Disciplinary Hearing Outcome Letter
This letter is the utmost proof of how Route Driver Manager Mark Atkinson LIED AND TWISTED anything he could to make me look as bad as possible, anyone who has read this website and with an ounce of common sense can see that what this man said in my hearing is not reflected in this letter and what he goes on to say in his witness statement is also totally different to what this letter states. I know that I keep saying it, but there is absolutely no hiding from the truth, Mark Atkinson is a COMPULSIVE and HABITUAL LIAR.
Quite simply, if I was guilty of all charges, absolutely bang to rights, would TPE Management have had to go through all these LIE'S, had a lengthy appeal hearing and used a solicitor against me before my hearing and appeal at great cost? The answer is plain and simple - NO. So why did they go to these extreme lengths in dismissing me? My website is your answer.
THE DISCIPLINARY HEARING OUTCOME LETTER
I will show how, "a summary of evidence and the conclusions drawn" are totally different from the hearing and witness statement evidence and conclusions, it is clearly evident that in my hearing Mark Atkinson had to dismiss me no matter what, he was under immense pressure which was reflected in his aggressive attitude and the numerous documented mistakes he made. You only need to listen to the audio version of that hearing.
lCharge 1: Just pointing out again, there is no rule book prefix associated with this charge that is why it is only referred to as a "defective" warning horn, the reason for this is because Stephen Percival the Investigating Officer was far too immersed in using the investigation as a means to form a character assassination report instead of a factual report of the events on that January morning.
You have to ask the serious question, how can I possibly be charged with gross misconduct on a non specific charge?
How can I be charged with gross misconduct on a charge that cannot possibly have originated from the investigation report?
Findings: Which procedure is Mark Atkinson talking about that states I failed to:-
1. Report via telephone to control.
2. Complete the repair book in full and forward it to control.
3. Come to a decision and allow the train to continue its journey with a different driver, therefore allowing the train to remain in service.
Findings in the hearing: MA “It is my belief that this charge is proven that on the day in question you did fail to follow the correct procedure. The unit stayed in service was putting the safety of staff on the railway at risk”.
Supposed procedure I never followed:
1. “You didn`t stop and report it at the controlling signaller”.
2. “You didn`t report it to the train operating company control”.
3. “You didn`t complete the repair book procedure correctly”.
Findings from the witness statement: 37. "In relation to charge one, I found that it had been proven that he had failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting a defective warning horn as he had not done so as soon as the matter arose and that as a result of this action the train had stayed in service which was a risk to those on or about the railway infrastructure".
Supposed procedure I never followed:
1. “You didn`t stop and report it at the controlling signaler”.
2. “You didn`t report it to the train operating company control”.
3. “At no point did you reduce the train speed”.
4. “You didn`t complete the repair book procedure correctly”.
Further points made by Mark Atkinson that refer to a worst case scenario which are all complete lies.
The train remained in service, when it should have been removed:
He did not stop immediately or at the earliest convenience:
The full warning horn failure was as a result of low temperatures that day:
Then prior to arriving in York he should have reported the matter immediately and made sure the train did not go any further:
There was a discussion as to whether or not the horn defect was a partial failure or a full failure:
Mr Webb also referred to recent incidents where defects had not been reported by other Drivers but did not provide examples:
What this highlights is that Mark Atkinson knew he had charged me with failing to follow the procedure for reporting a complete failure of the warning horn even though he was aware it was a partial failure, because this was the only way he could justify gross misconduct and dismissal.
He is then in an awkward position, so he is left with no choice but to continue these LIE'S in his witness statement, which I believe is PERJURY.
CONTINUED IN PAGE 2.