.
Exactly the same as when I returned in an off licence aeons ago. Someone came in who were said wasn't welcome (she was often drunk and/or abusive to other customers). We refused to serve her and asked her to leave. She called the police crying racism. Police attended, told her that it's a private business and she has no absolute right to shop there and that out reasons for refusal were nothing to do with her race. She was then invited to leave or be arrested. She took the sensible option.


What's that got to do with any of this?

Sorry, but trespass is something entirely unrelated.

Peter Hendy was the chair of Network Rail, I'm not entirely sure how the company is set up but is it not unusual for the chair to be writing letters like this without input from the CEO? Did the Network Rail CEO know this was written? Did he approve of it?

It seems weird that a chair would be threatening company contracts over letter without informing anybody else of that doesn't it?

Presumably, there is an actual tendering process, which this form of leadership undermines entirely.

Something you could FOI as it's a Network Rail managed station. Slips, trips and falls are quite common at most high footfall stations though so ideally you want a comparison with say, all London terminals and work that out as a ratio by passenger numbers (fairly crude but as good as it gets).

Before and after the recent re-modelling would be quite interesting...

 

[takno]

He's not a whistleblower, he's a commentator and writer about the railways and has been for some time, with the knowledge, blessing and encouragement of his former employer, until NR got involved.

At the end of the day he's either a whistleblower who was disgracefully sacked, or he's not. I don't think it works to simultaneously claim that Hendy wickedly got a whistleblower fired and that this chap didn't say anything controversial or shocking.

Personally I get the impression that he didn't say anything very controversial and that the Independent blew it out of all proportion. If that's the case then it's really down to him and his employer to figure out how to address that with the Independent, or if appropriate to issue a clarification on other channels. It's sad that for whatever reason they weren't able to back down and come to a more amicable solution, but it isn't really their customer's problem.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

An article by the Independent posted in April 2024 (link below) states "Last autumn, the Office of Rail and Road said that crowds had reached “unacceptable levels” at Euston, and issued Network Rail with an improvement notice"

‘Uncomfortable, unpleasant, unsafe’: How London’s Euston Station became hell on earth

Dubbed in one memorable tweet as ‘a Petri dish of chaos’, London’s Euston station has become a living metaphor for Britain’s crumbling infrastructure – a dire hub of delays, expense and trauma. Katie Rosseinsky dives into its aspirational past and potentially brighter future, and asks where it...

www.independent.co.uk

As an aside, that article claims that one cause of the huge crowds is that Euston has 6 times as many trains today as it did in the 1960s. Can that really be true? Today Euston's weekly daytime service is I believe 9tph Avanti, 7tph LNWR/WMT, 4tph Overground, total 20tph. For that to be 6 times as many, Euston would have to have typically seen only 3 or 4 departures per hour in total during the 1960s. That seems implausible.

 

[Iskra]

From my understanding, what Gareth Dennis was saying was already publicly known (IIRC report by the ORR has also raised such issues with Euston Station), so what he was saying was nothing new. Which I guess makes it even weirder: what Gareth was saying was something which had a general consensus around and a report which highlighted such issues.

An article by the Independent posted in April 2024 (link below) states "Last autumn, the Office of Rail and Road said that crowds had reached “unacceptable levels” at Euston, and issued Network Rail with an improvement notice"

‘Uncomfortable, unpleasant, unsafe’: How London’s Euston Station became hell on earth

Dubbed in one memorable tweet as ‘a Petri dish of chaos’, London’s Euston station has become a living metaphor for Britain’s crumbling infrastructure – a dire hub of delays, expense and trauma. Katie Rosseinsky dives into its aspirational past and potentially brighter future, and asks where it...

www.independent.co.uk

I think this is the report that the Independent was referring to.

Rail regulator requires crowd management improvements at Euston Station | Office of Rail and Road

Network Rail has been issued with an improvement notice by the Office of Rail and Road for London’s Euston Station, where the company has failed to put in effective measures to prevent risks to passengers and others during instances of surges and overcrowding.

www.orr.gov.uk

If Hendy has an issue with such statements is he taking legal action against the Independent too?

 

[takno]

If Hendy has an issue with such statements is he taking legal action against the Independent too?

He isn't taking legal action against anybody

 

[YoungJohnson]

Either way as far as the media and general public (who are aware of the story) think, it is more likely Hendy who has damaged PR for the rail industry, rather than Dennis.

