Stephen Percival
INVESTIGATING OFFICER
INVESTIGATION INTERVIEWS, REPORT & CHARGES
It is labelled as an investigation report, but the reality is, this is nothing more than a character assassination.
So straight away what possible chance did I have of a fair hearing, the investigatory interviews were at the very least basic, how did my charges arise from these two interviews?
I will categorically prove in this section that because this so called investigation was only focused on damaging myself that the charges I received could not possibly have come from this investigation.
If I had been allowed to read my witness statement out aloud, then the three judges would have heard what I am stating below.
The very first interview, I was informed that the reason I was being interviewed was, "to investigate an incident whereby unit no 185119 had been withdrawn from traffic due to allegations about defects". I am also informed that, "the aim of the investigation was to ascertain all the facts of the incident and the importance of being open and honest".
The first thing I was asked was, "if he had filled in a defect slip form (TPE 122063) and stated on this form that he had had a near miss".
My immediate response was, "that he had put this on the form, but also confirmed that he had NOT had a near miss" and later on, "but also confirmed that he had NOT had a near miss" and later again, "SP clarified that PW reported this near miss in an attempt to get action on repairs and a near miss did not occur".
QUESTION: Did I make it one hundred per cent clear that I did not have a near miss incident?
ANSWER: "but also confirmed that he had NOT had a near miss" and "but also confirmed that he had NOT had a near miss" and again, "SP clarified that PW reported this near miss in an attempt to get action on repairs and a near miss did not occur".
So can anyone answer this QUESTION: How did Barry Cook decide the following charge?
CHARGE 2: "Charge 2, you also failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting a near miss incident, resulting in a train being taken out of service. You subsequently admitted that this was a false allegation".
Once again: "but also confirmed that he had NOT had a near miss" and "but also confirmed that he had NOT had a near miss" and "SP clarified that PW reported this near miss in an attempt to get action on repairs and a near miss did not occur". So how can I possibly be charged with something that NEVER HAPPENED?
The near miss never happened, therefore even if there was a set down procedure, which there is not, how can I possibly be charged with not following a procedure that A: Doesn't exist and B: Never happened?
The behaviour of the warning horn in the first interview or the other defects were not mentioned once by Stephen Percival. So what happened to the only reason I was supposedly being investigated, "due to allegations about defects".
2nd Interview
Stephen Percival, started by saying that as investigating officer he was "not to be judgmental or apportion blame but to ascertain the facts so a full and accurate report could be formulated".
We shall see what a blatant lie the above paragraph is.
2. PW said he would be prepared to cover the shunt job after the
interview was completed.
3. SP said this would not be necessary as cover had been provided.
SP says this is not necessary as my job has been covered. This straight away suggests that the outcome of this investigatory interview is all ready predetermined, SP has no idea what I will say but has already decided my outcome. He is already being judgmental before we start.
After this there are many issues with what was written that are not factual, because as I pointed out, I was never given the opportunity to sign these minutes off as being true.
Remember: "not to be judgmental or apportion blame but to ascertain
the facts so a full and accurate report could be formulated".
QUESTION: How do the following paragraph`s, "ascertain the facts" or are relevant to this investigation?
27. SP asked PW to confirm if he had recently had a conversation with Driver Manager Peter Turpin concerning the correct content and structure of reports and advice to keep to the correct format in the
future. SP understood that P. Turpin had advised PW to contact the Driver Managers should he need advice regarding reports and,
33. SP Asked PW why he had not followed P. Turpin`s advice regarding reports.
What has the above got to do with my incident?
Remember: "not to be judgmental or apportion blame but to ascertain the facts so a full and accurate report could be formulated".
39. SP Said that after consideration of the evidence that he had available and in view of the serious nature of the allegations that he felt it necessary to place PW on investigatory suspension with immediate effect. SP Explained that this was not a disciplinary measure and
that PW would receive full basic pay whilst this was effective. SP said that he would confirm his decision in writing the following day and asked PW for his address.
I gather that, "Said that after consideration of the evidence that he had
available ", and "that he felt it necessary to place PW on investigatory suspension with immediate effect", is not being judgmental and apportioning blame!
So after undertaking 2 interviews I have already shown above about charge 2, but will now show all 3 charges.
Charge 1, On Wednesday 14th January you failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting a defective warning horn.
WHERE WAS I EVER ASKED ABOUT THE BEHAVIOUR OF THIS WARNING HORN OR ANY TYPE OF PROCEDURE THAT I DID OR DIDN`T CARRY OUT?
Charge 2, you also failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting a near miss incident, resulting in a train being taken out of service. You subsequently admitted that this was a false allegation.
