Discrepancies with Charges 2 & 3
Charge Letter dated 5th Feb 2009
_
Charge
2
“You also failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting a near miss incident, resulting in a train being taken out of service. You subsequently admitted this was a false allegation”.
According to Mark Atkinson, I failed to follow this procedure.
1. I failed to report a near
miss incident.
2. Did not stop at the signal
box or controlling signal
and report it.
3. Did not report it to TPE
control.
4. I later admitted it was a
false allegation to get
myself noticed and
the faults on the train
noticed.
There was no procedure to follow, because there was NO near miss. If there had been a procedure to follow then I do not know where it is and despite requests for it, TPE cannot and did not produce one.
Mark Atkinson keeps stating that I did this to “get myself noticed”, I have no idea where this comes from as there is no evidence anywhere to suggest this is what I have said or is the reason.
The train was not taken out of service, it remained in service till it came on the depot at the end of its diagrammed work for that day, then the faults to the side window (noise) and the renewal of a wiper motor (windscreen wipers), were addressed, on testing the horn they found it to be in working order.
HEARING DECISION FOR CHARGE 2
“The failure to follow procedure for reporting a near miss. It is my belief that this is proven because the whole incident was a premeditated fabrication. You clearly failed to follow the correct process for following and reporting and near miss. When the fault came to light the train was taken out of service for investigation and repair”.
I never once admitted or mentioned that my actions on that day were premeditated, even the investigating officer could only say, “possibly a premeditated act”. As stated earlier, there is no such procedure and if there was it would not have been used because there was no near miss. The train was only out of service for the repairs, it was not taken out of service, a near miss report would not keep a train out of service.
“I am also disturbed by your admittance of previous events and a lack of remorse shown in this hearing over this one which fails to convince me that the fabrication stop. I`m also concerned that you freely admit to fabricating previous reports and it disturbs me to think of how much of your reporting is truthful and its not just a way of getting attention in these matters”.
I never admitted to fabricating previous reports, Mark Atkinson is referring to the following passages from my hearing interview.
“I`ve done it previously and you never pulled me on it. I`ve done it when it comes to a point that I`ve been ignored and ignored and ignored”. It was aimed at the way I behaved that day, was how I always behaved faced with that type of fault.
“Yes, I put my hands up immediately straight away and told them exactly what I did and why and I`ve done that previously”. Meaning always readily admitted each time I was interviewed that the near miss was a fabrication.
“Yes, I`ve done this type of thing before, but it never”. Meaning, my referral to charge 1, the way I dealt with the defective warning horn that day was the same as any other day.
“Yes, I`ve done this type of thing before, but it never”. Meaning, my referral to charge 1, the way I dealt with the defective warning horn that day was the same as any other day.
“Mark, I`m the only driver at York that’s got two boxes over at Tanner Row, two boxes because I`m the one that puts most reports in. Previously health and safety rep, if you take time to go through them boxes you will find numerous occasions when I`ve done the same as this. I`ve never had much as a verbal or written warning about it. I`ve been spoken to but its never been classed as a verbal warning and I`ve never had a written warning about my reports”. Meaning, wrote so many reports on warning horn failures that had obviously not followed the procedures the way they thought them to be. Some really hard hitting, explaining a death will happen.
“I`ve done this previously and I didn`t see any where wrong for what I was doing. If I had been jumped on previously maybe I would have reacted differently”. Meaning, the simple failure to report to control and fax the repair slip off. It is a common occurrence, every driver is as guilty as me of this.
“It was my way of reporting faults”, Meaning, strong worded reports, not fabricated reports.
“You know that I am the type of person that has done this before, if I were jumped on before and warned and we come to an understanding then this would never have happened”. Meaning, at the time, I was trying to show MA some previous reports, showing my concerns for these very issues, they show that I never informed control, yet even though TPE had these, no manager came to me and let me know I was not supposedly doing the right thing. Although the comments state that I have done it before, I never once say that I have previously fabricated any reports.
Lets face it, if any of my numerous reports said anything resembling a near miss that never happened, do you honestly think TPE would have sat back and done absolutely nothing?
“You also failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting a near miss incident, resulting in a train being taken out of service. You subsequently admitted this was a false allegation”.
According to Mark Atkinson, I failed to follow this procedure.
1. I failed to report a near
miss incident.
2. Did not stop at the signal
box or controlling signal
and report it.
3. Did not report it to TPE
control.
4. I later admitted it was a
false allegation to get
myself noticed and
the faults on the train
noticed.
There was no procedure to follow, because there was NO near miss. If there had been a procedure to follow then I do not know where it is and despite requests for it, TPE cannot and did not produce one.
Mark Atkinson keeps stating that I did this to “get myself noticed”, I have no idea where this comes from as there is no evidence anywhere to suggest this is what I have said or is the reason.
The train was not taken out of service, it remained in service till it came on the depot at the end of its diagrammed work for that day, then the faults to the side window (noise) and the renewal of a wiper motor (windscreen wipers), were addressed, on testing the horn they found it to be in working order.
HEARING DECISION FOR CHARGE 2
“The failure to follow procedure for reporting a near miss. It is my belief that this is proven because the whole incident was a premeditated fabrication. You clearly failed to follow the correct process for following and reporting and near miss. When the fault came to light the train was taken out of service for investigation and repair”.
I never once admitted or mentioned that my actions on that day were premeditated, even the investigating officer could only say, “possibly a premeditated act”. As stated earlier, there is no such procedure and if there was it would not have been used because there was no near miss. The train was only out of service for the repairs, it was not taken out of service, a near miss report would not keep a train out of service.
“I am also disturbed by your admittance of previous events and a lack of remorse shown in this hearing over this one which fails to convince me that the fabrication stop. I`m also concerned that you freely admit to fabricating previous reports and it disturbs me to think of how much of your reporting is truthful and its not just a way of getting attention in these matters”.
I never admitted to fabricating previous reports, Mark Atkinson is referring to the following passages from my hearing interview.
“I`ve done it previously and you never pulled me on it. I`ve done it when it comes to a point that I`ve been ignored and ignored and ignored”. It was aimed at the way I behaved that day, was how I always behaved faced with that type of fault.
“Yes, I put my hands up immediately straight away and told them exactly what I did and why and I`ve done that previously”. Meaning always readily admitted each time I was interviewed that the near miss was a fabrication.
“Yes, I`ve done this type of thing before, but it never”. Meaning, my referral to charge 1, the way I dealt with the defective warning horn that day was the same as any other day.