There will be very little sympathy for a controversial boss engaging in spiteful witch hunts against people he doesn't even employ.

The whole thing is yet another PR disaster for the industry. And not caused by the victim of this gross witch hunt.

 

[Iskra]

He isn't taking legal action against anybody

Okay, 'action short of legal action.' And interfering in someone's employment, has caused a legal change in status...

 

[renegademaster]

In America theirs strict rules about government agencies and Qangos regulating their employees speech thanks to their First Amendment. Unfortunately our government/ The EUs conception is pretty weak.

 

[takno]

I'd probably suggest here that Hendy has some history of putting passion for the job ahead of politics and keeping up appearances. Many of us wanted a change at the election from people who were obsessed with image and playing politics to people who actually wanted to run the country.

Now we have that, it would perhaps be better to give people like Hendy a chance to run things for a bit, rather than skewering him on a technicality and replacing him with another non-expert MP.

 

[matt_world2004]

In America theirs strict rules about government agencies and Qangos regulating their employees speech thanks to their First Amendment. Unfortunately our government/ The EUs conception is pretty weak.

There are protections in UK law protecting people from dismissal for holding legitimate philosophical beliefs.

There are also political neutrality requirements for public sector employers to not discriminate based on political affiliation (Eg sadiq Khan can't simply stop someone becoming a tube driver , because he is a tory)

 

[Iskra]

I'd probably suggest here that Hendy has some history of putting passion for the job ahead of politics and keeping up appearances. Many of us wanted a change at the election from people who were obsessed with image and playing politics to people who actually wanted to run the country.

Now we have that, it would perhaps be better to give people like Hendy a chance to run things for a bit, rather than skewering him on a technicality and replacing him with another non-expert MP.

He's literally dabbling in nefarious and underhand means, while undermining fair competition in Network Rail tendering processes in order to defend 'their image and play politics.' That's enough for me to make my mind up on the calibre of leader he is, thank you.

 

[Wolfie]

I'd probably suggest here that Hendy has some history of putting passion for the job ahead of politics and keeping up appearances. Many of us wanted a change at the election from people who were obsessed with image and playing politics to people who actually wanted to run the country.

Now we have that, it would perhaps be better to give people like Hendy a chance to run things for a bit, rather than skewering him on a technicality and replacing him with another non-expert MP.

Being an "expert" emphatically does not exempt Hendy from practicing normal standards in public life. I hope that a select committee gives him hell!

 

[matt_world2004]

I'd probably suggest here that Hendy has some history of putting passion for the job ahead of politics and keeping up appearances. Many of us wanted a change at the election from people who were obsessed with image and playing politics to people who actually wanted to run the country.

Now we have that, it would perhaps be better to give people like Hendy a chance to run things for a bit, rather than skewering him on a technicality and replacing him with another non-expert MP.

Hendys previous record includes having a large alcohol on expenses bill for an organisation that bans drinking for all of its employees.

For having high taxi bills for journeys that could be made easily on his network (Eg from St james park to Southwark)

For part paying for the services of hookers with Oyster credit

For describing commuter services in London as ****

All of these put the rail industry into more disrepute than describing Euston as dangerous and overcrowded

 

[takno]

He's literally dabbling in nefarious and underhand means, while undermining fair competition in Network Rail tendering processes in order to defend 'their image and play politics.' That's enough for me to make my mind up on the calibre of leader he is, thank you.

I mean it's hardly underhand - it was done in a formal letter on letterheaded paper sent via email from an organisation he knows fine well is subject to FoI law. Moreover, asking a supplier to keep up the quality of the product it's supplying and not allow the customer's reputation to be inappropriately damaged doesn't for a second undermine tendering processes.

Nothing that he did would reasonably have led to anybody demanding he be fired as NR chairman. The entire reason there is a fuss about this is because our press has become almost as adept at undermining politicians as it was England football managers. This is what is damaging us as a society, not the fact that the chairman of NR gets a bit fed up with railway people constantly putting the boot in and driving away passengers.

 

[68000]

I'd probably suggest here that Hendy has some history of putting passion for the job ahead of politics and keeping up appearances. Many of us wanted a change at the election from people who were obsessed with image and playing politics to people who actually wanted to run the country.

Now we have that, it would perhaps be better to give people like Hendy a chance to run things for a bit, rather than skewering him on a technicality and replacing him with another non-expert MP.

