Discrepancies with Charge 1
The following will prove how the charges could not possibly have originated from the investigation, that they were made up as this whole process evolved, the investigation failed to clearly identify enough specific information to allow Route Driver Manager Barry Cook to warrant the charges he laid against me.
The charges were non specific and therefore open to interpretation, an open invitation to abuse and manipulate the system anyway TPE Managers could to dismiss me, but although they managed to dismiss me, more through hatred, spite and the use of a solicitor even before my dismissal, they underestimated my will to get justice.
Looking at what I will show below, if someone is charged with "Gross Misconduct", it surely has to be that bad and indeed fundamentally wrong, that the charges are easy to understand, to the point and have a set of rules or a procedure which can be seen quite clearly to have been broken. So ask yourself, on reading this section, how can these charges alter so much?
The charges were non specific and therefore open to interpretation, an open invitation to abuse and manipulate the system anyway TPE Managers could to dismiss me, but although they managed to dismiss me, more through hatred, spite and the use of a solicitor even before my dismissal, they underestimated my will to get justice.
Looking at what I will show below, if someone is charged with "Gross Misconduct", it surely has to be that bad and indeed fundamentally wrong, that the charges are easy to understand, to the point and have a set of rules or a procedure which can be seen quite clearly to have been broken. So ask yourself, on reading this section, how can these charges alter so much?
The 3 Charges
_
Mark Atkinson`s idea of the procedure I failed to follow for
reporting a defective warning horn as stated by him at my hearing.
Charge1.
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”.
I have no idea where this procedure as MA stated is to be found.
So I ask any person with a knowledge of railway rules and procedures, do you know where this exact rule or procedure can be found ? It may resemble how to deal with a complete failure of the warning horn, but my train that day had a partial warning horn failure.
HEARING DECISION ON CHARGE 1
MA, “In relation to the charges of gross misconduct”.
“It is my belief that this charge (1) 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”. ("you did fail"!).
(The rule book prefix that I failed to follow should have been mentioned.)
The procedure that MA charged me with was not any known rule book procedure, but a cut and paste attempt to make charges fit. It vaguely resembles the procedure for reporting a complete failure of the warning horn.
The reason why MA was so unsure of what procedure I never followed is because the charge is extremely vague and not specific to any breach of the rule book and also MA couldn`t find any information from the investigation notes to point out whether the horn failure was a complete or partial failure.
As for the unit staying in service was putting the safety of staff on the railway at risk, if I had informed TPE control of this warning horn fault, they would have adopted the procedure found in their (DOTE) Defective On Train Equipment contingency plans, this states that the train can stay in service and run at line speed. Furthermore after arrival at York the cab I was in became out of use and the train was driven from the rear cab.
IN YOUR MINDS, DOES THIS WARRANT A CHARGE OF GROSS MISCONDUCT?
Charge1.
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”.
I have no idea where this procedure as MA stated is to be found.
So I ask any person with a knowledge of railway rules and procedures, do you know where this exact rule or procedure can be found ? It may resemble how to deal with a complete failure of the warning horn, but my train that day had a partial warning horn failure.
HEARING DECISION ON CHARGE 1
MA, “In relation to the charges of gross misconduct”.
“It is my belief that this charge (1) 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”. ("you did fail"!).
(The rule book prefix that I failed to follow should have been mentioned.)
The procedure that MA charged me with was not any known rule book procedure, but a cut and paste attempt to make charges fit. It vaguely resembles the procedure for reporting a complete failure of the warning horn.
The reason why MA was so unsure of what procedure I never followed is because the charge is extremely vague and not specific to any breach of the rule book and also MA couldn`t find any information from the investigation notes to point out whether the horn failure was a complete or partial failure.
As for the unit staying in service was putting the safety of staff on the railway at risk, if I had informed TPE control of this warning horn fault, they would have adopted the procedure found in their (DOTE) Defective On Train Equipment contingency plans, this states that the train can stay in service and run at line speed. Furthermore after arrival at York the cab I was in became out of use and the train was driven from the rear cab.
IN YOUR MINDS, DOES THIS WARRANT A CHARGE OF GROSS MISCONDUCT?
