Paul Watson
The following information is taken from my appeal hearing, it clearly shows why I state that the ruling and contingency plans for a partial failure of the warning horn need amending.
Firstly the very fact that a Driver and the Head of Operational Safety have different views on the interpretation of this ruling and evidence in the sections, “Warning Horns (The Shocking Truth)”, which shows that other drivers and TPE control have different interpretations means there will always be conflict which needs addressing now.
Secondly, even if this ruling was straightforward to comply with, every driver reacted the same, would failing to follow this ruling really be gross misconduct? We all know that answer.
THE RULING IS AS FOLLOWS:
b) Partial failure.
If the warning horn becomes partially defective (For example, one tone not working) 0n a train which is in service you must:
Tell the train operators control at the first convenient opportunity.
Carry out the instructions given.
IN RED: Paul Watson’s idea of how he sees this ruling:
IN BLACK: My Response
"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".
It became convenient for me to report at the two station stops, I was just unlucky the call wouldn`t go through, once I received the ready to start, it was no longer convenient. What I deem as “convenient” is different to what someone else thinks is convenient, we could have 5 different individuals all with a different opinion.
Does the rule book in terms of attempts actually say anything?
"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".
Where in the ruling does the thoughts of a driver come into question on how they deal with the partial failure? Look at the number of IGNORED reports, they explained in detail my thoughts on the warning horn failures, yet they clearly cannot have been that serious because TPE driver management completely IGNORED them.
"Do you think that that meets the requirements of that section of the rule book"?
Obviously my actions which were as they had always been and how I know other drivers behaved the same as, many times previously, I did not think that I was doing anything wrong.
"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. Do you think that that meets the requirements of that section of the rule book"?
Can anyone please show me where “sufficiency” is mentioned in this ruling? How many attempts would have been sufficient? Because if I had of tried 5 times, you would say it should have been more, if I had tried 8 times, you would have said it should be more. This is one reason why this rule needs changing, it is at present open to the interpretation of the individual.
"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 but during the journey and the two stops where you have attempted NRM contact it is defective, the question that I would ask why are those stops not using another method of communication available".
Regardless of other methods of communication, I attempted to contact control using my preferred method of communication, I made the decision that any other method was not convenient, I was the driver that morning, it was my decision. Again if they want a driver to use other methods of communication state it in the rules.
"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 single 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".
Again, what have my concerns got to do with the rule book? When did anyone ever take notice of my concerns? TPE management had so many documented opportunities to address this situation, reports that stated someone will be killed, yet for whatever reasons the chose to IGNORE every single report, more than anything their IGNORANCE must be brought into question, we would not be where we are now if I had not been IGNORED, my dismissal was a by product of their IGNORANCE, which I believe was deliberate. The simple question is, why did they IGNORE my reports?
"Can I finish, I will take that at face value that he has attempted to make two calls. In making those two calls that he knows are unsuccessful at two stopping points for the train, do I think that that is sufficient to discharge this rule book? I am saying in my belief. No".
"Do I believe that discharged from the rule book, no I don’t".
How many calls would have been suffice? I thought what I did was sufficient, because I always behaved this way. Previous driver reports that I put in prove this!
"Do I believe Perry would know to go and speak to his demons of the past is what I come to. Do I think not getting on the phone is by chance or something else. You ask me why you’ve never been told not to do it before. I’m not using previous disciplines".
As I have proved on this website, previous driver reports proved that I always behaved this way in reporting a partial failure of the warning horn, you can all make your own mind up to the comments made in the above paragraph, it shows however exactly what I was up against, FURTHER IGNORANCE.
"Do I think there is, do I think you followed the correct procedure, do I think actions reasonable" .
"I’ve decided to uphold the original decision".
My fate was made up months before my hearing and appeal, the original decision was flawed beyond belief, the very fact that they had to employ a solicitor before my hearing and appeal tells you everything, we had over 9 hours in this appeal hearing, and that was all Paul Watson could come up with!