Hendy did the opposite of you think he did

 

[Iskra]

I mean it's hardly underhand - it was done in a formal letter on letterheaded paper sent via email from an organisation he knows fine well is subject to FoI law. Moreover, asking a supplier to keep up the quality of the product it's supplying and not allow the customer's reputation to be inappropriately damaged doesn't for a second undermine tendering processes.

Nothing that he did would reasonably have led to anybody demanding he be fired as NR chairman. The entire reason there is a fuss about this is because our press has become almost as adept at undermining politicians as it was England football managers. This is what is damaging us as a society, not the fact that the chairman of NR gets a bit fed up with railway people constantly putting the boot in and driving away passengers.

I think the vast majority would deem that underhand, and that's terming it politely.

If he cared about passengers, he'd fix the issue at hand rather than single out 'dissenters.' In the time it took to pen that letter, he could have penned some much more constructive instructions to whoever manages Euston on a day to day basis.

I think you may be falling into a trap of political tribalism here.

 

[Stephen42]

Can you give us a bit more detail about why you say it goes beyond what was originally said? It's substantially the same accusation, there's no meaningful difference.

The only point of difference appears to be that Network Rail claimed improvements were made and Dennis didn't accept that. Have Network Rail published anything to support that?

While the substance is similar, using the word 'unsafe' is much more emotive than 'failed to put in place effective measures to prevent risks to passengers'. Stating that it remains unsafe when the regulator and his client are satisfied it's resolved is a key difference. A TOC would be extremely unhappy if an employee gave a quote saying fleet X is unsafe based on safety issues that had been closed off. If it is his opinion it is not resolved, any quote provided should make clear that it is his opinion and not a definitive statement to distance from the view of his employer/client.

The headline doesn't reflect the article, however plenty of people will not read the full article. It would be his responsibility to avoid the situation occurring, it's a common risk when providing a quote it is taken out of context. It doesn't sound from reporting so far that he disagreed with the finished article or took steps to update the quote.

While his opinion isn't particularly controversial, without his contribution the article would have been a lot less damaging.

 

[Starmill]

While the substance is similar, using the word 'unsafe' is much more emotive than 'failed to put in place effective measures to prevent risks to passengers'.

Does that make it less true?

 

[HSTEd]

This action by Network Rail functionally demands that everyone, at all times and in all situations (when someone might hear/see), never voice any position on anything related to the railway that is not approved by them.

When Network Rail releases a press release or other statement claiming something, noone in the rail industry (all of which is functionally under the control of the state) will be permitted to criticise, disagree or otherwise voice disquiet.

This will destroy any possibility of open transport debate, forever.
It's effectively giving NetworK Rail, and thus the state, Papal Infallibility.

The truth is the truth because Hendy/Network Rail commands it.

 

[Starmill]

Stating that it remains unsafe when the regulator and his client are satisfied it's resolved is a key difference.

It's interesting that there's a bare statement that it's improved, and nothing further has reached the public domain about precisely why and how, isn't it? Do you not agree it's strongly in the public interest to have that question answered - and that it hasn't been answered?

 

[sh24]

His comments are not, in any way, whistleblowing. However they are fair comment to make, depending on the understanding he had with his employer on extra curricular activities and especially relating to national press. I own a business and we have a very clear policy. No-one speaks to the press except me. No-one.

Hendy does not come out of this well. Far better to let this sort of thing be dealt with quietly rather than thundering

 

[Starmill]

A TOC would be extremely unhappy if an employee gave a quote saying fleet X is unsafe based on safety issues that had been closed off. If it is his opinion it is not resolved, any quote provided should make clear that it is his opinion and not a definitive statement to distance from the view of his employer/client.

That could easily qualify as a protected disclosure if it were true. Also random traction maintenance depot staff would usually have boilerplate contract terms about speaking publicly, rather than a media agreement, as Dennis did.

The headline doesn't reflect the article, however plenty of people will not read the full article. It would be his responsibility to avoid the situation occurring, it's a common risk when providing a quote it is taken out of context. It doesn't sound from reporting so far that he disagreed with the finished article or took steps to update the quote.

It could be, but that'd have to have been stipulated in the media agreement for it to be entirely on Dennis.

 

[Grimsby town]

Indeed, all the risk was Systra's and any subsequent fall-out costs theirs too. They are the real idiots here for caving in to blackmail, exposing themselves to a backlash and all the associated costs. Hendy's behaviour is poor, but Systra are just as lacking in integrity.

