In message , Nick Leverton
writes

Yup, I'd missed that he had rung the electrification control room (and
hopefully waited for the OK though we don't know that either !)

His words reported in the Daily Telegraph:

"Once I was informed the power was off I went onto the track and removed
the trolley ... Later that week I was told ... that the power hadn't
actually been turned off".

--
Paul Terry

On Thu, 12 May 2011 11:58:12 +0100
Paul Terry wrote:
In message , Nick Leverton
writes

Yup, I'd missed that he had rung the electrification control room (and
hopefully waited for the OK though we don't know that either !)

His words reported in the Daily Telegraph:

"Once I was informed the power was off I went onto the track and removed
the trolley ... Later that week I was told ... that the power hadn't
actually been turned off".

Its beginning to sound like constructive dismissal to me. I hope he takes
it to court.

B2003

In message , at 11:58:12 on Thu, 12
May 2011, Paul Terry remarked:

Yup, I'd missed that he had rung the electrification control room (and
hopefully waited for the OK though we don't know that either !)

His words reported in the Daily Telegraph:

"Once I was informed the power was off I went onto the track and
removed the trolley ... Later that week I was told ... that the power
hadn't actually been turned off".

Shouldn't part of the safety process be putting a shorting bar down to
make sure that the power was off?
--
Roland Perry

"Zen83237" wrote in message ...
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 12:53:50 on Wed,
11 May 2011, Zen83237 remarked:
Compare the RMT's actions with this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-13360741

Are you alluding to the apparent lack of union support for this chap?

What you can't tell from the story is how much of a danger the trolley
was to trains, and what other, safer, action could have been taken, which
would not have infringed the rules.
--
Roland Perry

I alluding to the fact that the tube train driver knowingly breached
safety rules and the RMT are ****ed that the driver was sacked for
infringing safety rules. This guy got sacked but I don't see anybody
striking to have him reinstated, but then he is not a driver.

He might not even be a member of the union.

Peter Smyth

"Peter Smyth" wrote in message
...
"Zen83237" wrote in message
...
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 12:53:50 on
Wed, 11 May 2011, Zen83237 remarked:
Compare the RMT's actions with this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-13360741

Are you alluding to the apparent lack of union support for this chap?

What you can't tell from the story is how much of a danger the trolley
was to trains, and what other, safer, action could have been taken,
which would not have infringed the rules.
--
Roland Perry

I alluding to the fact that the tube train driver knowingly breached
safety rules and the RMT are ****ed that the driver was sacked for
infringing safety rules. This guy got sacked but I don't see anybody
striking to have him reinstated, but then he is not a driver.

He might not even be a member of the union.

Peter Smyth

I am assuming that is why it is taking the public to stand up for this guy.
Doesn't alter the fact that the RMT are opening making like hell for the
travelling public in supporting a driver who knowingly breached safety
regulations. I don't understand why it is ok to stick 2 fingers up to safety
is you are in a union especially the RMT are the first ones to bang on about
cuts backs by management potentially affecting safety.

Kevin

In message , Zen83237
writes

I don't understand why it is ok to stick 2 fingers up to safety is you
are in a union especially the RMT are the first ones to bang on about
cuts backs by management potentially affecting safety.

Nobody, least of all the driver, disputed that a safety regulation had
been contravened. The argument was about the management's handling of
the issue and the penalty imposed.

In particular, it was pointed out that a driver who was not an RMT rep
was previously merely given a warning for a similar, but much more
serious case, in which a train in passenger service was driven at full
speed through 5 or 6 stations without a functioning tripcock or second
driver.

In the case of the union rep, he had at least de-trained his passengers
and driven at caution speed (both on the advice of Bakerloo control),
but was nevertheless dismissed for gross misconduct. From the employment
tribunal's point of view, failure of management to treat employees
equitably would have been a major issue, irrespective of their union
responsibilities. There were also other issues regarding management's
attitude to his union duties.
--
Paul Terry