CASE MANAGEMENT DISCUSSION 16TH APRIL 2010
BEFORE EMPLOYMENT JUDGE COLIN GRAZIN
The following 3 pages are from a Case Management Meeting with Solicitor Simon Robinson and Employment Judge Colin Grazin, it basically sets out what is required for the Tribunal.
BEFORE EMPLOYMENT JUDGE COLIN GRAZIN
The following 3 pages are from a Case Management Meeting with Solicitor Simon Robinson and Employment Judge Colin Grazin, it basically sets out what is required for the Tribunal.
No1: I had set out my case which produced 3 large files of evidence, we had a lengthy discussion why I wanted these files for my defence, there was many different reports in these files, probably well over 200 Drivers reports which I said had not been responded to. I also explained that I had many more reports at home.
I explained they were proof that TPE Management IGNORED my representations on all health and safety issues. Solicitor Simon Robinson conceded that this was true and as Judge Grazin wrote, "It is equally not in dispute that in the vast majority, if not all, of those cases, the Respondent (TPE) simply did not respond to them".
I ask anyone reading the above comment by Judge Grazin, where safety on the railway is paramount, don't you think that the IGNORANCE and utter contempt shown by TPE is detrimental to everyone's safety?
Solicitor Simon Robinson knew that TPE never responded to my reports through a previous Case Management Discussion where I produced 150 reports and challenged TPE to show they responded to them.
Judge Grazin said 150 reports was far too many and that I should select 20 reports and email them to TPE on a spreadsheet. I have added this spreadsheet below and this shows what response these reports received, although I am sure you can guess the outcome.
I explained they were proof that TPE Management IGNORED my representations on all health and safety issues. Solicitor Simon Robinson conceded that this was true and as Judge Grazin wrote, "It is equally not in dispute that in the vast majority, if not all, of those cases, the Respondent (TPE) simply did not respond to them".
I ask anyone reading the above comment by Judge Grazin, where safety on the railway is paramount, don't you think that the IGNORANCE and utter contempt shown by TPE is detrimental to everyone's safety?
Solicitor Simon Robinson knew that TPE never responded to my reports through a previous Case Management Discussion where I produced 150 reports and challenged TPE to show they responded to them.
Judge Grazin said 150 reports was far too many and that I should select 20 reports and email them to TPE on a spreadsheet. I have added this spreadsheet below and this shows what response these reports received, although I am sure you can guess the outcome.
A full admission by TransPennine Express Management that they IGNORED all my reports, "NO RESPONSE OR COMMENTS PROVIDED TO THE CLAIMANT BY THE RESPONDENT".
No2: Explains that in order to make TPE aware of the serious implications of running trains with defective warning horns, TPE should have taken account of the numerous reports that they admitted IGNORING.
No2: Explains that in order to make TPE aware of the serious implications of running trains with defective warning horns, TPE should have taken account of the numerous reports that they admitted IGNORING.
No3: It was agreed that No`s 1 & 2 were an accurate summary of events so far. In other words, TPE Management did not dispute their IGNORANCE.
No5: Shows the unbelievable acceptance that TPE did not respond to the previous request by Judge Grazin to answer the spreadsheet containing the reports and provide any response they had given at the time. The reason being that they, "did not consider it necessary to do so"!
No6: Further categorical proof of TPE Management IGNORANCE, "The actual evidence that the complaints were made and were not acted upon will not, in practical terms, be in dispute"!
How in light of a blatant admission of IGNORANCE can TPE not take into account my representations? Stupid question really, the answer being that no matter what evidence I produced a decision had already been made to dismiss me.
No5: Shows the unbelievable acceptance that TPE did not respond to the previous request by Judge Grazin to answer the spreadsheet containing the reports and provide any response they had given at the time. The reason being that they, "did not consider it necessary to do so"!
No6: Further categorical proof of TPE Management IGNORANCE, "The actual evidence that the complaints were made and were not acted upon will not, in practical terms, be in dispute"!
How in light of a blatant admission of IGNORANCE can TPE not take into account my representations? Stupid question really, the answer being that no matter what evidence I produced a decision had already been made to dismiss me.
No9: I requested many items from TPE, one of these was a copy of the reviews promised by Managing Vernon Barker in his email to myself dated 18th February 2009, wording as follows:-
Re: Urgent
From:[email protected]
Sent: 18 February 2009 17:58:52
To: Perry Webb ([email protected])
1 attachment
SP and BC...rtf (8.3 KB)
"Picking up that you have concerns over the motive of your immediate local management I have asked Paul Watson, Operations Director to assign an independent driver management party to conduct the above investigations".
"Separately FTPE have a clear harassment policy and I am aware you have suggested that local management have acted in a way that does not act in accordance with that policy. I have further asked Paul Watson to engage an independent party to review this suggestion. I will not, nor shall my colleagues, tolerate harassment at FTPE and any allegation will be fully investigated".
"I hope you feel that by ensuring independent driver management resource conduct the investigations and there is also an independent review of any alleged harassment that this matter is not being taken lightly and I have addressed you're desire to bring these matters to my attention".
"I await with interest the outcome of the reviews. [Details of those engaged to review will be followed up in due course]".
RESPONSE FROM TPE: I have no need to explain, it is the usual, common, normal outcome, IGNORANCE.
Most annoyingly, Judge Colin Grazin was removed from my tribunal 3 days before it was due to go ahead without any reason being given and Judge Burton was brought in as a replacement without any prior knowledge of these Case Management Discussions!
Then lets not forget, Judge Burton did not let me read out my witness statement.
Re: Urgent
From:[email protected]
Sent: 18 February 2009 17:58:52
To: Perry Webb ([email protected])
1 attachment
SP and BC...rtf (8.3 KB)
"Picking up that you have concerns over the motive of your immediate local management I have asked Paul Watson, Operations Director to assign an independent driver management party to conduct the above investigations".
"Separately FTPE have a clear harassment policy and I am aware you have suggested that local management have acted in a way that does not act in accordance with that policy. I have further asked Paul Watson to engage an independent party to review this suggestion. I will not, nor shall my colleagues, tolerate harassment at FTPE and any allegation will be fully investigated".
"I hope you feel that by ensuring independent driver management resource conduct the investigations and there is also an independent review of any alleged harassment that this matter is not being taken lightly and I have addressed you're desire to bring these matters to my attention".
"I await with interest the outcome of the reviews. [Details of those engaged to review will be followed up in due course]".
RESPONSE FROM TPE: I have no need to explain, it is the usual, common, normal outcome, IGNORANCE.
Most annoyingly, Judge Colin Grazin was removed from my tribunal 3 days before it was due to go ahead without any reason being given and Judge Burton was brought in as a replacement without any prior knowledge of these Case Management Discussions!
Then lets not forget, Judge Burton did not let me read out my witness statement.