http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13879563

---quote---
London Tube strike driver unfairly dismissed, tribunal rules

A London Underground driver at the centre of a series of Tube strikes has
won his claim for unfair dismissal, his union has revealed.

LU said Arwyn Thomas was sacked for unacceptable behaviour towards
colleagues.

But the Rail Maritime and Transport Union (RMT) claimed he was dismissed
because of his union role.

A series of walkouts has been staged this year. It is unclear if the
remaining strikes will go ahead.
[...continues...]
---/quote---


This comes after driver Eamonn Lynch also winning his claim for unfair
dismissal in early May:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13306339

Obviously the RMT have a wider anti-cuts agenda, but LU management don't
seem to be coming out of this particularly well - so long for the days of
relative harmony at LU under Tim O'Toole. (Of course it was a bit of a
different world back then - for a start, the kitty still jangled when
shaken.)

The tribunal results have proved that what the rmt was talking about his
sacking over his union activities was a load of rubbish. That was the only
real way that they could try and persuade their members to vote for strike
action (those that did bother to vote at all). They know they wouldn't
have got the support otherwise. After repeated mentioning of being sacked
because of his union activities on virtually every communication the rmt
have made, they have now conveniently omitted this from their latest
communication
http://www.rmtlondoncalling.org.uk/node/2256
and now just insist that he was unfairly sacked.

It's all politics, and the passengers and union members are the pawns

The tribunal basically said that LU were right to find him guilty of
abusive behaviour and that the sacking was nothing to do with his union
activities. What they have don is suggested that the sentence for his
abusive behaviour may have been too harsh.

So, nothing there to say "give him his job back"

I suppose it will depend whether the rmt agree that his behaviour was
abusive, given that the tribunal have more or less confirmed that it was.
If they do agree that, then the rmt cannot expect for him to get his job
back unpunished, as it were. If LU decide that his punishment is to be
taken off the trains and sent to the stations at reduced pay, will that
satisfy the rmt, or will they still demand he gets his original job back
full stop?

If so, I can't see that that will happen, although you never know. I
shouldn't count the strikes as being off yet!

Roger

*From:* "Mizter T"
*Date:* Wed, 22 Jun 2011 17:43:11 +0100

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13879563

---quote---
London Tube strike driver unfairly dismissed, tribunal rules

A London Underground driver at the centre of a series of Tube
strikes has won his claim for unfair dismissal, his union has
revealed.

LU said Arwyn Thomas was sacked for unacceptable behaviour towards
colleagues.

But the Rail Maritime and Transport Union (RMT) claimed he was
dismissed because of his union role.

A series of walkouts has been staged this year. It is unclear if
the remaining strikes will go ahead.
[...continues...]
---/quote---


This comes after driver Eamonn Lynch also winning his claim for
unfair dismissal in early May:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13306339

Obviously the RMT have a wider anti-cuts agenda, but LU management
don't seem to be coming out of this particularly well - so long for
the days of relative harmony at LU under Tim O'Toole. (Of course it
was a bit of a different world back then - for a start, the kitty
still jangled when shaken.)

wrote in message
...
The tribunal results have proved that what the rmt was talking about his
sacking over his union activities was a load of rubbish. That was the only
real way that they could try and persuade their members to vote for strike
action (those that did bother to vote at all). They know they wouldn't
have got the support otherwise. After repeated mentioning of being sacked
because of his union activities on virtually every communication the rmt
have made, they have now conveniently omitted this from their latest
communication
http://www.rmtlondoncalling.org.uk/node/2256
and now just insist that he was unfairly sacked.

It's all politics, and the passengers and union members are the pawns

The tribunal basically said that LU were right to find him guilty of
abusive behaviour and that the sacking was nothing to do with his union
activities.

I don't see that the tribunal has the evidence to assess that.

If TfL sacked the guy wrongly on the basis of a trivial offence it is quite
likely that they had an ulterior reason for doing so. There isn't likely to
be any obvious evidence what that reason was, is there?

tim

*From:* "tim...."
*Date:* Wed, 22 Jun 2011 21:51:32 +0100

wrote in message
...
The tribunal results have proved that what the rmt was talking
about his
sacking over his union activities was a load of rubbish. That was
the only
real way that they could try and persuade their members to vote
for strike
action (those that did bother to vote at all). They know they
wouldn't
have got the support otherwise. After repeated mentioning of
being sacked
because of his union activities on virtually every communication
the rmt
have made, they have now conveniently omitted this from their
latest
communication
http://www.rmtlondoncalling.org.uk/node/2256
and now just insist that he was unfairly sacked.