So let me ask anyone, did this deserve a charge of gross misconduct?
Firstly the very fact that a Driver and the Head of Operational Safety have different views on the interpretation of this ruling and evidence in the sections, “Warning Horns (The Shocking Truth)”, which shows that other drivers and TPE control have different interpretations means there will always be conflict which needs addressing now.
Secondly, even if this ruling was straightforward to comply with, every driver reacted the same, would failing to follow this ruling really be gross misconduct? We all know that answer.
THE RULING IS AS FOLLOWS:
b) Partial failure.
If the warning horn becomes partially defective (For example, one tone not working) 0n a train which is in service you must:
Tell the train operators control at the first convenient opportunity.
Carry out the instructions given.
IN RED: Paul Watson’s idea of how he sees this ruling:
IN BLACK: My Response
"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".
It became convenient for me to report at the two station stops, I was just unlucky the call wouldn`t go through, once I received the ready to start, it was no longer convenient. What I deem as “convenient” is different to what someone else thinks is convenient, we could have 5 different individuals all with a different opinion.
Does the rule book in terms of attempts actually say anything?
"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".
Where in the ruling does the thoughts of a driver come into question on how they deal with the partial failure? Look at the number of IGNORED reports, they explained in detail my thoughts on the warning horn failures, yet they clearly cannot have been that serious because TPE driver management completely IGNORED them.
"Do you think that that meets the requirements of that section of the rule book"?
Obviously my actions which were as they had always been and how I know other drivers behaved the same as, many times previously, I did not think that I was doing anything wrong.
"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. Do you think that that meets the requirements of that section of the rule book"?
Can anyone please show me where “sufficiency” is mentioned in this ruling? How many attempts would have been sufficient? Because if I had of tried 5 times, you would say it should have been more, if I had tried 8 times, you would have said it should be more. This is one reason why this rule needs changing, it is at present open to the interpretation of the individual.
"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 but during the journey and the two stops where you have attempted NRM contact it is defective, the question that I would ask why are those stops not using another method of communication available".
Regardless of other methods of communication, I attempted to contact control using my preferred method of communication, I made the decision that any other method was not convenient, I was the driver that morning, it was my decision. Again if they want a driver to use other methods of communication state it in the rules.
"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 single 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".
Again, what have my concerns got to do with the rule book? When did anyone ever take notice of my concerns? TPE management had so many documented opportunities to address this situation, reports that stated someone will be killed, yet for whatever reasons the chose to IGNORE every single report, more than anything their IGNORANCE must be brought into question, we would not be where we are now if I had not been IGNORED, my dismissal was a by product of their IGNORANCE, which I believe was deliberate. The simple question is, why did they IGNORE my reports?
"Can I finish, I will take that at face value that he has attempted to make two calls. In making those two calls that he knows are unsuccessful at two stopping points for the train, do I think that that is sufficient to discharge this rule book? I am saying in my belief. No".
"Do I believe that discharged from the rule book, no I don’t".
How many calls would have been suffice? I thought what I did was sufficient, because I always behaved this way. Previous driver reports that I put in prove this!
"Do I believe Perry would know to go and speak to his demons of the past is what I come to. Do I think not getting on the phone is by chance or something else. You ask me why you’ve never been told not to do it before. I’m not using previous disciplines".
As I have proved on this website, previous driver reports proved that I always behaved this way in reporting a partial failure of the warning horn, you can all make your own mind up to the comments made in the above paragraph, it shows however exactly what I was up against, FURTHER IGNORANCE.
"Do I think there is, do I think you followed the correct procedure, do I think actions reasonable" .
"I’ve decided to uphold the original decision".
My fate was made up months before my hearing and appeal, the original decision was flawed beyond belief, the very fact that they had to employ a solicitor before my hearing and appeal tells you everything, we had over 9 hours in this appeal hearing, and that was all Paul Watson could come up with!
So let me ask anyone, did this deserve a charge of gross misconduct?