On 4 May, 14:48, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
03:33:34 on Wed, 4 May 2011, Paul remarked:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13274783

Well I tohugh Comrade Crow had been quiet for some time.

Is it not the case that most drivers belong to ASLEF? If this is the
case, how much impact will the strike have, if it goes ahead at all.

I was going to get the train to London one of the strike days (then
across and out the other side). This strike means I'll definitely drive,
and mainline ToCs who aren't a party to the dispute will be losing more
of my revenue than TfL.
--
Roland Perry

Does anybody know what these two drivers have been sacked for? Without
knowing the full story it is difficult to pass judgement.

On May 4, 3:11*pm, George wrote:
On 4 May, 14:48, Roland Perry wrote:





In message
, at
03:33:34 on Wed, 4 May 2011, Paul remarked:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13274783

Well I tohugh Comrade Crow had been quiet for some time.

Is it not the case that most drivers belong to ASLEF? If this is the
case, how much impact will the strike have, if it goes ahead at all.

I was going to get the train to London one of the strike days (then
across and out the other side). This strike means I'll definitely drive,
and mainline ToCs who aren't a party to the dispute will be losing more
of my revenue than TfL.
--
Roland Perry

Does anybody know what these two drivers have been sacked for? Without
knowing the full story it is difficult to pass judgement.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

According to the article:-

The RMT said almost two-thirds of its members voted in favour of
industrial action over claims Eamon Lynch and Arwyn Thomas were sacked
because of their trade union activities.

Both men have taken a case of unfair dismissal to an employment
tribunal.

LU said it was "absolute nonsense" to suggest the men were dismissed
because of their union activities.

It added that Mr Thomas was dismissed over "abusive behaviour" towards
his colleagues and Mr Lynch was sacked because he "over-rode his
train's safety systems and drove the train with complete disregard for
established procedures".

LU managing director Mike Brown said: "Just 29% of the 1,300 drivers
balloted voted for this strike.

If only 29% of the drivers ballotted voted for the strike, then that
means that only about 750 (or about 58%) of those ballotted actually
bothered to vote in the first place.

Sounds as though the strike has not got universal support anyway.
Plus if most drivers belong to ASLEF and work normally, then the
strike won't have that much impact. Who would want or could afford to
lose several days pay over this issue?

The other thing to point out is that these cases are going to an
Industrial Tribunal. Surely Comrade Crow would be better waiting for
the outcome of the Tribunal before deciding his next move? Or has he
been advised that they haven't got a cat in hells chance of winning
and is getting desperate?

In message
,
Paul writes

The other thing to point out is that these cases are going to an
Industrial Tribunal. Surely Comrade Crow would be better waiting for
the outcome of the Tribunal before deciding his next move? Or has he
been advised that they haven't got a cat in hells chance of winning
and is getting desperate?

The Employment Tribunal has already given the two employees concerned
"interim relief", which is why they are still on full salary. This is
normally only given where the tribunal chairman thinks that their case
is likely to be successful when it comes to the full hearing.

I haven't followed the full details, but I'm sure that there are faults
on both sides. The root cause seems to be the dreadful industrial
relations that have been such a feature of London Underground over the
years.
--
Paul Terry

"Paul Terry" wrote:

In message
, Paul
writes

The other thing to point out is that these cases are going to an
Industrial Tribunal. Surely Comrade Crow would be better waiting for
the outcome of the Tribunal before deciding his next move? Or has he
been advised that they haven't got a cat in hells chance of winning
and is getting desperate?

The Employment Tribunal has already given the two employees concerned
"interim relief", which is why they are still on full salary. This is
normally only given where the tribunal chairman thinks that their case is
likely to be successful when it comes to the full hearing.

Prophetic words, in one of the two cases at least - one of the drivers has
won their case at the employment tribunal (it looks like the verdict was
given earlier today)...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/ma...e-talks-driver

Excerpt:
---quote---
Tube union chiefs have demanded a meeting with London Underground in an
effort to avert strike action after one of two drivers at the centre of an
employment row won his claim of unfair dismissal.

Eamonn Lynch, a Bakerloo line driver sacked for breaking safety rules, took
his case to an employment tribunal, claiming his dismissal was based on his
trade union activities.

London Underground said on Friday that a meeting with the Rail Maritime and
Transport (RMT) union could not be held before the tribunal released its
ruling on whether Lynch should be reinstated, expected on 3 June.
[...continues...]
---/quote---

The result in the second case against Arwyn Thomas "is expected later this
month".


I haven't followed the full details, but I'm sure that there are faults on
both sides. The root cause seems to be the dreadful industrial relations
that have been such a feature of London Underground over the years.