It's all politics, and the passengers and union members are the
pawns

The tribunal basically said that LU were right to find him guilty
of
abusive behaviour and that the sacking was nothing to do with his
union
activities.

I don't see that the tribunal has the evidence to assess that.

If TfL sacked the guy wrongly on the basis of a trivial offence it
is quite likely that they had an ulterior reason for doing so.
There isn't likely to be any obvious evidence what that reason was,
is there?

tim


Being abusive to other members of staff (or the public for that matter)
isn't trivial and is something that LU is very hot on, whoever they are. I
assume that the tribunal went over everything with a fine tooth comb
before making that decision.

He was stupid doing what he did, although he probably meant no harm - he
is not one of the aggressive types you sometimes see on picket lines, and
I think sacking is too harsh and I wouldn't like to see him sacked.
However, like all other members of staff, you can't just do what you want
these days, it's so easy to drop yourself in the **** and risk losing your
job or getting demoted.

Like everything in this PC world we live in today, you have to do
everything by the book - no more, no less.


Roger

In message , at 21:51:32 on Wed, 22 Jun
2011, tim.... remarked:

The tribunal basically said that LU were right to find him guilty of
abusive behaviour and that the sacking was nothing to do with his union
activities.

I don't see that the tribunal has the evidence to assess that.

They probably had more evidence than we do.

If TfL sacked the guy wrongly on the basis of a trivial offence it is quite
likely that they had an ulterior reason for doing so. There isn't likely to
be any obvious evidence what that reason was, is there?

Tribunals weren't born yesterday.
--
Roland Perry

On Jun 22, 7:12*pm, wrote:

It's all politics, and the passengers and union members are the pawns

Mixed metaphors are almost always funny!

On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 16:21:30 -0500
wrote:
He was stupid doing what he did, although he probably meant no harm - he
is not one of the aggressive types you sometimes see on picket lines, and

The RMT bruisers couldn't handle the general public. After getting a serious
amount of abuse (I witnesses it and provided some of my own) outside Arnos
Grove station a number of years back - what the hell did they expect? Love
and kisses from people 2 hours late to work? Morons - they now skulk around
down Palmers road out of harms way outside the entrance to Ash House instead
every time theres a protest.

B2003

wrote:

On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 16:21:30 -0500
wrote:
He was stupid doing what he did, although he probably meant no harm - he
is not one of the aggressive types you sometimes see on picket lines, and

The RMT bruisers couldn't handle the general public. After getting a
serious
amount of abuse (I witnesses it and provided some of my own) outside Arnos
Grove station a number of years back - what the hell did they expect? Love
and kisses from people 2 hours late to work? Morons - they now skulk
around
down Palmers road out of harms way outside the entrance to Ash House
instead
every time theres a protest.


What is bloody stupid but can nonetheless be seen on strike days is the
public berating the staff *who are actually at work* - I provided my own
earful to one such moron during a strike last year.

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 21:51:32 on Wed, 22 Jun
2011, tim.... remarked:

The tribunal basically said that LU were right to find him guilty of
abusive behaviour and that the sacking was nothing to do with his union
activities.

I don't see that the tribunal has the evidence to assess that.

They probably had more evidence than we do.

Yes, but still not enough.


If TfL sacked the guy wrongly on the basis of a trivial offence it is
quite
likely that they had an ulterior reason for doing so. There isn't likely
to
be any obvious evidence what that reason was, is there?

Tribunals weren't born yesterday.

But did they actually listen to any evidence on that point and actually come
to that conclusion.

or did they say absolutely nothing and leave TfL to infer something that
wasn't there.

tim

In message , at 12:17:50 on Thu, 23 Jun
2011, tim.... remarked:

The tribunal basically said that LU were right to find him guilty of
abusive behaviour and that the sacking was nothing to do with his union
activities.

I don't see that the tribunal has the evidence to assess that.

They probably had more evidence than we do.

Yes, but still not enough.

Were you there?

If TfL sacked the guy wrongly on the basis of a trivial offence it is
quite
likely that they had an ulterior reason for doing so. There isn't likely
to
be any obvious evidence what that reason was, is there?

Tribunals weren't born yesterday.

But did they actually listen to any evidence on that point and actually come
to that conclusion.

or did they say absolutely nothing and leave TfL to infer something that
wasn't there.

I'll give the BBC the benefit of the doubt that they checked this quote:

"The employment tribunal has ruled today that Mr Thomas should have been
disciplined for his actions and that his dismissal was in no way due to
his activities as a union member."

--
Roland Perry