TransPennine Express Management Behaviour
Barry Cook
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002/oct/16/tradeunions.uk
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/mar/19/transport.world?INTCMP=SRCH
This section is covered in other parts of this website, but this really does require it's own section. It is an absolute disgrace that certain individuals within TransPennine Express Management who will be named are allowed to racially abuse and use sexually explicit behaviour which when challenged makes them discriminate against others with their ruthless bullying behaviour. There are policies in place designed to stop this type of behaviour, yet when you are in a position of power especially within First TransPennine Express Management you are quite simply UNTOUCHABLE. Then there is their BLATANT IGNORANCE towards Health & Safety and their unbelievable lie's, all of which is documented with PROOF.
That is why I can state without any fear whatsoever, "IF THIS OR ANY PART OF IT IS UNTRUE, TAKE ME ON, USE YOUR SOLICITOR AGAINST ME". CLOSE MY SITE DOWN.
I will start with Driver Manager Barry Cook.
BARRY COOK:
Quite why any Rail Company would touch this man after reviewing his past record and methods of so called management is a mystery. Unless of course this is how First Group like their employee's treated. I ask any member of the First Group Board who reads this, "Are you happy with this"?
Barry Cook didn't become a bully overnight, this deep rooted behaviour was evident year's ago. Just read these 2 Guardian newspaper articles from 2002, it is about how Greg Tucker was treated by Barry Cook, sadly Greg Tucker is no longer with us, but what I know about this man, is that he was a proper Trade Unionist, he had the heart of a lion.
That is why I can state without any fear whatsoever, "IF THIS OR ANY PART OF IT IS UNTRUE, TAKE ME ON, USE YOUR SOLICITOR AGAINST ME". CLOSE MY SITE DOWN.
I will start with Driver Manager Barry Cook.
BARRY COOK:
Quite why any Rail Company would touch this man after reviewing his past record and methods of so called management is a mystery. Unless of course this is how First Group like their employee's treated. I ask any member of the First Group Board who reads this, "Are you happy with this"?
Barry Cook didn't become a bully overnight, this deep rooted behaviour was evident year's ago. Just read these 2 Guardian newspaper articles from 2002, it is about how Greg Tucker was treated by Barry Cook, sadly Greg Tucker is no longer with us, but what I know about this man, is that he was a proper Trade Unionist, he had the heart of a lion.
Train driver 'singled out by bosses'
Vikram Dodd
The Guardian, Tuesday 19 March 2002 02.21 GMT
A train driver caught speeding in a passenger train yesterday accused rail chiefs of victimising him for trade union activity.
Greg Tucker, 48, claimed at an employment tribunal that he was unfairly dismissed from his £31,000-a-year driving job with South West Trains when he was demoted to a job as a ticket inspector on half the salary.
The RMT rail union, which is backing Mr Tucker's case, alleged he was singled out by SWT managers as a high profile union activist and demoted without good reason.
In January RMT members staged a two day strike during which nine out of 10 South West services were cancelled and up to 200,000 passenger journeys a day were disrupted.
South West Trains told the hearing in Croydon, south London, that Mr Tucker had been speeding after returning to work last June following a month's leave to stand in the general election as a Socialist Alliance candidate.
On his first day back on June 10, a black box recorder on his train showed Mr Tucker had reached 96.7mph for more than two miles on a stretch of line between Waterloo and Brockenhurst, Hampshire, where the limit is 90mph. In another incident, the black box allegedly recorded the train doing 43mph in a 40mph zone at Clapham Junction.
Days before a disciplinary hearing last July, Bob Crowe, the then assistant general secretary of the RMT, met the managing director of SWT to plead that Mr Tucker be "treated like any other employee".
The hearing was aborted, but next month SWT manager Barry Cook recommended that Mr Tucker, who had earned many good assessments as a driver, be downgraded to inspector. He said: "There are a whole myriad of incidents recorded against you relating to your attitude."
