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.

"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.

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

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

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

On May 4, 4:41*pm, "Mizter T" wrote:
"Paul" wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13274783

Well I [thought] 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.

Strikorama:

*16 to 17 May: 2101 BST - 1159 BST
*18 to 19 May: 1200 BST - 1159 BST
* * * *20 May: 1200 BST - 2100 BST

13 to 14 June: 2101 BST - 1159 BST
15 to 16 June: 1200 BST - 1159 BST
* * * 17 June: 1200 BST - 2100 BST

(best viewed as fixed width text - well, perhaps best not viewed at all!)

So, two rounds of strikes, each starting on a Monday, each 'round' having an
impact across five consecutive (working) days, with the striking hours
pattern being the same for both 'rounds'.

From a 'regular-hours' commuter's point of view the Monday strike should
have the least impact, though I'm not sure when services might start winding
down.

Of course, if the strikes go ahead then LU would do their best to offer what
services they can - past experience suggests that this can be rather
variable (essentially dependent on how many staff turn up, and so it can
change as shifts change).

Seems like a bit of a declaration of war on the RMT's part, it must be said.

Is that clattering and groaning the sound of umpteen bicycles being
retrieved from sheds and basements?

According to the BBC, they have been suspended

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13347697

On a related topic, it is interesting to see that the unions have
agreed an Olympic related pay deal with Network Rail

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13343578

No doubt the RMT will try and agree a similiar deal with LUL, with the
implicit threat of strikes if no deal is reached.

I don't think they're striking just to have a day off. And, no, these guys get their bank holidays added to their leave so they can take them when they want.