“Yes, I`ve done this type of thing before, but it never”. Meaning, my referral to charge 1, the way I dealt with the defective warning horn that day was the same as any other day.
“Mark, I`m the only driver at York that’s got two boxes over at Tanner Row, two boxes because I`m the one that puts most reports in. Previously health and safety rep, if you take time to go through them boxes you will find numerous occasions when I`ve done the same as this. I`ve never had much as a verbal or written warning about it. I`ve been spoken to but its never been classed as a verbal warning and I`ve never had a written warning about my reports”. Meaning, wrote so many reports on warning horn failures that had obviously not followed the procedures the way they thought them to be. Some really hard hitting, explaining a death will happen.
“I`ve done this previously and I didn`t see any where wrong for what I was doing. If I had been jumped on previously maybe I would have reacted differently”. Meaning, the simple failure to report to control and fax the repair slip off. It is a common occurrence, every driver is as guilty as me of this.
“It was my way of reporting faults”, Meaning, strong worded reports, not fabricated reports.
“You know that I am the type of person that has done this before, if I were jumped on before and warned and we come to an understanding then this would never have happened”. Meaning, at the time, I was trying to show MA some previous reports, showing my concerns for these very issues, they show that I never informed control, yet even though TPE had these, no manager came to me and let me know I was not supposedly doing the right thing. Although the comments state that I have done it before, I never once say that I have previously fabricated any reports.
Lets face it, if any of my numerous reports said anything resembling a near miss that never happened, do you honestly think TPE would have sat back and done absolutely nothing?
Hearing Outcome Letter
_ “Following an investigation into a non reported near miss it was discovered that the whole incident was a premeditated fabrication and that if there had been a near miss you failed to report it correctly, I was disturbed by your admission of previous false reporting and the lack of remorse shown, this did not convince me that fabrication of safety events would not happen again, I was also concern how freely you admitted fabricating reports previously to get noticed and get things done. I have little faith in what quantity of your reports were truthful or how many were your way of getting attention. Therefore I find this charge proven.
Firstly, I dispute that the incident was premeditated; I never admitted this and the investigation never stated this. Then it cannot be said, that if there had been a near miss, I would have failed to report it. I never once said that I had previously made a false report.
Then MA seems to believe that what occurred was because I wanted to get noticed and get attention, where could he possibly form this belief from
what evidence supports his claim?
How can Mark Atkinson in my hearing charge me with failing to report a near miss to the signaller and control, then state in the disciplinary hearing letter, that the incident was actually a fabrication?
How can Mark Atkinson they go on to say, "and that if there had been a near miss you failed to report it correctly"?
It is either one or the other, was there a near miss? The answer is no.
Therefore, is there a procedure to follow? The answer is no.
How can Mark Atkinson assume that if there had been a real life near miss incident that I wouldn`t have reported it correctly? The answer is, the only way he would know is if a near miss actually happened.
So why when I receive the disciplinary outcome letter does he change his thoughts and in reference to the warning horn defect he treats the situation as if it was a partial failure of the warning horn, he fails to mention that I should have stopped the train and reported the fault to the signaller and also fails to state that I should have reduced speed!
Charge 3.
"You failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting unit defects".
Classed as Gross Misconduct for not reporting train defects, which I believe refers to the Wipers and noise problem. As these defects were clearly there and no other driver reported any train defects why didn`t all the other drivers who drove the train that day get charged with Gross Misconduct? Why only me? Why victimise me? Amazingly, I was never once asked about this charge in my hearing, why not?
Hearing Outcome Response:
"It is my belief that this issue was covered in charge one as you represented Steve and I will withdraw it on this occasion".
I cannot find a passage in the hearing minutes where my representative Steve Trumm reckons that charge 3 is covered by charge 1.
Hearing Outcome Letter dated 8th July 2009.
"Charge 3 is withdrawn due to being included and proven within charge 1".
Firstly, I dispute that the incident was premeditated; I never admitted this and the investigation never stated this. Then it cannot be said, that if there had been a near miss, I would have failed to report it. I never once said that I had previously made a false report.
Then MA seems to believe that what occurred was because I wanted to get noticed and get attention, where could he possibly form this belief from
what evidence supports his claim?
How can Mark Atkinson in my hearing charge me with failing to report a near miss to the signaller and control, then state in the disciplinary hearing letter, that the incident was actually a fabrication?
How can Mark Atkinson they go on to say, "and that if there had been a near miss you failed to report it correctly"?
It is either one or the other, was there a near miss? The answer is no.
Therefore, is there a procedure to follow? The answer is no.
How can Mark Atkinson assume that if there had been a real life near miss incident that I wouldn`t have reported it correctly? The answer is, the only way he would know is if a near miss actually happened.
So why when I receive the disciplinary outcome letter does he change his thoughts and in reference to the warning horn defect he treats the situation as if it was a partial failure of the warning horn, he fails to mention that I should have stopped the train and reported the fault to the signaller and also fails to state that I should have reduced speed!
Charge 3.
"You failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting unit defects".
Classed as Gross Misconduct for not reporting train defects, which I believe refers to the Wipers and noise problem. As these defects were clearly there and no other driver reported any train defects why didn`t all the other drivers who drove the train that day get charged with Gross Misconduct? Why only me? Why victimise me? Amazingly, I was never once asked about this charge in my hearing, why not?
Hearing Outcome Response:
"It is my belief that this issue was covered in charge one as you represented Steve and I will withdraw it on this occasion".
I cannot find a passage in the hearing minutes where my representative Steve Trumm reckons that charge 3 is covered by charge 1.
Hearing Outcome Letter dated 8th July 2009.
"Charge 3 is withdrawn due to being included and proven within charge 1".
THE FOLLOWING ARE EXTRACTS FROM MY APPEAL HEARING ON CHARGES 2 & 3
PerryW. "You also failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting a near miss incident. I'll deal with that first if you don’t mind. I explained at my interviews and at my hearing that there was no near miss. So it’s only logical there is no procedure to follow but what I will say is, not that there was any procedure in place. I have questioned about this and I know it’s not Charlotte's fault what she has replied back to me and what I have responded to her. Charlotte was told it was in the rule book, now I don’t know whether you are aware Paul but if you go through the rule book there is no procedure for reporting a near miss in the rule book. So when I let Charlotte know this she sent me another email back saying that the procedure for reporting a near miss is in Driver Competence Standards and Guidance SC1. Now you don’t have to take my word for that Paul but we can go through this, there is no reporting procedure and the word near miss is not even mentioned in this booklet".