The late RMT general secretary Jimmy Knapp wrote to SWT: "I have been instructed to advise you that the decision to reduce Mr Tucker in grade is regarded as victimisation and petty score settling following the break down in industrial dispute."
John Hendy QC, for the RMT, said Mr Tucker had been treated more harshly than other SWT workers. One driver, he said, had only received a written warning after driving at 101mph in a 90mph zone. SWT claimed the black box was taken from Mr Tucker's train at random.
(NOTE: Every other Driver failed to report a partially and complete warning horn failure, I have proof of this, so why was I the only Driver singled out? We all know the answer.)
Vikram Dodd
The Guardian, Tuesday 19 March 2002 02.21 GMT
A train driver caught speeding in a passenger train yesterday accused rail chiefs of victimising him for trade union activity.
Greg Tucker, 48, claimed at an employment tribunal that he was unfairly dismissed from his £31,000-a-year driving job with South West Trains when he was demoted to a job as a ticket inspector on half the salary.
The RMT rail union, which is backing Mr Tucker's case, alleged he was singled out by SWT managers as a high profile union activist and demoted without good reason.
In January RMT members staged a two day strike during which nine out of 10 South West services were cancelled and up to 200,000 passenger journeys a day were disrupted.
South West Trains told the hearing in Croydon, south London, that Mr Tucker had been speeding after returning to work last June following a month's leave to stand in the general election as a Socialist Alliance candidate.
On his first day back on June 10, a black box recorder on his train showed Mr Tucker had reached 96.7mph for more than two miles on a stretch of line between Waterloo and Brockenhurst, Hampshire, where the limit is 90mph. In another incident, the black box allegedly recorded the train doing 43mph in a 40mph zone at Clapham Junction.
Days before a disciplinary hearing last July, Bob Crowe, the then assistant general secretary of the RMT, met the managing director of SWT to plead that Mr Tucker be "treated like any other employee".
The hearing was aborted, but next month SWT manager Barry Cook recommended that Mr Tucker, who had earned many good assessments as a driver, be downgraded to inspector. He said: "There are a whole myriad of incidents recorded against you relating to your attitude."
The late RMT general secretary Jimmy Knapp wrote to SWT: "I have been instructed to advise you that the decision to reduce Mr Tucker in grade is regarded as victimisation and petty score settling following the break down in industrial dispute."
John Hendy QC, for the RMT, said Mr Tucker had been treated more harshly than other SWT workers. One driver, he said, had only received a written warning after driving at 101mph in a 90mph zone. SWT claimed the black box was taken from Mr Tucker's train at random.
(NOTE: Every other Driver failed to report a partially and complete warning horn failure, I have proof of this, so why was I the only Driver singled out? We all know the answer.)
Silence is striking by Paul Foot
The Guardian, Wednesday 16 October 2002 08.23 BST
Article history
Jonathan Aitken and Jeffrey Archer went to prison for lying to a court. But is it perjury to lie to an industrial tribunal? I ask the question after
reading the astonishing judgment of the London South industrial tribunal into the case of Greg Tucker.
I raised his case here last January. Greg Tucker, a safety representative for the RMT rail union at Waterloo station, was removed from his £30,000 train driver's job in June last year for very briefly exceeding the speed limit on the day he came back from four weeks' unpaid leave. He'd spent his leave campaigning in the general election as a candidate for the Socialist Alliance. He was demoted to ticket collector (£15,000 a year).
His case was heard over eight days last March, June and July. The tribunal found unanimously that he had been unfairly victimised because of his union activities. Their commentary on the behaviour of the two South West Trains executives who gave evidence before them was
extraordinary. Barry Cook, train crew manager at Wimbledon, came in for a terrible bashing. His repeated assertions that he had no idea Tucker was a union militant and had been in the company's sights for some time were denounced as "untrue", "inconceivable" and "unbelievable". He was described as "a deeply unimpressive witness", "evasive", "implausible and even absurd". The tribunal added: "We do not accept (and we devoutly hope we are right in this) that SWT would entrust the care of a depot of 160 train drivers to the care of a manager who ordinarily applies to those under his control reasoning as perverse as Mr Cook claims to have applied to Mr Tucker."