HEARING OUTCOME LETTER
_
“On the day in question you did fail to follow the
correct procedure by not reporting via telephone to the control, not completing
the repair book in full and forwarding it to the control and then allowing the
unit to depart York with another driver and remain in service, this put the
safety of all staff on the railway at risk until the unit returned to the depot
at 22.36. Therefore, I find this charge proven”.
According to this, I failed to follow this procedure.
1. Not reporting via telephone to control.
2. Not completing the repair book in full and forwarding it to control.
3. Allowing the unit to depart York with another driver and remain in service.
So what happened to
1. Stop and report to the signaler?
2. Reduce the train speed?
Why was charge 3 above added?
So the only conclusion that I come to on this charge, is that Gross Misconduct is for not informing TPE Control and not filling out and faxing the repair slip to Control. This is something that is a common occurrence among drivers. I have evidence of this.
Even though I pointed out that the defect was a partial failure, which due to weather conditions rectified itself. The reason for not filling out the repair slip and faxing it was down to the confusion at York. Evidence available and pointed out in my 2 interviews.
I was so used to this type of fault that on this day in question I behaved the same way as I have always done, other drivers behave exactly the same and I have evidence of this.
That train had three defects that morning, from leaving me, no other driver reported any problems, but on arrival at Ardwick Depot the defects were acknowledged.
How could I possibly have put the safety of staff on the railway at risk if no other driver found any fault with that train, or did they, but never reported it?
According to this, I failed to follow this procedure.
1. Not reporting via telephone to control.
2. Not completing the repair book in full and forwarding it to control.
3. Allowing the unit to depart York with another driver and remain in service.
So what happened to
1. Stop and report to the signaler?
2. Reduce the train speed?
Why was charge 3 above added?
So the only conclusion that I come to on this charge, is that Gross Misconduct is for not informing TPE Control and not filling out and faxing the repair slip to Control. This is something that is a common occurrence among drivers. I have evidence of this.
Even though I pointed out that the defect was a partial failure, which due to weather conditions rectified itself. The reason for not filling out the repair slip and faxing it was down to the confusion at York. Evidence available and pointed out in my 2 interviews.
I was so used to this type of fault that on this day in question I behaved the same way as I have always done, other drivers behave exactly the same and I have evidence of this.
That train had three defects that morning, from leaving me, no other driver reported any problems, but on arrival at Ardwick Depot the defects were acknowledged.
How could I possibly have put the safety of staff on the railway at risk if no other driver found any fault with that train, or did they, but never reported it?
EXTRACTS FROM THE APPEAL HEARING IN RELATION TO CHARGE 1
I was represented by Shaun Brady. (SB)
SB. "The other issues that I would like to raise is also about the charges, once again I go back to us because one thing we were always brought up with is we live by the rule book, the rule book was there and that if you did something wrong it was identified under which rule, which rule you'd broken and which rule you then had to defend from. Under the charges labelled against Driver Webb they were not outlined. There was no charges under which rule book or which procedure he had actually broken. So straight away I am saying that that hearing could never be fair because if you don’t identify which rule that you have to say was broken or not broken you can’t defend that".
PerryW. "What happened on that day that warning horn behaved how they all do in freezing weather, one (tone) horn or another stops working, this can alternate as well between tones which is exactly what occurred on that day of the fourteenth".
PerryW. "but anyway on that day in question at that time I treated that warning horn as a partial failure. I wasn’t asked this, this never came out anyway. Now I understand Rules and Regulations TW5 37.3 Clause B. On a partial failure it says “Tell the Train Operators Controller at the first convenient opportunity”.
Now on that journey I had two convenient chances, Darlington and Northallerton. I told Steve Percival, both times I tried to ring from them places I couldn't ring out, it wouldn't go through, the attempts failed, but I did try. Now after we left Northallerton on that day the temperature in question actually rose the weather got better, when I tried the horn again it actually worked OK. Approaching a whistle board but I did try at a few other places, that warning horn then to me was no longer a partial failure it was actually working".
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 NRM at the most convenient opportunity
THE FOLLOWING ARE EXTRACTS FROM MY WITNESS STATEMENT
315. PaulW now sums up my first charge (208), “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 NRN at the most convenient opportunity”. I agreed with this statement.