SB. "Have you given Paul a copy".
PaulW. "We've got a copy".
PerryW It’s not mentioned once in that booklet, its not there. Now although there was no near miss to me there was no procedure to follow but if there had of been a near miss what procedure, where would I find the procedure? That's what I am saying if you see what I am getting at. To me it would have been far worse reporting a near miss that never happened. And I'm not likely to do that. It’s like hypothetically me saying to you well did TransPennine report this under RIDDOR dangerous occurrence near miss. Obviously you wouldn't have done because there was no near miss, so how can I be charged with a procedure to follow when we can’t find the procedure and there was nothing to report, can you see what point I am getting at on that.
PaulW. "Yes".
PerryW. "I fail to understand why Mark couldn't understand that, there was absolutely no procedure and nothing to follow. As for the second bit he says “resulting in a train being taken out of service” now Steve Trump explained this to him right that’s fine. On that day that train wasn’t taken out of service it continued its diagram until it came out of service at the end of its diagram but in reading that in itself it doesn't constitute a charge resulting in a train being taken out of service as it’s like a footnote, what am I being charged with there? Can you understand what I am saying".
Page 14 of 56
PaulW. "Yes".
PerryW. "And for the third part of that you subsequently admit this was a false allegation which I did from the very beginning I held my hands up when questioned by Steve Percival straight away I had nothing to hide nothing to lie I told him the truth yes it was. But again what am I being charged with in that footnote. You subsequently admitted, yeah I did admit am I being charged with admitting a false allegation like that that I actually admitted it as such. Yes I admitted it but I still can’t understand what I am being charged with there. Now I will give you the reason for that false allegation, since we got them units I have tried every way possible to get somebody to look at these warning horns.
Among other things with these trains I have put in IP reports, drivers reports, defects slips till they come out of my ears, verbal complaints to management all over the last three years and to be brutally honest I have been totally ignored. I do not get a response to any of them and you won’t find a response because there isn't one. I've always took safety very seriously so on this day in question I was thinking to myself right I've got a problem here. How do I overcome this ignorance? And sadly I had to resort to this and it was the written fabrication of this was my method and it was to highlight what could actually happen one day and it could become a reality that a track worker, a member of the public or a member of train crew is actually killed and that’s what I was worried about.
Like I'll go back to the split second when you hit the horn you get nothing, you've got to go for the other tone and if you're really unlucky your other tone won’t work as well. It’s an awful position to be in and like Sean said I have hit people that have died, I have hit people that have survived and I have missed people. I witnessed the track worker at Old Trafford being killed all for a similar thing with a warning horn so to me I actually try and find a way to prevent this, it wasn’t done with malicious intention believe me. Like Mark Atkinson inferred that I wanted the unit taking out of service. If I had ever wanted that, that would have been the place to do it at York. I didn’t, I didn’t do nothing with malicious intent and it wasn’t a pre-meditated act, it was a spur of the moment thing that I thought of that day and I didn’t go to work thinking right I am going to do this, I am going to do this, I am going to do this.
I just am I am just not like that. You know, if I offended anyone I apologise. The false accusation, to me it was done out of fear, I had a genuine belief that by doing that I might hopefully improve matters but you have got to see my point of view that if you are constantly ignored, where do you go, you are actually at your wits end and you are thinking, there are a couple of other people who report these things but they are few and far between because most of them come in and all they will do is they will say to you “that warning horn doesn't work its not very good” and I will say to them “have you put it in the book?” “Oh no it'll be all right”.
So you are stuck with that train, if you report them then and you have dobbed them in and nobody likes you for doing that. You are stuck in a situation, what do you do? And that happens every time its cold weather and you will get numerous drivers that will pass it over, over and over until it comes to me or maybe somebody like Keith Walden who is a stickler because he's a good lad he will put it in the book but he will also do what I do, he'll tell, why do you dump it on me? I'm sick of you doing this. And that’s the position you are in with it".
PaulW. "OK".
PaulW. "I have said do I believe that there is a. the ability to report and the knowledge of how to report and I think it is demonstrated in there, do I believe that Perry knows how to escalate something short of the point of I invent an event that hasn't happened, and I believe that there is documentation in there that proves that including the letter that you relied on the evidence from the HMRI, because that clearly says follow the correct reporting procedures through your Company and that’s clearly what it says. Which I will prove later on, TransPennine Express Management lie to the HMRI and say that I never informed TPE of issues I raised with the HMRI. Reporting virtually anything through the supposed correct channels always reverted to IGNORANCE.
PaulW. "As Perry said to be fair right from the start, I reported a near miss that didn’t happen to make someone take notice and to be fair he has been consistently in saying right from the start from the first interview forward. No doubt about that, that’s exactly what he said and I am saying do I think that’s a reasonable reaction to my perception of nothing is getting fixed nothing is getting done". This was my stand against overwhelming IGNORANCE.
EXTRACTS FROM JUDGE BURTON`S WRITTEN REASONS
8. That Defect Report Form was subsequently found. Not only did it report these three faults it also made a wholly false allegation that there had been a near miss of a track-side worker. That lead to an urgent investigation being made.
9. The respondent took the view that Mr Webb had committed a disciplinary offence. He had failed to follow the rulebook in relation to stopping his train and reporting the fault in relation to the horn and he had at the very least attempted to make a false statement in relation to this near miss.
Because I explained the IGNORANCE of TPE to this Judge, the above 2 sections are all he has to say on this matter, as you can see, TPE lied in the tribunal and the Judge actually believed that I should have STOPPED the train to report a partial failure of the warning horn! As for this supposedly being a disciplinary offence, all of my evidence is proof that every other Driver behaved in the same way, Stephen Percival was clearly aware of this, because of the only recommendation to come out of his Investigatory Report, which was:
“10.1 FTPE Operations Standards Department to incorporate the correct reporting procedure into safety briefs”.
11. It seems to us that Mr Webb could have saved the situation if he had acknowledged at that disciplinary hearing that he had failed to comply with that rule, if he had acknowledged the importance of complying with such rules, if he had expressed remorse and if he had demonstrated an intention to comply with such rules in the future. It may have been that the Respondents may have considered a sanction short of dismissal as having been appropriate.
This is where the Judges made their GREATEST ERRORS OF JUDGMENT, they listened to Solicitor Simon Robinson tell the tribunal that I was disobedient and that I never apologised, if I had of apologised and said I would abide by the rules they would have imposed a lesser sanction. They ignored what I tried to tell them, yet my witness statement explained the above with dialogue that was made and was recorded in the written minutes.
FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THAT RULE, COMPLYING WITH SUCH RULES
AND AN INTENTION TO COMPLY WITH SUCH RULES IN THE FUTURE
1. Where was I ever charged with failing to comply with “that” rule at my disciplinary hearing? I was supposedly charged with, “Failing to follow the correct procedure for reporting a defective warning horn”. But as I am about to point out, the hearing officer, Mark Atkinson didn`t understand what happened on the day in question because the investigation report did not mention or highlight anything about the defective warning horn.
2. Mark Atkinson said, “In relation to the charges, number one, on Wednesday 14th January you failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting a defective warning horn. That in mind, (a) you didn`t stop and report it at the controlling signaller, (b) you didn`t report it to the train operating company control, (c) at no point did you reduce the train speed, (d) you didn`t complete the repair book procedure correctly”.
a. The reason being is that rule book TW5, section 37, doesn`t say this, MA is not aware of the facts surrounding this case, the question here is why not? MA is charging me with something that never happened. This is where the investigation failed, or as is plainly obvious in that what I explained was ignored because TPE had only one thing on their mind and that was to dismiss me. Charge unfounded.
A further and very relevant point to make on this charge is that when I received the disciplinary hearing outcome letter from MA, he makes no mention that I never contacted the signaller, only that I didn`t report it to control. I find this further proof of trying to make anything possible stick against me.
b. Hardly the crime of the century, but as I have shown, I am not the only one who forgets. But at least I did attempt to inform control and as I have shown, it was only due to confusion and time restraints that I forgot. The DOM on duty would have verified all the confusion and time it took to sort out, so would the timings of both trains, but neither obtained.
c. TW5, section 37, does not tell me to reduce speed, again this charge is unfounded. It would have helped if Barry Cook when leveling those charges against me had actually taken time to quote which rule had been broken. Because it`s extremely evident that this is being made up as we go along. Charge unfounded.
d. It remained in service because every other driver found it safe to run. I knew it was safe to run, I have come across these problems so many times I was familiar with what control would say and this is proven in the (DOTE) Defective On Train Contingency Plans, , that train was safe to finish its journey. Charge unfounded
e. How could I have possibly acknowledged at my disciplinary hearing that I had failed to comply with that “rule”? When Mark Atkinson is charging me with a complete failure of the warning horn when this was not the case.
3. All the way through my interrogation, (audio copy proves my hearing was an interrogation), Mark Atkinson is of the opinion that I had a complete failure of the warning horn which is completely untrue. He makes his decision to dismiss on this issue.
But then when I receive the disciplinary outcome letter he changes his thoughts and refers to the warning horn defect and treats the situation as if it was a partial failure of the warning horn, he fails to mention that I should have stopped the train and reported the fault to the signaller and also fails to state that I should have reduced speed!
4. Mark Atkinson was asked by my representative Steve Trumm, “What is your ideal solution to the issue”, “What do we do collectively as a grade of drivers to operate to the standards you want us to operate to with these trains? Do you want every train pulled every time there was a horn defect”? Mark Atkinson`s response was, “I don’t know”, “and I don`t think it is for debate in this forum”. This is a senior manager, who basically cannot answer what he expects of drivers under his control faced with the exact same problem that I had, he admits that he doesn`t know!
5. I readily admitted at my hearing that I had treated this rule the same way before, I said, “You know I am the type of person that had done this before, if I were jumped on before and warned and we come to an understanding then this would never have happened”, yet I supposedly never demonstrated an intention never to comply with such rules in the future!
6. I also highlighted and supplied proof that other drivers had behaved in the same way as myself in how they interpreted the rules with some actually ignoring complete failures of the warning horn, which is far, far worse than what I had supposedly been charged with, I still have this proof. Why after I supplied my evidence wasn`t any other driver charged? Equity?
7. I supposedly failed to follow correct procedures, yet TPE didn`t understand their own procedures, I was charged with failing to report a near miss using the correct procedures, so I requested from TPE a copy of this near miss procedure, the response that I got was that it was in the rule book, I knew it wasn`t and requested it again, this time I was told it was in the Driver Competence Standards booklet, which is was not, so here I am being given a charge of gross misconduct for a procedure that they cannot supply me with.
8. Regarding my supposed failure and non intention to comply with the rules, the following is a transcript from my appeal hearing.
PaulW. “The first point of clarification for me is, in terms of reporting the partial failure, your case today is definitely that you feel you have applied the rule book in terms of you attempted to report it twice via the cab radio at the most convenient opportunity”.
PerryW. “The most convenient chance”.
PaulW. “At the first convenient opportunity”.
PerryW.”Yes”.
PaulW. “Do you think that the actions of therefore trying it again, next place up, I think you said Northallerton”.
PerryW. “That’s right, that’s where I stopped next”.
PaulW. ”Do you think that meets the requirements of that section of the rule book”?
PerryW. “Yes”.
PaulW. “Ok”.
PerryW. “That’s my interpretation of the rule book”. “The word convenient is what I am going at, nothing else”. “and I don`t like using the cab radio when I am on the move”.
PaulW. “No”?
PerryW. “Its distracting, I stopped first at Darlington then Northallerton and that is why I saw them as convenient places”.
PaulW. “Partial failure, clearly in there it says stop where convenient and report to control. What I am saying is at that point of I have a defective warning horn because for part of that journey even if I take your point, (very garbled text, possibly indicating that horn worked half of the time), and the two stops where you attempted to use the cab radio the contact was defective, the question that I would ask, why at those stops did you not use another method of communication”?
PerryW. “Basically, well basically it doesn`t say that in the rule book, but at Darlington, if you know Darlington when you come into Darlington there is no way that I could get to a telephone in time without delaying the train and when you actually run in there sometimes the GNER staff which happened this day had already pressed the plunger, the signal was green and main, there`s just no time to do it.
PaulW. “Ok”.
PerryW. “That’s the only reason”.
PaulW. “And all I am saying is at this stage we have got a partially defective warning horn, there are other methods of communication, there are phone conversations, the conductor on the train has a phone, there are signal post telephones, there are a number of ways for raising that issue for the duration of the time that the horn was partially defective, all of which you elected not to use.
PerryW. “Again, it was intermittent, Paul, it works then it doesn`t, then it works, then it doesn`t, and I went by what the actual wording of that rule book said”.
PaulW. “Ok”.