(I'm not a Dennis fan more generally, although he occasionally raises some interesting points and he knows how to use a crayon well )

We don't know the exact process that led to Dennis' dismissal though. If Systras immediate solution was to attempt to get rid of Dennis, then clearly that's an overreaction. It could be that Dennis was given other options first such as reducing media appearances or avoiding discussing Network Rail which may have been refused.

It does seem that Systra have been pretty naive in hiring Dennis. Its quite easy to see how opinionated and outspoken he can be on topics given his online presence. Its not difficult to imagine that could cause negative coverage in addition to positive coverage.

It seems like an overreaction by Hendy to what were fairly mild comments though.

 

[Starmill]

While his opinion isn't particularly controversial, without his contribution the article would have been a lot less damaging.

Such damage pales in the face of the damage Hendy has done now. Ministers and Lords are quite rightly held to a higher standard than random engineers.

 

[HSTEd]

We don't know the exact process that led to Dennis' dismissal though. If Systras immediate solution was to attempt to get rid of Dennis, then clearly that's an overreaction. It could be that Dennis was given other options first such as reducing media appearances or avoiding discussing Network Rail which may have been refused.

Hendy's threat is essentially existential for Systra's UK operation.
They have no option but to get rid of him.

 

[Jozhua]

I doubt he has any case at an employment tribunal, unless his employer screwed up procedurally.

He was dismissed for annoying a large client who was threatening to withhold future contracts unless they dismissed him.

I'm fairly sure that will fall under a fair dismissal for "Some other substantial reason". This employment lawyers website even gives 3rd party pressure as a classic example of where a dismissal will be "fair" (for the legal definition, not the common definition!)

SOSR Dismissal: What Is Some Other Substantial Reason? | DavidsonMorris

To dismiss an employee lawfully, employers have to be able to provide a fair reason. There are five potentially fair reasons for dismissal set out under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. These relate to employee conduct, capability and performance, redundancy, breach of a statutory...

www.davidsonmorris.com

It's almost certainly in his contract that he must not speak to the media in that manner.

I'm sorry if someone else has already mentioned it, but he's said on his discord group that he had a stipulation in his contract around media appearances and that essentially, Systra was comfortable with him talking about the good, bad and ugly of the industry in a public forum.

This is almost certainly why a settlement was offered.

Completely agree that this is the ultimate Streisand effect situation and will not make Labour happy given this has all kicked off so soon after his appointment.

That said, I'm not convinced this will have any impact on Hendy's cabinet position. It also sets a dangerous precedent about ministers firing public sector (or in this case, even private sector workers who's businesses work with government with whom they disagree with!), which could present a significant impedement on free speech.

If Hendy is so convinced Euston is safe in times of exceptional demand or disruption, he should be more than happy to respond to Gareth's statements. I have a feeling that he already had a bone to pick long before this all kicked off...

 

[HSTEd]

That said, I'm not convinced this will have any impact on Hendy's cabinet position. It also sets a dangerous precedent about ministers firing public sector (or in this case, even private sector workers who's businesses work with government with whom they disagree with!), which could present a significant impedement on free speech.

I doubt it will have any impact at all, the reason he will have been appointed is almost entirely based on politics within the Labour Party.
Those factors will not have changed.

If Hendy is so convinced Euston is safe in times of exceptional demand or disruption, he should be more than happy to respond to Gareth's statements. I have a feeling that he already had a bone to pick long before this all kicked off...

If they were convinced that Euston is safe during disruption, they would be entirely free to initiate an action for libel if they believe it has materially damaged their reputation.
Given that they instead resorted to trying to have him quietly purged from the industry, it is hardly a good look. I expect they have little faith that such an action could succeed.

 

[telstarbox]

Interesting read. I'd never heard about the prostitute story before . What a grubby little man he is!

I had to laugh that he gave the supplier in question a London 2012 badge as well.

 

[Stephen42]

It's interesting that there's a bare statement that it's improved, and nothing further has reached the public domain about precisely why and how, isn't it? Do you not agree it's strongly in the public interest to have that question answered - and that it hasn't been answered?

The Transport Select Committee asked questions to the ORR and Network Rail earlier this year about Euston. Correspondence to/from the committee is available online. This includes the response from Network Rail chief executive.