316. Actual Rule Book wording. (209)
37.3When in service
b) Partial failure
If the warning horn becomes partially defective (for example, one
tone not working) on a train which is in service, you must:
• tell the train operator’s control at the first convenient opportunity
• carry out the instructions given.
317. PaulW says, “So the question is, given that as you have said yourself this was in your view serious because of the implications of warnings on the line obviously, do you think the fact that you knew you that call failed for whatever reason cos you said static you couldn't be heard because of static, do you think that the actions of therefore trying it again, next place up, I think you said Northallerton, (210) Do you think that that meets the requirements of that section of the rule book”?
318. Notice how PaulW makes the point of how I deemed the issue as serious, not that he deemed it serious, this point is made by him on numerous occasions. I have always felt and acted this way, my reports show that. But it was never down to what I thought. I always thought that it was a very serious defect and that trains should not be allowed into service or run with any type of horn defect. But with a partial failure and TPE`s own Defective On Train Equipment contingency plans this train would have run regardless.
319. My response was, “yes”, I did feel it met the requirements of the rule book, mainly because this was how I had always interpreted this rule and it had never been brought to my attention that I was supposedly wrong. The word, “convenient”, being the key component. How I treat something as convenient will be totally different to how someone else treats something as convenient. It`s down to a matter of opinion, but a matter of opinion is not a procedure, it`s only a weapon in the hands of the person in control of the situation. Hence because in Paul Watson`s “opinion”, I am guilty, this cannot possibly be fair, I am guilty because of a difference in opinions.
320. (211) PaulW says “No I understand that the point, the question I am asking is in terms of sufficiency is that that I am taking what you told me earlier at face value”. So, would it have made any difference if I had stated that I made ten attempts instead of two? Where does sufficiency come into the rule book wording? In which procedure is sufficiency mentioned?
321. (211) PaulW says “Partial failure. Clearly in there it says stop where convenient and report to control. What I am saying is at the point of I have a defective working horn because for part of that journey even if I say take your point of, half his fault it was no long accepted because you made that today and at a certain stage it wasn’t defective, (PaulW understands it wasn`t defective, yet in the original decision by MA to dismiss me, he said allowing the train to leave York put the whole of the railway at risk, he found me guilty of something that clearly wasn`t a true fact) but during the journey and the two stops where you have attempted NRN contact it is defective, the question that I would ask why are those stops not using another method of communication available”.
322. (212) PaulW then says, “Yeah but the question I have you see, the thing I am trying to understand is I am taking what you said at face value which is I have got that much concern because of the reasons that you highlighted before, I have been involved in this and it was a danger to anybody on the track essentially, 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 of raising that issue for the duration of the time that the horn was partially defective. All of which you elected not to use so I just trying to”.
323. Again, all PaulW mentions is my concern of the situation, not his belief that the situation posed a danger. I elected not to use another method of communication because I am not instructed by any rules to do this and I am so, so used to this type of occurrence, it is second nature. This is how I have always behaved in this type of incident. Furthermore, it clearly states in the rules.
(213) 2.2, Driver reporting a defect
If possible you must avoid stopping the train.
On a junction
At any place where it might be difficult to deal with the situation.
324. At Darlington, I had green signals, my conductor was clearly busy, the nearest telephones for me were the adjacent platform, which after I had attempted to use the NRN and looked down my train, people were on and off very quickly and we were ready to move, or in the building opposite which requires a code to the lock and I did not know it, I deemed this inappropriate to attempt a call by other means. It was in my mind not convenient. At Northallerton, we had green signals, by the time I had finished trying to call out on the radio, I received the buzzer to set off, Northallerton is an extremely busy junction and I deemed it inappropriate therefore not convenient to attempt to call control using other means. The rule book wording is all about making a decision on what you think or class convenient as being, I was there on that day, Paul Watson wasn`t. But lets just remember, I was charged with gross misconduct for this, is this really gross misconduct based on this evidence?