PerryW. “If it had said by any expeditious means whatever, then obviously I would have to think of the mobile phone with the conductor, but again you know what it’s like when you are not allowed to use a mobile phone, you are in an awkward situation”.
The following is transcript which appeared later in my appeal hearing.
PaulW. “In terms of reporting and you yourself this afternoon have referred to this as you did in the hearing about the provisions of the rule book for a partially defective horn not obviously a defective horn and you say as quite rightly to stop at the first convenient opportunity.
Just for clarity I will, I don`t normally read these things through but I will for clarity on this occasion. You must stop your train at the first opportunity, convenient opportunity, when you become aware of a defect on the following equipment and tell the train operators control. And there is a list of things of which warning horn partial failure is formed as one. The first convenient opportunity may include the next schedule station or other stopping point in the journey, or when detained at a signal following a stop aspect. If reporting the defect will cause delay, you must tell the signaler the reason for the delay. That actually in totality what is says. What Perry has said he has done, is use the cab radio on two separate locations and for reasons of static, bad connection or whatever could not get through. So did he report it, no he didn`t, Do I believe that there is other opportunity to report. Theres signal post telephones at locations, theres telephones on the platforms, theres a telephone with the conductor”.
PerryW. “All it says is report it to control, not the signaler”.
PaulW. “But you can report it to control via the signal box, so effectively what I am saying to you is only my opinion, but you have said to me how important you view this in terms of a safety equipment failure and you believe that fulfills, so if you ask the questions do you believe that fulfills what we call the rule book, two failed cab radio calls, do you think that’s sufficient and Perry to be fair said yes he does, I`m saying I don`t believe it is by a long way”.
PerryW. “But I only went by the wording of what I read, that would then suggest that that needs altering”.
Continued yet again later in the appeal hearing.
PaulW. “The reason why I am making the point is that because it clearly says you must stop and tell your control when it’s convenient, when the convenient opportunity arises, you have become aware of the defect then it gives a list of defects, then it says what the convenient opportunity might be, which includes the next scheduled station stop or a stopping point on the journey or when the train is at a signal with a stop aspect. If reporting the defect causes delay you must tell the signaler the reason for delay. So even accepting delay to the service, safety comes first, that’s what is here, to be fair in your defence earlier you said, you didn`t want to cause delay”.
PerryW.”Obviously my interpretation is different from what I read, but like I say, you would have thought that that would have been briefed into us”.
PaulW. “Well its part of the rule book”.
PerryW. “I interpreted it different, that was all”.
Continued again later in the appeal hearing.
PaulW. “I`m saying in terms of the rule book and what it requires for partial defects. Do I think two attempts on a cab radio is reasonable to discharge the responsibility in that rule book? No I don`t”.
PerryW. “They were the two next stopping places, there was no other stoppages along there, I had no reason to stop out of course at a signalpost phone or anything, I had green signals all the way, green signal at Darlington, green signal at Northallerton”.
PaulW. “But having stopped the train you had more than one opportunity did you not to use any phone available so that you could speak to our control, but you didn`t, you didn`t”.
PerryW. “Well no, because I couldn`t find a phone in time, I mean think about it”.
PaulW. “Well with respect”.
PerryW. “Do you know the layout of Darlington and Northallerton”?
PaulW. “I think that’s a nonsense”.
PerryW. “The rule book, I went exactly by what it said, convenient, stopping places, there was two, that’s what I did”.
PaulW. “Do I believe that discharged the rule book? No I don`t”.
PaulW. “Do I believe Perry would know to go and speak with his demons of the past is what I come to. Do I think not getting on the phone is by chance or something else. You ask me why you’ve never been told not to do it before. I`m not using previous disciplines”. Do I think you followed the correct procedure, do I think actions reasonable, I’ve decided to uphold the original decision”.
Rule Book, Part A, 2.2 Driver reporting a defect.
When you are required to report defective on train equipment, depending on the on train equipment concerned, you must.
Tell the train operators control at the first convenient opportunity (see 1.2b).
If possible you must avoid stopping the train:
On a junction.
At any other place where it might be difficult to deal with the situation.
I would have found it in my mind difficult at both Darlington and Northallerton and also in stopping at Northallerton as I was on a busy junction.
Mark Atkinson and Paul Watson were also unfamiliar with the route I was on and didn`t have any knowledge of Darlington and Northallerton.
As you will have seen, this all boils down to the interpretation of the rule book, I never previously treated this ruling any different, and always behaved in the same way and with the same interpretation and approach to this rule, why wasn`t this picked up previously? Every other driver behaved the same way. Is this therefore really something that warranted gross misconduct or is it a simple training issue?
Quite clearly TPE realised that something was wrong procedurally because the only recommendation to come out of their investigation was worded as follows. “10.1 FTPE Operations Standards Department to incorporate the correct reporting procedure into safety briefs”.
Amazingly, you would have thought that FTPE would have implemented their recommendation, yet I have 12 email responses from drivers who said this recommendation was not incorporated into their safety briefs.
EXPRESSING REMORSE
1. You need to listen to the audio disc of my hearing, I have never experienced a manager behaving how Mark Atkinson did that afternoon. He clearly never approached this hearing with an open mind, his anger was unbelievable, he charged me with the wrong rule, even though I made it plainly obvious to him what type of warning horn failure I had, therefore I was not in any position to show remorse for something I hadn`t done especially facing the hostility this man was showing.
2. I did however apologise to Paul Watson, I said, “If I offended anyone, I apologise”, this is documented in the minutes.
PerryW. "You also failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting a near miss incident. I'll deal with that first if you don’t mind. I explained at my interviews and at my hearing that there was no near miss. So it’s only logical there is no procedure to follow but what I will say is, not that there was any procedure in place. I have questioned about this and I know it’s not Charlotte's fault what she has replied back to me and what I have responded to her. Charlotte was told it was in the rule book, now I don’t know whether you are aware Paul but if you go through the rule book there is no procedure for reporting a near miss in the rule book. So when I let Charlotte know this she sent me another email back saying that the procedure for reporting a near miss is in Driver Competence Standards and Guidance SC1. Now you don’t have to take my word for that Paul but we can go through this, there is no reporting procedure and the word near miss is not even mentioned in this booklet".
SB. "Have you given Paul a copy".
PaulW. "We've got a copy".
PerryW It’s not mentioned once in that booklet, its not there. Now although there was no near miss to me there was no procedure to follow but if there had of been a near miss what procedure, where would I find the procedure? That's what I am saying if you see what I am getting at. To me it would have been far worse reporting a near miss that never happened. And I'm not likely to do that. It’s like hypothetically me saying to you well did TransPennine report this under RIDDOR dangerous occurrence near miss. Obviously you wouldn't have done because there was no near miss, so how can I be charged with a procedure to follow when we can’t find the procedure and there was nothing to report, can you see what point I am getting at on that.
