How TPE LIE'S Worked
Below are two major points from Judge Burton's written reasons that are fundamentally wrong because this Judge believed the LIE'S of Paul Watson and Mark Atkinson, these LIE'S are the reason Judge Burton decided in favour of TPE.
1st Point
JUDGE BURTON: "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".
As we can see by this passage alone, as stated by Judge Burton."He had failed to follow the rulebook in relation to stopping his train and reporting the fault in relation to the horn", the LIES of both Managers certainly worked, Judge Burton believes that the Rule Book says for a PARTIAL FAILURE of the warning horn that I should have STOPPED THE TRAIN. So Judge Burton makes his judgment on an assumption that is clearly not factual and is fundamentally WRONG.
Where in this wording does it state that I should have STOPPED MY TRAIN? Yet I, "failed to follow the rulebook in relation to stopping his train and reporting the fault in relation to the horn".
Should the disciplinary offence have been classed as gross misconduct? Should it really have been a disciplinary offence in the first place.
2nd Point
JUDGE BURTON: "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.
Firstly, how can I acknowledge failing to comply with a complete failure of the warning horn when it was a partial failure?
Secondly, how can I acknowledge that I failed to comply with the procedure for reporting a partially defective warning horn when I behaved that morning how I had always done in the past and how every other driver treated that rule?
Should the disciplinary offence have been classed as gross misconduct? Should it really have been a disciplinary offence in the first place.
2nd Point
JUDGE BURTON: "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.
Firstly, how can I acknowledge failing to comply with a complete failure of the warning horn when it was a partial failure?
Secondly, how can I acknowledge that I failed to comply with the procedure for reporting a partially defective warning horn when I behaved that morning how I had always done in the past and how every other driver treated that rule?
As I have pointed out this ruling is ambiguous, the wording should be changed. It should be changed for three reasons.
Firstly, to stop TPE management using their interpretation of this ruling to dismiss a driver, although I doubt very much that will ever happen because I was their main target, otherwise the evidence in the sections, "Warning Horns (The Shocking Truth)", would have implicated numerous other drivers, yet nothing happened disciplinary wise to any other driver and quite rightly so.
Secondly, The RULE BOOK wording as seen above does not denote a mandatory outcome therefore leaving it open to interpretation.
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.
Thirdly, because of these four statements below made by Route Driver Manager Mark Atkinson regarding a train remaining in service with a partial failure of the warning horn.
"The train remained in service, when it should have been removed".
"The unit stayed in service was putting the safety of staff on the railway at risk”.
"as there is always the possibility that the other horn would fail".
"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".
These four statements reflect the thoughts of Route Driver Manager Mark Atkinson, they are what I have thought from 2006 but not one manager ever had the decency to take any notice despite numerous reports on this issue. Amazingly Mark Atkinson despite these statements has done absolutely nothing to prevent this type of incident from happening again. I have it on good authority from drivers that NO TRAINS WERE EVER REMOVED FROM SERVICE WITH A PARTIALLY DEFECTIVE WARNING HORN, which makes a complete mockery of his above statements. The above statements were clearly designed to make me look as bad as possible and they clearly helped Judge Burton form his decisions based on these LIE'S.
THE VERY FACT THAT ROUTE DRIVER MANAGER MARK ATKINSON OR HEAD OF OPERATIONAL SAFETY PAUL WATSON HAS DONE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT THE ABOVE FOUR ASSUMPTIONS IS ASTOUNDING, I SUPPOSEDLY RAN A TRAIN WITH A PARTIAL FAILURE OF THE WARNING HORN WHEN THIS TRAIN SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMMEDIATELY TAKEN OUT OF SERVICE BECAUSE IT WAS PUTTING STAFF ON THE RAILWAY AT RISK, YET NO OTHER TRAINS WITH A PARTIAL FAILURE OF THE WARNING HORN WERE REMOVED FROM TRAFFIC AND AS I HAVE PROVED TPE RAN MANY TRAINS IN SERVICE WITH A COMPLETE FAILURE OF THE WARNING HORN!
YET I RECEIVED A CHARGE OF GROSS MISCONDUCT! IS THERE ANY WONDER I FEEL HARD DONE TOO? CAN YOU SEE WHY I WILL NEVER GIVE UP MY PURSUIT FOR JUSTICE.
Finally, Judge Burton said, "if he had expressed remorse and if he had demonstrated an intention to comply with such rules in the future".
I never once said that I wouldn't comply with the rules, only that the ruling is open to the interpretation of the individual. 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!
I did however apologise, the following wording is from my appeal hearing, "You know, if I offended anyone I apologise".
AS STATED AT THE BEGINNING, THE LIE'S OF MARK ATKINSON AND PAUL WATSON HOODWINKED JUDGE BURTON, WHAT CHANCE DID I HAVE?
This is what Route Driver Manager Mark Atkinson said at the employment tribunal. (extracts from his witness statement).
29. I asserted during the hearing that if Mr Webb was as concerned about the horn defects as he alleged he was, then prior to arriving in York he should have reported the matter immediately and made sure the train did not go any further. In response to this, he admitted that he did not report the matter at the first available opportunity.