I'm sure the somewhat toxic nature of industrial relations serves to put
good people off from working on the Underground to some extent.

In message
, at
07:11:27 on Wed, 4 May 2011, George
remarked:
Does anybody know what these two drivers have been sacked for? Without
knowing the full story it is difficult to pass judgement.

The BBC story linked to earlier says:

Mr Thomas was dismissed over "abusive behaviour" towards his
colleagues and Mr Lynch was sacked because he "over-rode his
train's safety systems and drove the train with complete
disregard for established procedures".
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message
, at
07:11:27 on Wed, 4 May 2011, George
remarked:
Does anybody know what these two drivers have been sacked for? Without
knowing the full story it is difficult to pass judgement.

The BBC story linked to earlier says:

Mr Thomas was dismissed over "abusive behaviour" towards his
colleagues and Mr Lynch was sacked because he "over-rode his
train's safety systems and drove the train with complete
disregard for established procedures".
--
Roland Perry

Shouldn't disregard for safety systems be a criminal matter. If it isn't
then it should be.
Kevin

On May 6, 11:16*pm, "Zen83237" wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote in message

...

In message
, at
07:11:27 on Wed, 4 May 2011, George
remarked:
Does anybody know what these two drivers have been sacked for? Without
knowing the full story it is difficult to pass judgement.

The BBC story linked to earlier says:

* * * *Mr Thomas was dismissed over "abusive behaviour" towards his
* * * *colleagues and Mr Lynch was sacked because he "over-rode his
* * * *train's safety systems and drove the train with complete
* * * *disregard for established procedures".
--
Roland Perry

Shouldn't disregard for safety systems be a criminal matter. If it isn't
then it should be.
Kevin

Now we're getting down to the real reasons for the strike. if the
tribunal ruling isn't expected until 3rd June, the strikes scheduled
for May are an attempt to browbeat LUL into to taking him back.

Sometimes in Industrial Tribunal cases the ruling is that the company
didn't follow the correct procedure in processing the dismissal, but
that the underlying reasons for the dismissal were fair. They often
say that Mr X was Y% to blame for his own dismissal, and it sounds
like the meeting on 3rd June will determine the value of Y.

On May 7, 6:23*am, Paul wrote:
[snip]
Now we're getting down to the real reasons for the strike. if the
tribunal ruling isn't expected until 3rd June, the strikes scheduled
for May are an attempt to browbeat LUL into to taking him back.

Sometimes in Industrial Tribunal cases the ruling is that the company
didn't follow the correct procedure in processing the dismissal, but
that the underlying reasons for the dismissal were fair. They often
say that Mr X was Y% to blame for his own dismissal, and it sounds
like the meeting on 3rd June will determine the value of Y.


See my post of May 6 at 16:27 on this thread [1] - the employment
tribunal ruled on one of the two cases yesterday (i.e. rather earlier
than that 3 June date), and found in favour of the sacked driver.

-----
[1] http://groups.google.com/group/uk.tr...65ca03932eef2d

In message
, at
01:04:47 on Sat, 7 May 2011, Mizter T remarked:
Sometimes in Industrial Tribunal cases the ruling is that the company
didn't follow the correct procedure in processing the dismissal, but
that the underlying reasons for the dismissal were fair. They often
say that Mr X was Y% to blame for his own dismissal, and it sounds
like the meeting on 3rd June will determine the value of Y.

See my post of May 6 at 16:27 on this thread [1] - the employment
tribunal ruled on one of the two cases yesterday (i.e. rather earlier
than that 3 June date), and found in favour of the sacked driver.

The Guardian says:

"Eamonn Lynch, a Bakerloo line driver sacked for breaking safety
rules, took his case to an employment tribunal, claiming his
dismissal was based on his trade union activities."

The paper goes on to report the employers saying:

"Whilst the tribunal has made a finding of unfair dismissal, it
has also found that on 9 August 2010 Mr Lynch breached an
established and significant safety rule and was in part culpable
or blameworthy for his actions."
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 23:16:39 on
Fri, 6 May 2011, Zen83237 remarked:
Does anybody know what these two drivers have been sacked for? Without
knowing the full story it is difficult to pass judgement.

The BBC story linked to earlier says:

Mr Thomas was dismissed over "abusive behaviour" towards his
colleagues and Mr Lynch was sacked because he "over-rode his
train's safety systems and drove the train with complete
disregard for established procedures".

Shouldn't disregard for safety systems be a criminal matter. If it isn't
then it should be.

"Transport for London said it would study the outcome of the employment
tribunal judgment and consider its next steps."
--
Roland Perry