PaulW. "Yes".
PerryW. "I fail to understand why Mark couldn't understand that, there was absolutely no procedure and nothing to follow. As for the second bit he says “resulting in a train being taken out of service” now Steve Trump explained this to him right that’s fine. On that day that train wasn’t taken out of service it continued its diagram until it came out of service at the end of its diagram but in reading that in itself it doesn't constitute a charge resulting in a train being taken out of service as it’s like a footnote, what am I being charged with there? Can you understand what I am saying".
Page 14 of 56
PaulW. "Yes".
PerryW. "And for the third part of that you subsequently admit this was a false allegation which I did from the very beginning I held my hands up when questioned by Steve Percival straight away I had nothing to hide nothing to lie I told him the truth yes it was. But again what am I being charged with in that footnote. You subsequently admitted, yeah I did admit am I being charged with admitting a false allegation like that that I actually admitted it as such. Yes I admitted it but I still can’t understand what I am being charged with there. Now I will give you the reason for that false allegation, since we got them units I have tried every way possible to get somebody to look at these warning horns.
Among other things with these trains I have put in IP reports, drivers reports, defects slips till they come out of my ears, verbal complaints to management all over the last three years and to be brutally honest I have been totally ignored. I do not get a response to any of them and you won’t find a response because there isn't one. I've always took safety very seriously so on this day in question I was thinking to myself right I've got a problem here. How do I overcome this ignorance? And sadly I had to resort to this and it was the written fabrication of this was my method and it was to highlight what could actually happen one day and it could become a reality that a track worker, a member of the public or a member of train crew is actually killed and that’s what I was worried about.
Like I'll go back to the split second when you hit the horn you get nothing, you've got to go for the other tone and if you're really unlucky your other tone won’t work as well. It’s an awful position to be in and like Sean said I have hit people that have died, I have hit people that have survived and I have missed people. I witnessed the track worker at Old Trafford being killed all for a similar thing with a warning horn so to me I actually try and find a way to prevent this, it wasn’t done with malicious intention believe me. Like Mark Atkinson inferred that I wanted the unit taking out of service. If I had ever wanted that, that would have been the place to do it at York. I didn’t, I didn’t do nothing with malicious intent and it wasn’t a pre-meditated act, it was a spur of the moment thing that I thought of that day and I didn’t go to work thinking right I am going to do this, I am going to do this, I am going to do this.
I just am I am just not like that. You know, if I offended anyone I apologise. The false accusation, to me it was done out of fear, I had a genuine belief that by doing that I might hopefully improve matters but you have got to see my point of view that if you are constantly ignored, where do you go, you are actually at your wits end and you are thinking, there are a couple of other people who report these things but they are few and far between because most of them come in and all they will do is they will say to you “that warning horn doesn't work its not very good” and I will say to them “have you put it in the book?” “Oh no it'll be all right”.
So you are stuck with that train, if you report them then and you have dobbed them in and nobody likes you for doing that. You are stuck in a situation, what do you do? And that happens every time its cold weather and you will get numerous drivers that will pass it over, over and over until it comes to me or maybe somebody like Keith Walden who is a stickler because he's a good lad he will put it in the book but he will also do what I do, he'll tell, why do you dump it on me? I'm sick of you doing this. And that’s the position you are in with it".
PaulW. "OK".
PaulW. "I have said do I believe that there is a. the ability to report and the knowledge of how to report and I think it is demonstrated in there, do I believe that Perry knows how to escalate something short of the point of I invent an event that hasn't happened, and I believe that there is documentation in there that proves that including the letter that you relied on the evidence from the HMRI, because that clearly says follow the correct reporting procedures through your Company and that’s clearly what it says. Which I will prove later on, TransPennine Express Management lie to the HMRI and say that I never informed TPE of issues I raised with the HMRI. Reporting virtually anything through the supposed correct channels always reverted to IGNORANCE.
PaulW. "As Perry said to be fair right from the start, I reported a near miss that didn’t happen to make someone take notice and to be fair he has been consistently in saying right from the start from the first interview forward. No doubt about that, that’s exactly what he said and I am saying do I think that’s a reasonable reaction to my perception of nothing is getting fixed nothing is getting done". This was my stand against overwhelming IGNORANCE.
EXTRACTS FROM JUDGE BURTON`S WRITTEN REASONS
8. That Defect Report Form was subsequently found. Not only did it report these three faults it also made a wholly false allegation that there had been a near miss of a track-side worker. That lead to an urgent investigation being made.
9. The respondent took the view that Mr Webb had committed a disciplinary offence. He had failed to follow the rulebook in relation to stopping his train and reporting the fault in relation to the horn and he had at the very least attempted to make a false statement in relation to this near miss.
Because I explained the IGNORANCE of TPE to this Judge, the above 2 sections are all he has to say on this matter, as you can see, TPE lied in the tribunal and the Judge actually believed that I should have STOPPED the train to report a partial failure of the warning horn! As for this supposedly being a disciplinary offence, all of my evidence is proof that every other Driver behaved in the same way, Stephen Percival was clearly aware of this, because of the only recommendation to come out of his Investigatory Report, which was:
“10.1 FTPE Operations Standards Department to incorporate the correct reporting procedure into safety briefs”.
11. It seems to us that Mr Webb could have saved the situation if he had acknowledged at that disciplinary hearing that he had failed to comply with that rule, if he had acknowledged the importance of complying with such rules, if he had expressed remorse and if he had demonstrated an intention to comply with such rules in the future. It may have been that the Respondents may have considered a sanction short of dismissal as having been appropriate.
This is where the Judges made their GREATEST ERRORS OF JUDGMENT, they listened to Solicitor Simon Robinson tell the tribunal that I was disobedient and that I never apologised, if I had of apologised and said I would abide by the rules they would have imposed a lesser sanction. They ignored what I tried to tell them, yet my witness statement explained the above with dialogue that was made and was recorded in the written minutes.
FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THAT RULE, COMPLYING WITH SUCH RULES
AND AN INTENTION TO COMPLY WITH SUCH RULES IN THE FUTURE
1. Where was I ever charged with failing to comply with “that” rule at my disciplinary hearing? I was supposedly charged with, “Failing to follow the correct procedure for reporting a defective warning horn”. But as I am about to point out, the hearing officer, Mark Atkinson didn`t understand what happened on the day in question because the investigation report did not mention or highlight anything about the defective warning horn.
