This is totally unfair..Please comment.

Last edited:
Health and safety have gone mad in the UK, and it seems to be getting worse everyday...

I applaud the Station Master for his duty in preventing a train derailment, which would have given health and safety a headache if a train derailment with injuries did happen, it seems the message that the rail companys are giving out is, in future, if you see anything laying on the tracks, leave it there...

I do hope the Station Master gets his job back along with a hefty compensation reward.

Joe Airtime
 
It appears that the rail line has a 3rd rail, which is high voltage (that had not been turned off). Had he, or the metal shopping trolley, come in contact with the electric, he would have been charred beyond all possible recognition. That is why only certified trackworkers, or emergency personell are the only employees alowed in the gauge.

I think a 30 day suspension should be the least imposed penalty.
 
Last edited:
It appears that the rail line has a 3rd rail, which is high voltage (that had not been turned off). Had he, or the metal shopping trolley, come in contact with the electric, he would have been charred beyond all possible recognition. That is why only certified trackworkers, or emergency personell are the only employees alowed in the gauge.
I'm sure I read in the paper that although the 3rd rail was on, he had been told that it had been turned off. Seems like a complete lack of communication. If anyone should be sacked it should be the person who "turned off" the elctricity. I think that Ian did the right thing.
Joe:)
 
Last edited:
No matter what "You Think" as a member of the untrained peanut gallery ... Ian did the wrong thing, and was canned for his trespassing in the gauge, which he is not certified nor permitted to do so.

If I, an unknown person on the teleophone', told you that your parachute was OK ... Would you take my word on it that it was OK ? And if you then by trusting on my unauthorized word, and you were not a trained parachutist ... and you jumped right out of a perfectly good aeroplane' ... and the backpack said BSA and pots & pans and camping equipment came a flyn' out when you pulled the ripcord ... who's fault woud that be ?
 
I am not denying that he went against the rules but as an "untrained peanut":hehe: I simply feel that taking away this guy pension etc. it a complete over reaction. And I somehow doubt it was an unknown person on the telephone. More likely the signaller! The rule book says only to go on the line if you are trained or:
You must only go onto a platform line if you have been trained
to do so at the location concerned.
If you need to go onto a platform line to retrieve an article that has
been dropped onto the line, you must:
• only do so if local instructions allow you to
• tell the signaller what you need to do before you go onto the line
• make sure that the signaller clearly understands on which line
the passage of trains needs to be stopped, including any
adjoining line
• confirm the details of the line are correct and tell the signaller
your name and employer
• only go onto the line when the signaller gives you permission.
The signaller will remind you which lines are still open to traffic
It says If you had been trained. When I made the above statement I was not aware whether or not Ian had been trained. Despite all the points so clearly pointed out by you I still think complete sacking and the loss of a pension to along serving employee is a bit harsh.
I apologise for the misunderstanding
Joe
 
~snip~.. Ian did the wrong thing, and was canned for his trespassing in the gauge, which he is not certified nor permitted to do so. ~snip~

But surely the punishment should fit the crime. Dismissal and loss of pension does seem to be extreme in this case.

One is tempted to ask what penalties should be imposed upon the executive staff of many of the UK railway companies for their well known corporate failures in meeting public needs and expectation.
 
Hi Everybody.
Having acquired other interests I have not been on the forum for a few weeks but happen to see this thread on looking in and felt I should contribute.

As someone whose occupation was in workplace health and safety within the British road transport industry until retirement and still carry out “route cause accident investigation” for my former employer perhaps I can throw some light on what has happened.

All workplace health and safety is governed by the Health and Safety At Work act 1974 which holds two major sections which would have a bearing on the case in question. The first would be the section entitled “employers duty of care”. That section imposes obligations on employers to ensure that employees work in an environment which is as free as reasonably possible from any substance or situation which would endanger their safety or health..

In the above an employer must carryout risk assessment, training, provide personal protective equipment (PPE's) and safe working practices that that ensure a safe environment for all employees and others accessing the place of work.

The second section with reference to the case in question, would be the section entitled “employees duty of care”. This section places obligations on the employee to ensure that any action or duties carried out by him/her does not endanger themselves or others in the vicinity of their work or actions.

With regard to the station master case, I have no doubt that on seeing the shopping trolley (known as supermarket trolleys in other countries) his training would have informed him to ensure that his direct line manager (in this case the senior dispatcher) was informed of the obstruction immediately so that the power could be turned off to the line as quickly as possible and approaching Trains informed. The station master should in no way have gone down on to the line until he was absolutely sure that the power had been turned off and no moving Trains where in the vicinity.

The reasoning behind this would be that should he be killed or injured trying to retrieve the all metal trolley from the line others in the vicinity may well have had to put their selves and risk in trying to rescue him.

