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

The fill tribunal report is available on the RMT website:
http://www.rmtlondoncalling.org.uk/node/2182

important - click on the attachment at the bottom of the web page to get
the full report. What's listed on the web page is what the RMT have
cherry-picked for their own benefit from the main report.


Details of the incident that started the discipline procedures off is are
given on page 9 paragraph 34 "Incident on 9th August 2010"

Basically, the driver deliberately ran the train with a safety device (the
tripcock) cut out without a second person in the cab. The tripcock is
part of the safety system that stops the train if it goes past a red
signal. A driver must ALWAYS have a second person in the cab if the
Tripcock is defective. If the defect occurs between stations, then (as
there are no Guards these days) the train is driven to the next station at
extreme caution speed where a second person then gets in the cab. A
second person MUST be in the cab, even if it means the train sits in the
platform until somebody is sent to the station. The driver cannot be told
by anybody, including the Controller, to do anything different and should
ignore any instructions to do so (if given). All drivers know this.

What the driver did was a serious breach of rules, although I can't say
whether the driver should be dismissed for that or not. The RMT, as
always, have conveniently played down this aspect of the case.

However, it would appear that LU did themselves no favours in the way that
they conducted their disciplinary procedures and acted unfairly in what
they did and it would seem that the driver was dismissed by LU for the
wrong reasons (if he should have been dismissed at all).

Roger





*From:* "Zen83237"
*Date:* Fri, 6 May 2011 23:16:39 +0100

"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

Depends what they've done. Passing through a red light has little impact because the train gets stopped anyway.

I don't know what this guy did, but there are breaches which will have very minor impacts, if any.

In message , at 19:27:14 on
Tue, 10 May 2011, Steve Gardiner remarked:

Depends what they've done. Passing through a red light has little impact
because the train gets stopped anyway.

Not if the safety device which does that stopping has been disabled.

I don't know what this guy did, but there are breaches which will have
very minor impacts, if any.

And some may cause big impacts (eg with the train in front).
--
Roland Perry

But this is impossible as one part of the device sits on the track and the other part of the device is on the underside of the train - and there are many of them so even if one is disabled the others still work. The driver does not have access to this system.

Yes there are big potential risks on the railway, but this may not have been one of them. It's unlikely that the driver can do anything that will lead to an actual collision as far as I know. But again - I do not know the facts around this particular case, so, unlie others, will not jump to any conclusions.