325. What we must also remember here is, if I had have got my call through to TPE control they would have referred to their (DOTE) Defective On Train Contingency plans (214) which clearly states that this train would remain in service without any alterations to its speed. So if we re-evaluate the charge of gross misconduct, bearing in mind that this train would have definitely run, what damage had I caused? Where is there a serious problem that warrants gross misconduct? Why wasn`t the information from the rule book and the DOTE used during the investigation? Is there any wonder that my email (215 & 216) to MD Vernon Barker on the 12th February 2009 complained of a witch hunt?
385. Carrying on, a further point made by PaulW (248), “But you can report it to control via the signal box, if you are saying, so effectively what I am saying to you is and this is only my opinion, but you have said to me how important you view this be 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 NRN 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”. PW makes the point that was also made by MA, that it is how important that I view this equipment failure, not how he views it, both PaulW and MA clearly formed beliefs on my thoughts of how I perceived the situation, not beliefs on their thoughts of the situation, and surely it is their beliefs of this situation that form the reason to dismiss me not mine, after all my opinion has always been worthless to TPE.
386. PaulW also made a point here of saying, “and this is only my opinion”. This is in respect of how I interpreted the rule book on reporting a partial failure of the warning horn. We have two different opinions on how we understand that ruling, my understanding has always been as it was that day. When did PW last or ever become in a position like I did that morning? Does he drive trains on a daily basis? To also say that "this is only my opinion", clearly shows how open to interpretation this situation was, its also his way of saying, I am right and you are wrong!
387. The ruling is open to interpretation, I am not saying PaulW is wrong, because as he pointed out, that was his opinion. So let me ask this very valid point, is this really worthy of a gross misconduct charge? There is so much proof in my case file that other drivers have behaved the same as me and after all, that is their interpretation of this particular rule.
388. PaulW argues on this point again (248) “OK let me come let me come back, the reason why I am making that point is that because it clearly says you must stop and tell your control when its 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 may be, which includes the next scheduled station stop or a stopping point on the journey or when the train is at signal with a stop aspect. In reporting the defect will cause delay you must tell the signaller the reason for this delay. So even accepting delay to the service safety comes first. That what is there. To be fair in your defence earlier you said, would have caused delay didn’t want to do that”. Again, this issue is how we both interpret the meaning of the word convenient.
THE FOLLOWING ARE EXTRACTS FROM MY RESPONSE TO JUDGE BURTON`S WRITTEN REASONS
WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT:
1. The only Rule Book wording that applies is the following. It is not a cavalier view taken by me, but my interpretation and understanding of these particular rules, I never changed my approach that day to these rules, I always behaved exactly the same way and still stand by my interpretation.
Rule Book TW5, Part A, 1.2, Reporting defective on train equipment.
1.2 b, Stopping train at the first CONVENIENT opportunity.
You must stop your train at the first CONVENIENT opportunity when you become aware of a defect on the following equipment, (warning horn – partial failure) and tell the train operators control.
The first CONVENIENT opportunity MAY include the next scheduled station or other stopping point on the journey, or when detained at a stop signal showing a stop aspect.
IF reporting the defect will cause delay, you must inform the signaler the reason for the delay.
Rule Book TW5, 37.3 b
Partial failure of the warning horn.
If the warning horn becomes partially defective, (for example, one tone not working) on a train which is in service, you must:
Tell the train operators control at the first CONVENIENT opportunity.
Carry out the instructions given.
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.
The key words are CONVENIENT (stop your train at the first CONVENIENT opportunity).
Another key word is MAY (The first CONVENIENT opportunity MAY include the next scheduled station or other stopping point on the journey, or when detained at a stop signal showing a stop aspect).
The final key word is IF (IF reporting the defect will cause delay, you must inform the signaler the reason for the delay).
CONVENIENT: Suitable or favorable to one`s comfort, purpose or needs.
MAY: Used to indicate a certain measure of likelihood or possibility.
IF: In the event that.
All of these 3 key words do not express a mandatory outcome, they are open to a person`s interpretation. If TPE management require drivers to comply to their interpretation of these rules then they should make it known and because in their eyes any other interpretation other than theirs warrants dismissal they should strive to get the wording of this ruling re-worded.
To this day, those rules are still open to interpretation. Drivers are still failing to report defects using the correct procedures and I have proved this with information I have displayed on this website.