I am sure the station master would have realized that a lightweight shopping trolley was very unlikely to derail a train but could well have a much higher risk in electrocution to him, or the object flying up after being hit by a train endangering people in the vicinity. Therefore his first action in seeing the obstruction on the line should have been to move people on the platform well away from the obstruction in case it was hit by a train and flew up onto the platform endangering people there.

The actions of his employer's in carrying out disciplinary action against him would have been required under there duty of care in such that the station master's actions would have been viewed under legislation as reckless and therefore gross misconduct. I agree that the penalty in this case would seem to be very harsh in view of his long service and previous record. However, I have no doubt that a final written warning would have been at least the minimum.

For those who castigate workplace health and safety, since the introduction of the Health and Safety at Work Act accidents in Britain's workplaces have reduced by almost 85%. I do not see how anybody can argue with the basics behind those facts with the exception of the right wing press who decry any employee rights whatever they are.

Bill
please excuse the long posting but it was difficult to keep it to this length
 
Last edited:
Hi Everybody.
Having watched the posted news video I feel that it is good to see people pulling together and signing the petition supporting the station master. You can only hope that his employers take note of the support and change their mind on his dismissal.

However, there has already has been a disciplinary investigation into the incident followed by a full disciplinary hearing where the station master would have had the right of representation by any person of his choosing or a trade union official (if he is a member). Obviously that failed and also the appeal against the severity of the the penalty past down by management has also failed.

The only further place to proceed with his case would be an industrial tribunal hearing which may take him over six months to get such a hearing. As many British forum members will know, an industrial tribunal is a court of law but acts very different from a magistrate or County Court. They are much "rougher" places with the tribunal members asking all the questions and passing judgment. They are not places for the faint hearted as some very tough and aggressive questioning can take place.

They are also places which traditionally support companies which have strong health and safety policies and on very few occasions come out in support of employees which have been dismissed for infringing those policies. Also one of the key rules that tribunals apply is the insistence that all employees who find themselves in disciplinary proceedings are treated equally where infringements are similar.

The above would mean that if other employees who have accessed the track in an unsafe or reckless manner have been dismissed in the past then the tribunal would accept that is the appropriate punishment as all members of the staff would be aware of the penalty and could expect similar should they do the same. There is also the problem that should the company change the penalty to something less than dismissal for the station master they can then leave themselves open to court action by former employees dismissed for the same offense.

However, in all the reports I have seen, there seems to be no mention of the station master clearing the platforms of passengers after becoming aware of the shopping trolley on the line. As station master his first duty is to the organization and safety of the members of the public on the station. Undoubtedly the highest risk throughout the incident would have been to people on the Platform being endangered by debris from the trolley flying up onto the platform should it have been hit by a train. Therefore, the moving of people away from the danger area should have been his first and immediate duty and if it did not carry that out it is probably the major reason behind his dismissal.

The station master is obviously a good person devoted to his work and we can only hope a way is found for him to retain his job. But to be honest I find little reason to feel that will happen.

Bill
 
Well typed Bill, as usual, the forum members on here, as well as those customers of SWT, and the national press, have not got a bloody clue as to the facts of this whole story and you've followed blindly up the alley which the Daily Mail led you all like little lost sheep. Typical of the gutter press in trying to sell more papers than to only give you the titbits that they want you to read to sway your opinion against the management of SWT, instead of giving everyone the pertinent facts of the incident, this is nothing new, it's been going on for decades.
In this particular instance, it was not an emergency situation from what I have read, therefore, no passengers were in immediate danger, and the said Gentleman, should have followed correct rules and regulations, which he didn't, and was then subsequently dismissed for gross negligence, which is standard procedure, like it, or, not and totally fair.

If you don't know the full facts of this story and you are not acquainted with H & S Regulations in the UK, then stop waffling.

I wouldn't expect our 'foreign' Trainzy friends to know these very important issues, so, they are off the hook.....:p


Cheerz. ex-railwayman.
 
Last edited:
I suspect there is more to this than meets the eye...

What the guy should have done is contact the signaller to stop the job (which it appears he did) and if necessary contact the Electrical Control Room to request an isolation of the traction current. However that done, as a member of "retail" staff if he does not have on track certification (PTS, COSS, IWA etc.) then he stays where he is and waits for those who are qualified to come and remove the obstruction.

The only circumstances in which an individual without track safety training would be authorised on the line would be to render first aid, perhaps to an individual who had fallen off the platform. However you still get trains stopped and the traction current discharged first - you don't put yourself in a position of danger.

I agree the punishment is a tad harsh but is there a prior history of personal safety breaches by the individual, perhaps? As regards losing pension I suspect there is an element of dramatic overstatement there. As I understand it, dismissal does not forfeit your right to an occupational pension which you are paying contributions into. It is simply frozen until the age at which you can start taking the benefits, though obviously you can't make any further contributions to it.
 
I don't need to be told i am off the hook and i don't read the DM.