We take the safety and welfare of our passengers seriously. Euston is one of our busiest stations and managing passenger flow effectively, particularly at busier times and at certain pinch-points in the station, is a challenge. Whilst the ORR’s improvement notice is now closed and they recognise what we’ve done to comply with their findings, there’s more we must do to improve passenger experience at Euston and to make sure the right control measures are in place to maintain safety. Turning to the specific points in your letter to me: The findings of the risk assessment conducted to identify the control measures required to manage passenger traffic flows and overcrowding. We completed a risk assessment between September and December 2023, which showed there is localised congestion at Euston at busier times, including the corridor leading to platforms 1-3 and the ramps to platforms 4-11. In reviewing these incidents, we will be installing more customer information screens at Euston station this September, to help provide a greater access to information for passengers as well as support wayfinding across the station concourse. Assessment of risk is something we continually monitor. Following periods of unplanned disruption, station staff and operators review incident handling, seeking to adopt new practices where they are justified, proportionate and will enhance passenger safety. Risk assessments also take place annually as part of a station review. The controls that were put in place as a result of this risk assessment and your plan to monitor their efficacy, particularly in times of unplanned disruption. We’d already taken steps to address congestion at Euston from 2018 onwards, by removing retail units from the platform ramps and concourse and locating departure boards in the outside piazza to reduce crowding on the concourse. Whilst this helped to alleviate congestion, the improvement notice showed there was more to do. Network Rail Infrastructure Limited Registered Office: Network Rail, Waterloo General Office, London, SE1 8SW. Registered in England and Wales No. 2904587 www.networkrail.co.uk OFFICIAL Since September 2023, we made the following changes: • Improved coordination of passenger boarding, based from the control room, to minimise crowding and contraflows – for example, making sure a ramp from a platform is clear before announcing the next service from the same platform. • More cross-industry cooperation during disruption, including co-locating with train operators and other partners, to better manage operational response and to keep people safe and informed. • Introducing Tensator post-and-rope barriers on ramps leading to platforms to manage the flow of people to these busy areas. • More effective staff presence at platforms to stop passengers going to the wrong platform and impeding flow when they’re redirected. • Installation of safety signage asking people not to run on the concourse and introduce further risk – this was a key ask of the ORR, which we delivered. Your long-term plan to improve management of passenger flow at the station. Alongside DfT, we’re working on a major funded enhancement, the Redevelopment of Euston Conventional Station, to transform passenger experience and support the station’s future growth, regeneration and development. This includes a brand-new concourse to give passengers more space, smoother journeys and better facilities. This ambitious project is subject to funding from HMT and of course is best delivered as part of an overall campus approach at Euston but we are working vigorously at securing the appropriate master plan and approvals. Your overall assessment of the risks to the health and safety of passengers at Euston. As acknowledged by the improvement notice closure, the ORR recognises that Euston has suitable and sufficient risk assessments and passenger management arrangements in place. However, passenger experience isn’t where we want it to be, particularly during disruption and other busy periods. We are a learning organisation and we will continue to work closely with operators to better manage both the safety and customer experience within the current station footprint, particularly as we look to deliver major improvements in the future. I hope my response demonstrates that we aren’t complacent about the need to do better and that passenger safety is a key priority for us. If you have any further questions, please let me know as I’d be happy to answer them; likewise, I’d be happy to discuss this with you and your committee when we meet in the near future.

I agree it's in the public interest and for others to decide whether the above is a satisfactory response.

I don't see how Gareth's quote to the Independent enabled the above to happen or was the most appropriate mechanism to get those answers. I don't think anyone comes out looking good in this. I'm not advocating for the Network Rail response either or the potential lack of consideration by Systra that their employee policies might not match client expectations or agreements.

 

[Jozhua]

I doubt it will have any impact at all, the reason he will have been appointed is almost entirely based on politics within the Labour Party.
Those factors will not have changed.

If they were convinced that Euston is safe during disruption, they would be entirely free to initiate an action for libel if they believe it has materially damaged their reputation.
Given that they instead resorted to trying to have him quietly purged from the industry, it is hardly a good look. I expect they have little faith that such an action could succeed.

Yeah, completely agree on Hendy's standing.

To be honest, I think that he's probably been gunning for Gareth for a while. I'm surprised he reached directly for the 'nuclear' option of threatening to withhold contracts unless he was fired right away. (Perhaps this hasn't been the first time Hendy has written on this subject to Systra).

I'm also not sure of the legality of this from a government procurement point of view?