Nearly 25 years as a driver with a clean record, no serious transgression of rules, no signals passed at danger, yet one minor blip, one instance of a rules violation that is still open to interpretation and I am dismissed, at the worst case scenario this was a training issue, if I had been allowed to defend myself by reading out my witness statement it would have become apparent that I was dismissed for an ulterior motive, many people out there know this and no doubt one day someone will have the guts to stand up to the TPE bullies.
I was represented by Shaun Brady. (SB)
SB. "The other issues that I would like to raise is also about the charges, once again I go back to us because one thing we were always brought up with is we live by the rule book, the rule book was there and that if you did something wrong it was identified under which rule, which rule you'd broken and which rule you then had to defend from. Under the charges labelled against Driver Webb they were not outlined. There was no charges under which rule book or which procedure he had actually broken. So straight away I am saying that that hearing could never be fair because if you don’t identify which rule that you have to say was broken or not broken you can’t defend that".
PerryW. "What happened on that day that warning horn behaved how they all do in freezing weather, one (tone) horn or another stops working, this can alternate as well between tones which is exactly what occurred on that day of the fourteenth".
PerryW. "but anyway on that day in question at that time I treated that warning horn as a partial failure. I wasn’t asked this, this never came out anyway. Now I understand Rules and Regulations TW5 37.3 Clause B. On a partial failure it says “Tell the Train Operators Controller at the first convenient opportunity”.
Now on that journey I had two convenient chances, Darlington and Northallerton. I told Steve Percival, both times I tried to ring from them places I couldn't ring out, it wouldn't go through, the attempts failed, but I did try. Now after we left Northallerton on that day the temperature in question actually rose the weather got better, when I tried the horn again it actually worked OK. Approaching a whistle board but I did try at a few other places, that warning horn then to me was no longer a partial failure it was actually working".
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 NRM at the most convenient opportunity
THE FOLLOWING ARE EXTRACTS FROM MY WITNESS STATEMENT
315. PaulW now sums up my first charge (208), “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 NRN at the most convenient opportunity”. I agreed with this statement.
316. Actual Rule Book wording. (209)
37.3When in service
b) Partial failure
If the warning horn becomes partially defective (for example, one
tone not working) on a train which is in service, you must:
• tell the train operator’s control at the first convenient opportunity
• carry out the instructions given.
317. PaulW says, “So the question is, given that as you have said yourself this was in your view serious because of the implications of warnings on the line obviously, do you think the fact that you knew you that call failed for whatever reason cos you said static you couldn't be heard because of static, do you think that the actions of therefore trying it again, next place up, I think you said Northallerton, (210) Do you think that that meets the requirements of that section of the rule book”?
318. Notice how PaulW makes the point of how I deemed the issue as serious, not that he deemed it serious, this point is made by him on numerous occasions. I have always felt and acted this way, my reports show that. But it was never down to what I thought. I always thought that it was a very serious defect and that trains should not be allowed into service or run with any type of horn defect. But with a partial failure and TPE`s own Defective On Train Equipment contingency plans this train would have run regardless.
319. My response was, “yes”, I did feel it met the requirements of the rule book, mainly because this was how I had always interpreted this rule and it had never been brought to my attention that I was supposedly wrong. The word, “convenient”, being the key component. How I treat something as convenient will be totally different to how someone else treats something as convenient. It`s down to a matter of opinion, but a matter of opinion is not a procedure, it`s only a weapon in the hands of the person in control of the situation. Hence because in Paul Watson`s “opinion”, I am guilty, this cannot possibly be fair, I am guilty because of a difference in opinions.
320. (211) PaulW says “No I understand that the point, the question I am asking is in terms of sufficiency is that that I am taking what you told me earlier at face value”. So, would it have made any difference if I had stated that I made ten attempts instead of two? Where does sufficiency come into the rule book wording? In which procedure is sufficiency mentioned?