Management stink and common sense has gone down the pan.

We all got by without these H&S regs and the railway from nationalisation onwards, has alway embraced safety whole heartedly.

But then of course in those days managers knew how to handle men, they were not clueless upstarts.

IKB.
 
Well said IKB, I am in total agreement with what you said above, this country ain't the same no more, with the "You cannot do this" and "You cannot do that" attitude.

Health and safety is making Britain a safer place for extremely stupid people

Joe Airtime
 
Last edited:
Hi Everybody.
Well said IKB, I am in total agreement with what you said above, this country ain't the same no more, with the "You cannot do this" and "You cannot do that" attitude.

Health and safety is making Britain a safer place for extremely stupid people

Joe Airtime

As someone who has spent many years doing accident investigation and other duties in workplace health and safety I very much resent being called "extremely stupid"

if members of this forum feel that health and safety so unimportant perhaps they would have liked to have acompanied me when I went to interview a 19-year-old who climbed up the warehouse racking to pull down a box and fell onto the handles all a pallet truck breaking his back which will almost certainly put him in a whealchair for rest of his life. The management of the distribution center knew the youngsters were doing this but turned a blind eye.

Or perhaps they would like to have come to me when I went to interview a driver who was sprayed with acid and breathed it in while on a loading gantry all because despite the management noticing a flange was leaking slightly they took a " oh it will be all right" attitude.

or perhaps they would've liked will come along to meet the widow of a warehouse worker who had been " run through" and pinned to the wall by the forks of a forklift truck when the extremely stupid driver was trying to finish early.

As I stated in my original posting, despite the above since the introduction of the health and safety at work act and other encompassed legislation accidents in Britains workplaces have been reduced by nearly 85%.

Without the legislation there would have been many more accidents like the above. Many thousands have been prevented from being killed and injured in their workplaces by the enforcement of the regulations and at times the necessary strong disciplinary action to ensure the safety of many in the workplace when an individual thinks that the safety rules are so much " bull crap"

But then, those of us who have created and are trying to maintain the above figures are "extremely stupid" while those who wish to flout their employers safety rules and practices putting themselves and others at risk are the " sensible ones" according to some on this forum

Bill
 
Last edited:
Like i said Bill, management, i sh!t em.

That accident to the lad would have happened with or without all this nanny state legislation.

What he was doing was plain stupidity.

The same as if i had been hit by a train when going from station to depot and back at shift end, "walking the tracks". Strictly forbidden, but we all still did it. Yet BR was one of the most safety concious industries, anyone could wish for.

In regards the station master, who else apart from the signalling section. Would know more about train movements in his area, than him. He obviously knew that he was safe to retrieve the trolley.

IKB.
 
hi everybody.
Like i said Bill, management, i sh!t em.

That accident to the lad would have happened with or without all this nanny state legislation.

What he was doing was plain stupidity.

The same as if i had been hit by a train when going from station to depot and back at shift end, "walking the tracks". Strictly forbidden, but we all still did it. Yet BR was one of the most safety concious industries, anyone could wish for.

In regards the station master, who else apart from the signalling section. Would know more about train movements in his area, than him. He obviously knew that he was safe to retrieve the trolley.

IKB.

I am sorry IKB but I have to totally disagree with your argument there regarding the warehouse lad as we all did stupid things when we were in our teens. The distribution center had brought in rules which forbid climbing on the racking.

However, as the supervisors and middle managers knew the youngsters where climbing up the racking for the odd box rather than waiting for the automated pallet picker " they viewed it as “improved productivity" which would be to the glory of the supervisors and managers. Following the accident and without the legislation they would have got away with there incomprehensible belief in years gone by.

However, as a result of the investigation carried out under the regulations, 2 supervisors and the shift manager were dismissed and others given warnings. The company (my previous employers) where later heavily find in court action brought about by the health and safety executive on the grounds that companies do not just have to write out safe working practices they have to be seen to enforce them.

With further reference to the need for health and safety legislation, the simple fact is that prior to 1974 Britons workplaces were not coping with a mounting of accidents and health problems that built up (just think of asbestos in the building industry). All of us as taxpayers were picking up the tab for disability and sickness payments shelled out by the state because of the inability of private and public industries. The government figures on accidents and safety prior to the legislation and since then bear simple witness to the regulation need.

To come back to the station master, it very much looks like he disregarded his training, the safe working practices and his employee duties of care. Through that he probably endangered the general public waiting on the platform who had every right to expect they were in a safe environment.

Bill
 
Last edited:
I don't need to be told i am off the hook and i don't read the DM.

IKB.

But, Mike, I don't consider you as 'foreign', you're a lovely fellow Welshman, my comment was aimed more at the forum community from outside the UK....:p

I trust you're still reading The Socialist, newspaper.....:hehe::hehe:

Cheerz. Steve. :wave:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top