Frank Marsden, SWT's head of drivers, didn't get off any lighter. He was described as "a witness without regard for truth, willing to say whatever he thought would improve the position". SWT tells me Cook and Marsden are still in their jobs. Whether either of them will even be questioned about possible perjury charges is a matter for the police. But the future of these two relatively junior prevaricators is not really the point. In a long passage the tribunal complained about the lack of any information about the role of higher management in the victimisation of Tucker. Who chose Cook and Marsden to represent the company in the disciplinary hearings? Who took the decision to monitor Tucker's driving on the day he returned to work? Were there any discussions about this among SWT's higher management?
On all these matters, the tribunal could get no information. So the real question is still without an answer. Is SWT pursuing a policy of victimisation of trade union representatives who dare to stand up for their members, and even openly to express socialist opinions? In the week Tucker was vindicated, another London RMT representative, Paul McDonnell, also won his case for unfair dismissal by SWT.
"He (Barry Cook) was described as "a deeply unimpressive witness", "evasive", "implausible and even absurd".
"We do not accept (and we devoutly hope we are right in this) that SWT would entrust the care of a depot of 160 train drivers to the care of a manager who ordinarily applies to those under his control reasoning as
perverse as Mr Cook claims to have applied to Mr Tucker."
Is this is the type of manager a company would employ to manage its drivers? This is clearly the type of profile TPE like. Cook did to me and many other's what he did to Greg Tucker, how can he get away with this behaviour you may ask? The answer is simple, you all sit back and allow it. Wait while it is your turn, not just driver's but his own management.
(NOTE: Watson and Atkinson also committed perjury, which I have proved on this site.)
Below is the letter I received from Barry Cook outlining the charges against me.
The Guardian, Wednesday 16 October 2002 08.23 BST
Article history
Jonathan Aitken and Jeffrey Archer went to prison for lying to a court. But is it perjury to lie to an industrial tribunal? I ask the question after
reading the astonishing judgment of the London South industrial tribunal into the case of Greg Tucker.
I raised his case here last January. Greg Tucker, a safety representative for the RMT rail union at Waterloo station, was removed from his £30,000 train driver's job in June last year for very briefly exceeding the speed limit on the day he came back from four weeks' unpaid leave. He'd spent his leave campaigning in the general election as a candidate for the Socialist Alliance. He was demoted to ticket collector (£15,000 a year).
His case was heard over eight days last March, June and July. The tribunal found unanimously that he had been unfairly victimised because of his union activities. Their commentary on the behaviour of the two South West Trains executives who gave evidence before them was
extraordinary. Barry Cook, train crew manager at Wimbledon, came in for a terrible bashing. His repeated assertions that he had no idea Tucker was a union militant and had been in the company's sights for some time were denounced as "untrue", "inconceivable" and "unbelievable". He was described as "a deeply unimpressive witness", "evasive", "implausible and even absurd". The tribunal added: "We do not accept (and we devoutly hope we are right in this) that SWT would entrust the care of a depot of 160 train drivers to the care of a manager who ordinarily applies to those under his control reasoning as perverse as Mr Cook claims to have applied to Mr Tucker."
Frank Marsden, SWT's head of drivers, didn't get off any lighter. He was described as "a witness without regard for truth, willing to say whatever he thought would improve the position". SWT tells me Cook and Marsden are still in their jobs. Whether either of them will even be questioned about possible perjury charges is a matter for the police. But the future of these two relatively junior prevaricators is not really the point. In a long passage the tribunal complained about the lack of any information about the role of higher management in the victimisation of Tucker. Who chose Cook and Marsden to represent the company in the disciplinary hearings? Who took the decision to monitor Tucker's driving on the day he returned to work? Were there any discussions about this among SWT's higher management?