2. Mark Atkinson said, “In relation to the charges, number one, on Wednesday 14th January you failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting a defective warning horn. That in mind, (a) you didn`t stop and report it at the controlling signaller, (b) you didn`t report it to the train operating company control, (c) at no point did you reduce the train speed, (d) you didn`t complete the repair book procedure correctly”.
a. The reason being is that rule book TW5, section 37, doesn`t say this, MA is not aware of the facts surrounding this case, the question here is why not? MA is charging me with something that never happened. This is where the investigation failed, or as is plainly obvious in that what I explained was ignored because TPE had only one thing on their mind and that was to dismiss me. Charge unfounded.
A further and very relevant point to make on this charge is that when I received the disciplinary hearing outcome letter from MA, he makes no mention that I never contacted the signaller, only that I didn`t report it to control. I find this further proof of trying to make anything possible stick against me.
b. Hardly the crime of the century, but as I have shown, I am not the only one who forgets. But at least I did attempt to inform control and as I have shown, it was only due to confusion and time restraints that I forgot. The DOM on duty would have verified all the confusion and time it took to sort out, so would the timings of both trains, but neither obtained.
c. TW5, section 37, does not tell me to reduce speed, again this charge is unfounded. It would have helped if Barry Cook when leveling those charges against me had actually taken time to quote which rule had been broken. Because it`s extremely evident that this is being made up as we go along. Charge unfounded.
d. It remained in service because every other driver found it safe to run. I knew it was safe to run, I have come across these problems so many times I was familiar with what control would say and this is proven in the (DOTE) Defective On Train Contingency Plans, , that train was safe to finish its journey. Charge unfounded
e. How could I have possibly acknowledged at my disciplinary hearing that I had failed to comply with that “rule”? When Mark Atkinson is charging me with a complete failure of the warning horn when this was not the case.
3. All the way through my interrogation, (audio copy proves my hearing was an interrogation), Mark Atkinson is of the opinion that I had a complete failure of the warning horn which is completely untrue. He makes his decision to dismiss on this issue.
But then when I receive the disciplinary outcome letter he changes his thoughts and refers to the warning horn defect and treats the situation as if it was a partial failure of the warning horn, he fails to mention that I should have stopped the train and reported the fault to the signaller and also fails to state that I should have reduced speed!
4. Mark Atkinson was asked by my representative Steve Trumm, “What is your ideal solution to the issue”, “What do we do collectively as a grade of drivers to operate to the standards you want us to operate to with these trains? Do you want every train pulled every time there was a horn defect”? Mark Atkinson`s response was, “I don’t know”, “and I don`t think it is for debate in this forum”. This is a senior manager, who basically cannot answer what he expects of drivers under his control faced with the exact same problem that I had, he admits that he doesn`t know!
5. I readily admitted at my hearing that I had treated this rule the same way before, I said, “You know I am the type of person that had done this before, if I were jumped on before and warned and we come to an understanding then this would never have happened”, yet I supposedly never demonstrated an intention never to comply with such rules in the future!
6. I also highlighted and supplied proof that other drivers had behaved in the same way as myself in how they interpreted the rules with some actually ignoring complete failures of the warning horn, which is far, far worse than what I had supposedly been charged with, I still have this proof. Why after I supplied my evidence wasn`t any other driver charged? Equity?
7. I supposedly failed to follow correct procedures, yet TPE didn`t understand their own procedures, I was charged with failing to report a near miss using the correct procedures, so I requested from TPE a copy of this near miss procedure, the response that I got was that it was in the rule book, I knew it wasn`t and requested it again, this time I was told it was in the Driver Competence Standards booklet, which is was not, so here I am being given a charge of gross misconduct for a procedure that they cannot supply me with.
8. Regarding my supposed failure and non intention to comply with the rules, the following is a transcript from my appeal hearing.
PaulW. “The first point of clarification for me is, in terms of reporting the partial failure, your case today is definitely that you feel you have applied the rule book in terms of you attempted to report it twice via the cab radio at the most convenient opportunity”.
PerryW. “The most convenient chance”.
PaulW. “At the first convenient opportunity”.
PerryW.”Yes”.
PaulW. “Do you think that the actions of therefore trying it again, next place up, I think you said Northallerton”.
PerryW. “That’s right, that’s where I stopped next”.
PaulW. ”Do you think that meets the requirements of that section of the rule book”?
PerryW. “Yes”.
PaulW. “Ok”.
PerryW. “That’s my interpretation of the rule book”. “The word convenient is what I am going at, nothing else”. “and I don`t like using the cab radio when I am on the move”.
PaulW. “No”?
PerryW. “Its distracting, I stopped first at Darlington then Northallerton and that is why I saw them as convenient places”.
PaulW. “Partial failure, clearly in there it says stop where convenient and report to control. What I am saying is at that point of I have a defective warning horn because for part of that journey even if I take your point, (very garbled text, possibly indicating that horn worked half of the time), and the two stops where you attempted to use the cab radio the contact was defective, the question that I would ask, why at those stops did you not use another method of communication”?
PerryW. “Basically, well basically it doesn`t say that in the rule book, but at Darlington, if you know Darlington when you come into Darlington there is no way that I could get to a telephone in time without delaying the train and when you actually run in there sometimes the GNER staff which happened this day had already pressed the plunger, the signal was green and main, there`s just no time to do it.
PaulW. “Ok”.
PerryW. “That’s the only reason”.
PaulW. “And all I am saying is at this stage we have got a partially defective warning horn, there are other methods of communication, there are phone conversations, the conductor on the train has a phone, there are signal post telephones, there are a number of ways for raising that issue for the duration of the time that the horn was partially defective, all of which you elected not to use.
PerryW. “Again, it was intermittent, Paul, it works then it doesn`t, then it works, then it doesn`t, and I went by what the actual wording of that rule book said”.
PaulW. “Ok”.
PerryW. “If it had said by any expeditious means whatever, then obviously I would have to think of the mobile phone with the conductor, but again you know what it’s like when you are not allowed to use a mobile phone, you are in an awkward situation”.
The following is transcript which appeared later in my appeal hearing.
PaulW. “In terms of reporting and you yourself this afternoon have referred to this as you did in the hearing about the provisions of the rule book for a partially defective horn not obviously a defective horn and you say as quite rightly to stop at the first convenient opportunity.