Once again: "but also confirmed that he had NOT had a near miss" and "but also confirmed that he had NOT had a near miss" and "SP clarified that PW reported this near miss in an attempt to get action on repairs and a near miss did not occur". So how can I possibly be charged with something that NEVER HAPPENED?
Charge 3, You failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting unit defects. WHICH DEFECTS? TOTALLY NON SPECIFIC, WHERE WAS I EVER ASKED ABOUT THE BEHAVIOUR OF THESE SO CALLED DEFECTS OR TYPE OF PROCEDURE THAT I DID OR DIDN`T CARRY OUT?
WHERE IN EITHER INTERVIEW IS EVIDENCE FOUND TO WARRANT THESE 3 CHARGES? IT IS A TOTAL STITCH UP AND FURTHERMORE DISGRACEFUL BEHAVIOUR FROM STEPHEN PERCIVAL AND BARRY COOK.
ACAS GUIDELINES STATE: When investigating a disciplinary matter take care to deal with the employee in a fair and reasonable manner. The nature and extent of the investigations will depend on the seriousness of the matter and the more serious it is then the more thorough the investigation should be. It is important to keep an open mind and look for evidence which supports the employee’s case as well as evidence against.
I CHALLENGE ANYONE TO SHOW ME HOW THAT INVESTIGATION IS REASONABLE AND FAIR.
LET`S NOT FORGET WHAT ROUTE DRIVER MANAGER MARK ATKINSON SAYS ABOUT ACAS: MARK ATKINSON states (MA 108), "I comply with our policy, not ACAS guidelines".
I THINK THAT ANYONE WITH A DEGREE OF INTELLIGENCE CAN SEE THAT I WAS TOTALLY STITCHED UP FROM BEGINNING TO END IN THIS WHOLE FIASCO.
Remember: "not to be judgmental or apportion blame but to ascertain the facts so a full and accurate report could be formulated".
39. SP Said that after consideration of the evidence that he had available and in view of the serious nature of the allegations that he felt it necessary to place PW on investigatory suspension with immediate effect. SP Explained that this was not a disciplinary measure and
that PW would receive full basic pay whilst this was effective. SP said that he would confirm his decision in writing the following day and asked PW for his address.
I gather that, "Said that after consideration of the evidence that he had
available ", and "that he felt it necessary to place PW on investigatory suspension with immediate effect", is not being judgmental and apportioning blame!
So after undertaking 2 interviews I have already shown above about charge 2, but will now show all 3 charges.
Charge 1, On Wednesday 14th January you failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting a defective warning horn.
WHERE WAS I EVER ASKED ABOUT THE BEHAVIOUR OF THIS WARNING HORN OR ANY TYPE OF PROCEDURE THAT I DID OR DIDN`T CARRY OUT?
Charge 2, you also failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting a near miss incident, resulting in a train being taken out of service. You subsequently admitted that this was a false allegation.
Once again: "but also confirmed that he had NOT had a near miss" and "but also confirmed that he had NOT had a near miss" and "SP clarified that PW reported this near miss in an attempt to get action on repairs and a near miss did not occur". So how can I possibly be charged with something that NEVER HAPPENED?
Charge 3, You failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting unit defects. WHICH DEFECTS? TOTALLY NON SPECIFIC, WHERE WAS I EVER ASKED ABOUT THE BEHAVIOUR OF THESE SO CALLED DEFECTS OR TYPE OF PROCEDURE THAT I DID OR DIDN`T CARRY OUT?
WHERE IN EITHER INTERVIEW IS EVIDENCE FOUND TO WARRANT THESE 3 CHARGES? IT IS A TOTAL STITCH UP AND FURTHERMORE DISGRACEFUL BEHAVIOUR FROM STEPHEN PERCIVAL AND BARRY COOK.
ACAS GUIDELINES STATE: When investigating a disciplinary matter take care to deal with the employee in a fair and reasonable manner. The nature and extent of the investigations will depend on the seriousness of the matter and the more serious it is then the more thorough the investigation should be. It is important to keep an open mind and look for evidence which supports the employee’s case as well as evidence against.
I CHALLENGE ANYONE TO SHOW ME HOW THAT INVESTIGATION IS REASONABLE AND FAIR.
LET`S NOT FORGET WHAT ROUTE DRIVER MANAGER MARK ATKINSON SAYS ABOUT ACAS: MARK ATKINSON states (MA 108), "I comply with our policy, not ACAS guidelines".
I THINK THAT ANYONE WITH A DEGREE OF INTELLIGENCE CAN SEE THAT I WAS TOTALLY STITCHED UP FROM BEGINNING TO END IN THIS WHOLE FIASCO.