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".
Below is what Route Driver Manager Mark Atkinson said in the hearing.
MA 206: “Hang on a minute, if your so concerned about the train having faults on it, at the point when you arrived in York, that is the time and place to make sure the train doesn't go any further”.
Three very different statements regarding the same issue, what does this tell you about Mark Atkinson? YES, THE MAN IS AN HABITUAL LIAR ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU READ THE OUTCOME OF HIS FINDINGS FROM THE DISCIPLINARY HEARING LETTER ON CHARGE 1 WHICH IS BELOW.
Firstly, to stop TPE management using their interpretation of this ruling to dismiss a driver, although I doubt very much that will ever happen because I was their main target, otherwise the evidence in the sections, "Warning Horns (The Shocking Truth)", would have implicated numerous other drivers, yet nothing happened disciplinary wise to any other driver and quite rightly so.
Secondly, The RULE BOOK wording as seen above does not denote a mandatory outcome therefore leaving it open to interpretation.
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.
Thirdly, because of these four statements below made by Route Driver Manager Mark Atkinson regarding a train remaining in service with a partial failure of the warning horn.
"The train remained in service, when it should have been removed".
"The unit stayed in service was putting the safety of staff on the railway at risk”.
"as there is always the possibility that the other horn would fail".
"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".
These four statements reflect the thoughts of Route Driver Manager Mark Atkinson, they are what I have thought from 2006 but not one manager ever had the decency to take any notice despite numerous reports on this issue. Amazingly Mark Atkinson despite these statements has done absolutely nothing to prevent this type of incident from happening again. I have it on good authority from drivers that NO TRAINS WERE EVER REMOVED FROM SERVICE WITH A PARTIALLY DEFECTIVE WARNING HORN, which makes a complete mockery of his above statements. The above statements were clearly designed to make me look as bad as possible and they clearly helped Judge Burton form his decisions based on these LIE'S.
THE VERY FACT THAT ROUTE DRIVER MANAGER MARK ATKINSON OR HEAD OF OPERATIONAL SAFETY PAUL WATSON HAS DONE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT THE ABOVE FOUR ASSUMPTIONS IS ASTOUNDING, I SUPPOSEDLY RAN A TRAIN WITH A PARTIAL FAILURE OF THE WARNING HORN WHEN THIS TRAIN SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMMEDIATELY TAKEN OUT OF SERVICE BECAUSE IT WAS PUTTING STAFF ON THE RAILWAY AT RISK, YET NO OTHER TRAINS WITH A PARTIAL FAILURE OF THE WARNING HORN WERE REMOVED FROM TRAFFIC AND AS I HAVE PROVED TPE RAN MANY TRAINS IN SERVICE WITH A COMPLETE FAILURE OF THE WARNING HORN!
YET I RECEIVED A CHARGE OF GROSS MISCONDUCT! IS THERE ANY WONDER I FEEL HARD DONE TOO? CAN YOU SEE WHY I WILL NEVER GIVE UP MY PURSUIT FOR JUSTICE.
Finally, Judge Burton said, "if he had expressed remorse and if he had demonstrated an intention to comply with such rules in the future".
I never once said that I wouldn't comply with the rules, only that the ruling is open to the interpretation of the individual. 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!
I did however apologise, the following wording is from my appeal hearing, "You know, if I offended anyone I apologise".
AS STATED AT THE BEGINNING, THE LIE'S OF MARK ATKINSON AND PAUL WATSON HOODWINKED JUDGE BURTON, WHAT CHANCE DID I HAVE?
This is what Route Driver Manager Mark Atkinson said at the employment tribunal. (extracts from his witness statement).
29. I asserted during the hearing that if Mr Webb was as concerned about the horn defects as he alleged he was, then prior to arriving in York he should have reported the matter immediately and made sure the train did not go any further. In response to this, he admitted that he did not report the matter at the first available opportunity.
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".
Below is what Route Driver Manager Mark Atkinson said in the hearing.
MA 206: “Hang on a minute, if your so concerned about the train having faults on it, at the point when you arrived in York, that is the time and place to make sure the train doesn't go any further”.
Three very different statements regarding the same issue, what does this tell you about Mark Atkinson? YES, THE MAN IS AN HABITUAL LIAR ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU READ THE OUTCOME OF HIS FINDINGS FROM THE DISCIPLINARY HEARING LETTER ON CHARGE 1 WHICH IS BELOW.
Where is there any mention of the following?
"He did not stop immediately or at the earliest convenience (Darlington or Northallerton stations or signal stops) and report the matter to the controlling signaller as specified in the procedure".
"You didn't stop and report it at the controlling signaller".
"At no point did you reduce the train speed".
"He had failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting which resulted in the train not being taken out of service immediately”
"He did not stop immediately or at the earliest convenience (Darlington or Northallerton stations or signal stops) and report the matter to the controlling signaller as specified in the procedure".
"You didn't stop and report it at the controlling signaller".
"At no point did you reduce the train speed".
"He had failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting which resulted in the train not being taken out of service immediately”