Just for clarity I will, I don`t normally read these things through but I will for clarity on this occasion. You must stop your train at the first opportunity, convenient opportunity, when you become aware of a defect on the following equipment and tell the train operators control. And there is a list of things of which warning horn partial failure is formed as one. The first convenient opportunity may include the next schedule station or other stopping point in the journey, or when detained at a signal following a stop aspect. If reporting the defect will cause delay, you must tell the signaler the reason for the delay. That actually in totality what is says. What Perry has said he has done, is use the cab radio on two separate locations and for reasons of static, bad connection or whatever could not get through. So did he report it, no he didn`t, Do I believe that there is other opportunity to report. Theres signal post telephones at locations, theres telephones on the platforms, theres a telephone with the conductor”.
PerryW. “All it says is report it to control, not the signaler”.
PaulW. “But you can report it to control via the signal box, so effectively what I am saying to you is only my opinion, but you have said to me how important you view this in terms of a safety equipment failure and you believe that fulfills, so if you ask the questions do you believe that fulfills what we call the rule book, two failed cab radio calls, do you think that’s sufficient and Perry to be fair said yes he does, I`m saying I don`t believe it is by a long way”.
PerryW. “But I only went by the wording of what I read, that would then suggest that that needs altering”.
Continued yet again later in the appeal hearing.
PaulW. “The reason why I am making the point is that because it clearly says you must stop and tell your control when it’s convenient, when the convenient opportunity arises, you have become aware of the defect then it gives a list of defects, then it says what the convenient opportunity might be, which includes the next scheduled station stop or a stopping point on the journey or when the train is at a signal with a stop aspect. If reporting the defect causes delay you must tell the signaler the reason for delay. So even accepting delay to the service, safety comes first, that’s what is here, to be fair in your defence earlier you said, you didn`t want to cause delay”.
PerryW.”Obviously my interpretation is different from what I read, but like I say, you would have thought that that would have been briefed into us”.
PaulW. “Well its part of the rule book”.
PerryW. “I interpreted it different, that was all”.
Continued again later in the appeal hearing.
PaulW. “I`m saying in terms of the rule book and what it requires for partial defects. Do I think two attempts on a cab radio is reasonable to discharge the responsibility in that rule book? No I don`t”.
PerryW. “They were the two next stopping places, there was no other stoppages along there, I had no reason to stop out of course at a signalpost phone or anything, I had green signals all the way, green signal at Darlington, green signal at Northallerton”.
PaulW. “But having stopped the train you had more than one opportunity did you not to use any phone available so that you could speak to our control, but you didn`t, you didn`t”.
PerryW. “Well no, because I couldn`t find a phone in time, I mean think about it”.
PaulW. “Well with respect”.
PerryW. “Do you know the layout of Darlington and Northallerton”?
PaulW. “I think that’s a nonsense”.
PerryW. “The rule book, I went exactly by what it said, convenient, stopping places, there was two, that’s what I did”.
PaulW. “Do I believe that discharged the rule book? No I don`t”.
PaulW. “Do I believe Perry would know to go and speak with his demons of the past is what I come to. Do I think not getting on the phone is by chance or something else. You ask me why you’ve never been told not to do it before. I`m not using previous disciplines”. Do I think you followed the correct procedure, do I think actions reasonable, I’ve decided to uphold the original decision”.
Rule Book, Part A, 2.2 Driver reporting a defect.
When you are required to report defective on train equipment, depending on the on train equipment concerned, you must.
Tell the train operators control at the first convenient opportunity (see 1.2b).
If possible you must avoid stopping the train:
On a junction.
At any other place where it might be difficult to deal with the situation.
I would have found it in my mind difficult at both Darlington and Northallerton and also in stopping at Northallerton as I was on a busy junction.
Mark Atkinson and Paul Watson were also unfamiliar with the route I was on and didn`t have any knowledge of Darlington and Northallerton.
As you will have seen, this all boils down to the interpretation of the rule book, I never previously treated this ruling any different, and always behaved in the same way and with the same interpretation and approach to this rule, why wasn`t this picked up previously? Every other driver behaved the same way. Is this therefore really something that warranted gross misconduct or is it a simple training issue?
Quite clearly TPE realised that something was wrong procedurally because the only recommendation to come out of their investigation was worded as follows. “10.1 FTPE Operations Standards Department to incorporate the correct reporting procedure into safety briefs”.
Amazingly, you would have thought that FTPE would have implemented their recommendation, yet I have 12 email responses from drivers who said this recommendation was not incorporated into their safety briefs.
EXPRESSING REMORSE
1. You need to listen to the audio disc of my hearing, I have never experienced a manager behaving how Mark Atkinson did that afternoon. He clearly never approached this hearing with an open mind, his anger was unbelievable, he charged me with the wrong rule, even though I made it plainly obvious to him what type of warning horn failure I had, therefore I was not in any position to show remorse for something I hadn`t done especially facing the hostility this man was showing.
2. I did however apologise to Paul Watson, I said, “If I offended anyone, I apologise”, this is documented in the minutes.
APPEAL HEARING OUTCOME LETTER
CHARGE 2, "You also failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting a near miss incident, resulting in a train being taken out of service. You subsequently admitted that this was a false allegation".
What happened to failing to follow the correct procedure?
What happened to the train supposedly coming out of traffic?Was I ever charged with "admitting" to making a false allegation of a safety event?
In light of the years of IGNORANCE, which was displayed throughout my hearing and appeal, is there any wonder that I had to try a different way to get attention to faults that had been there for years.
“As professionals all of us have to remember we`re human beings, all of us have to take the necessary precautions including the use of ANY TECHNIQUES available that enable us to master those human characteristics that CAN EXPOSE RISK in the field of train driving”. This is quite simply what I did. To me it was a necessary precaution to one day save someone from being killed. You would think that these words are mine but these are not my words, they come from a TPE summer brief document.
Lets not forget TPE`s own admission on warning horn faults:
TPE FLEET UPDATE, PERIOD 10, 7th Dec 2008 to 3rd January 2009
Class 185 Horns:
The issue of class 185 air horn defects is one problem about which FTPE driver
wish to know what is happening. SINCE INTRODUCTION, horn faults have
become prevalent during the winter months especially during damp conditions.
A number of alterations to the system have already been carried out in the form of
pressure regulators, non return valves, settings and adjustments, we have discussed
this matter further with Siemens and the following protocol will now be as follows.
Charge 3, was never mentioned!
AS IS CLEARLY EVIDENT, EVERYTHING WAS MADE TO FIT.