Paul Watson v Mark Atkinson (contradictory evidence)
Mark Atkinson stated: I should have taken the train out of service immediately because it was a danger to anyone on or around the railway.
Paul Watson stated: My actions caused a train to be taken out of service which resulted in a deficiency in train numbers.
Mark Atkinson implies: The train should have been taken out of service.
Paul Watson implies: I was at fault for the train supposedly being taken out of service causing a deficiency in train numbers, yet this is exactly what Mark Atkinson wanted!
WHAT CHANCE DID I STAND?
MARK ATKINSON'S COMMENTS:
"The unit remained in service until it arrived at a depot at 22.36".
"Hang on a minute, if your so concerned about this train having faults on it, at the point when you arrived in York, that is the time and place to make the train doesn't go any further".
“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”.
"The train remained in service, when it should have been removed".
" his actions ensured that the unit remained in public service until it reached the depot".
"he had failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting which resulted in the train not being taken out of service immediately".
"he allowed a train to remain in service, as a result of his above failures, with an allegedly faulty warning horn, wipers, window and excessive Driver cab noise".
"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 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".
PAUL WATSON'S COMMENTS:
34 "I concluded that I upheld the decision of Mr Atkinson to dismiss, on the basis that none of the information provided to me had established that he had not committed the charges he was found to have committed. I could not see that his suggestion that his frustration was sufficient to justify fabricating a safety incident, resulting in a train being taken out of action, was acceptable. It was clear from the actions of the Company on the day that the Company does react to Driver complaints as soon as the defects are reported. The train in question was taken out of service as soon as the defect slip was found which resulted in a deficiency in train numbers".
"resulting in a train being taken out of action".
"The train in question was taken out of service as soon as the defect slip was found which resulted in a deficiency in train numbers".
HEADS YOU LOSE, TAILS YOU LOSE!