321. (211) PaulW says “Partial failure. Clearly in there it says stop where convenient and report to control. What I am saying is at the point of I have a defective working horn because for part of that journey even if I say take your point of, half his fault it was no long accepted because you made that today and at a certain stage it wasn’t defective, (PaulW understands it wasn`t defective, yet in the original decision by MA to dismiss me, he said allowing the train to leave York put the whole of the railway at risk, he found me guilty of something that clearly wasn`t a true fact) but during the journey and the two stops where you have attempted NRN contact it is defective, the question that I would ask why are those stops not using another method of communication available”.
322. (212) PaulW then says, “Yeah but the question I have you see, the thing I am trying to understand is I am taking what you said at face value which is I have got that much concern because of the reasons that you highlighted before, I have been involved in this and it was a danger to anybody on the track essentially, 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 of raising that issue for the duration of the time that the horn was partially defective. All of which you elected not to use so I just trying to”.
323. Again, all PaulW mentions is my concern of the situation, not his belief that the situation posed a danger. I elected not to use another method of communication because I am not instructed by any rules to do this and I am so, so used to this type of occurrence, it is second nature. This is how I have always behaved in this type of incident. Furthermore, it clearly states in the rules.
(213) 2.2, Driver reporting a defect
If possible you must avoid stopping the train.
On a junction
At any place where it might be difficult to deal with the situation.
324. At Darlington, I had green signals, my conductor was clearly busy, the nearest telephones for me were the adjacent platform, which after I had attempted to use the NRN and looked down my train, people were on and off very quickly and we were ready to move, or in the building opposite which requires a code to the lock and I did not know it, I deemed this inappropriate to attempt a call by other means. It was in my mind not convenient. At Northallerton, we had green signals, by the time I had finished trying to call out on the radio, I received the buzzer to set off, Northallerton is an extremely busy junction and I deemed it inappropriate therefore not convenient to attempt to call control using other means. The rule book wording is all about making a decision on what you think or class convenient as being, I was there on that day, Paul Watson wasn`t. But lets just remember, I was charged with gross misconduct for this, is this really gross misconduct based on this evidence?
325. What we must also remember here is, if I had have got my call through to TPE control they would have referred to their (DOTE) Defective On Train Contingency plans (214) which clearly states that this train would remain in service without any alterations to its speed. So if we re-evaluate the charge of gross misconduct, bearing in mind that this train would have definitely run, what damage had I caused? Where is there a serious problem that warrants gross misconduct? Why wasn`t the information from the rule book and the DOTE used during the investigation? Is there any wonder that my email (215 & 216) to MD Vernon Barker on the 12th February 2009 complained of a witch hunt?
385. Carrying on, a further point made by PaulW (248), “But you can report it to control via the signal box, if you are saying, so effectively what I am saying to you is and this is only my opinion, but you have said to me how important you view this be 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 NRN 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”. PW makes the point that was also made by MA, that it is how important that I view this equipment failure, not how he views it, both PaulW and MA clearly formed beliefs on my thoughts of how I perceived the situation, not beliefs on their thoughts of the situation, and surely it is their beliefs of this situation that form the reason to dismiss me not mine, after all my opinion has always been worthless to TPE.
386. PaulW also made a point here of saying, “and this is only my opinion”. This is in respect of how I interpreted the rule book on reporting a partial failure of the warning horn. We have two different opinions on how we understand that ruling, my understanding has always been as it was that day. When did PW last or ever become in a position like I did that morning? Does he drive trains on a daily basis? To also say that "this is only my opinion", clearly shows how open to interpretation this situation was, its also his way of saying, I am right and you are wrong!
387. The ruling is open to interpretation, I am not saying PaulW is wrong, because as he pointed out, that was his opinion. So let me ask this very valid point, is this really worthy of a gross misconduct charge? There is so much proof in my case file that other drivers have behaved the same as me and after all, that is their interpretation of this particular rule.
388. PaulW argues on this point again (248) “OK let me come let me come back, the reason why I am making that point is that because it clearly says you must stop and tell your control when its 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 may be, which includes the next scheduled station stop or a stopping point on the journey or when the train is at signal with a stop aspect. In reporting the defect will cause delay you must tell the signaller the reason for this delay. So even accepting delay to the service safety comes first. That what is there. To be fair in your defence earlier you said, would have caused delay didn’t want to do that”. Again, this issue is how we both interpret the meaning of the word convenient.
THE FOLLOWING ARE EXTRACTS FROM MY RESPONSE TO JUDGE BURTON`S WRITTEN REASONS
WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT:
1. The only Rule Book wording that applies is the following. It is not a cavalier view taken by me, but my interpretation and understanding of these particular rules, I never changed my approach that day to these rules, I always behaved exactly the same way and still stand by my interpretation.
Rule Book TW5, Part A, 1.2, Reporting defective on train equipment.
1.2 b, Stopping train at the first CONVENIENT opportunity.
You must stop your train at the first CONVENIENT opportunity when you become aware of a defect on the following equipment, (warning horn – partial failure) and tell the train operators control.
The first CONVENIENT opportunity MAY include the next scheduled station or other stopping point on the journey, or when detained at a stop signal showing a stop aspect.
IF reporting the defect will cause delay, you must inform the signaler the reason for the delay.
Rule Book TW5, 37.3 b
Partial failure of the warning horn.
If the warning horn becomes partially defective, (for example, one tone not working) on a train which is in service, you must:
Tell the train operators control at the first CONVENIENT opportunity.
Carry out the instructions given.
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.
The key words are CONVENIENT (stop your train at the first CONVENIENT opportunity).
Another key word is MAY (The first CONVENIENT opportunity MAY include the next scheduled station or other stopping point on the journey, or when detained at a stop signal showing a stop aspect).
The final key word is IF (IF reporting the defect will cause delay, you must inform the signaler the reason for the delay).
CONVENIENT: Suitable or favorable to one`s comfort, purpose or needs.
MAY: Used to indicate a certain measure of likelihood or possibility.
IF: In the event that.
All of these 3 key words do not express a mandatory outcome, they are open to a person`s interpretation. If TPE management require drivers to comply to their interpretation of these rules then they should make it known and because in their eyes any other interpretation other than theirs warrants dismissal they should strive to get the wording of this ruling re-worded.
To this day, those rules are still open to interpretation. Drivers are still failing to report defects using the correct procedures and I have proved this with information I have displayed on this website.
Nearly 25 years as a driver with a clean record, no serious transgression of rules, no signals passed at danger, yet one minor blip, one instance of a rules violation that is still open to interpretation and I am dismissed, at the worst case scenario this was a training issue, if I had been allowed to defend myself by reading out my witness statement it would have become apparent that I was dismissed for an ulterior motive, many people out there know this and no doubt one day someone will have the guts to stand up to the TPE bullies.
APPEAL HEARING OUTCOME LETTER
So as you can plainly see, my sins under Charge 1 are:
"That you had failed to carry out the correct procedure for reporting a horn defect".
Once again, I ask anyone out there associated with the railway who has a knowledge of the rule book and ask you,
"Does failing to inform control about a partial failure of the warning horn warrant a charge of gross misconduct with these issues in mind".
1. I attempted to inform control via the NRN radio, I could not get through.
2. The fault rectified itself approaching York. The warning horn was now fully functional.
3. I was informed of a set swap in York, the train was turning round and was now
being driven from the other
cab.
4. On arrival in York at 10.30, their was mass confusion
among passengers, who were boarding this train
thinking it was still an Airport service.
5. I completely forgot to put my name, grade,
date etc on the repair book sheet and took
top copy and placed inside my drivers bag.
6. After all the confusion I had just enough time
to use the toilet and get a drink before my
next service departed. Hence I never faxed
the repair slip.
7. TransPennine Express, Defective On Train Equipment
Contingency Plans allow this train with a partially defective
warning horn to remain in service without any restrictions
to its speed, in other words this train can run at 100mph.
8. In line with "EQUITY", I still have proof that other Drivers
treated this type of failure the same as I did, but both Managers,
Mark Atkinson and Paul Watson dismissed this. Why single me out?
9. Then there is my evidence on this website that shows
how Siemens and TPE allowed trains to run with
complete failures of the warning horn.
Notice once again, Paul Watson only says the warning horn failure was "a horn defect".
One paltry recommendation came from the Investigation Report, which proves that TPE were aware that their Drivers do not report correctly instances of warning horn (complete and Partial) failures. The recommendation however was not implemented as I have shown in the Investigation Report Page.