On all these matters, the tribunal could get no information. So the real question is still without an answer. Is SWT pursuing a policy of victimisation of trade union representatives who dare to stand up for their members, and even openly to express socialist opinions? In the week Tucker was vindicated, another London RMT representative, Paul McDonnell, also won his case for unfair dismissal by SWT.
"He (Barry Cook) was described as "a deeply unimpressive witness", "evasive", "implausible and even absurd".
"We do not accept (and we devoutly hope we are right in this) that SWT would entrust the care of a depot of 160 train drivers to the care of a manager who ordinarily applies to those under his control reasoning as
perverse as Mr Cook claims to have applied to Mr Tucker."
Is this is the type of manager a company would employ to manage its drivers? This is clearly the type of profile TPE like. Cook did to me and many other's what he did to Greg Tucker, how can he get away with this behaviour you may ask? The answer is simple, you all sit back and allow it. Wait while it is your turn, not just driver's but his own management.
(NOTE: Watson and Atkinson also committed perjury, which I have proved on this site.)
Below is the letter I received from Barry Cook outlining the charges against me.
The following is from my witness statement, the very statement that the tribunal wouldn't let me read out!
43. On the 10th February 2009 I received a letter from Route Driver Manager Barry Cook (above) with the 3 charges of alleged gross misconduct. It says that my actions if established would amount to gross misconduct. It further states that if they are upheld I am at risk from summary dismissal. “They” being the key word.
44. Charge 1, On Wednesday 14th January you failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting a defective warning horn. There was no appropriate rule book prefix with this charge, I knew what occurred that day but quite clearly Mr. Cook was so unsure that he only called the warning horn, (defective), there was no mention of a complete or partial failure of this warning horn as defined in the rule book. How can I be charged with gross misconduct on the information he used from the investigation which failed to ascertain what was wrong with that warning horn?
This charge was not specific. The following (69) is a copy of how the charges should have been made specific, it`s how another driver was charged and shows how the rule book is quoted in conjunction with the charges. How could Mr. Cook form a belief that I am guilty of gross misconduct on a non specific charge? Barry Cook, quite clearly did not understand from the investigation report what actually happened that morning, therefore his belief can only be based upon assumption not fact.
Below is how Barry Cook charged driver Nigel Smith. Note: the specific charges.
43. On the 10th February 2009 I received a letter from Route Driver Manager Barry Cook (above) with the 3 charges of alleged gross misconduct. It says that my actions if established would amount to gross misconduct. It further states that if they are upheld I am at risk from summary dismissal. “They” being the key word.
44. Charge 1, On Wednesday 14th January you failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting a defective warning horn. There was no appropriate rule book prefix with this charge, I knew what occurred that day but quite clearly Mr. Cook was so unsure that he only called the warning horn, (defective), there was no mention of a complete or partial failure of this warning horn as defined in the rule book. How can I be charged with gross misconduct on the information he used from the investigation which failed to ascertain what was wrong with that warning horn?
This charge was not specific. The following (69) is a copy of how the charges should have been made specific, it`s how another driver was charged and shows how the rule book is quoted in conjunction with the charges. How could Mr. Cook form a belief that I am guilty of gross misconduct on a non specific charge? Barry Cook, quite clearly did not understand from the investigation report what actually happened that morning, therefore his belief can only be based upon assumption not fact.
Below is how Barry Cook charged driver Nigel Smith. Note: the specific charges.
Continuing with the charges levelled against me by Barry Cook. (Extracts from my witness statement).
45. The reason why this charge was not specific is because nowhere in the investigation did the investigating Manager Stephen Percival ascertain what, when, where, or how, my warning horn behaved and was used on that morning. Yet this warning horn was the most paramount issue and concern that sparked my repair book entry. For interest, I was also never asked once about the wipers or noise issues that were also part of my repair book entry.
46. 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. I split this into 3 separate issues.
47. Issue 1, you also failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting a near miss incident. I explained from the very first interview on the 15th January 2009 that I had not been involved in a near miss, (70) para 4, it says, “but also confirmed he had NOT had a near miss”. However there is no procedure to be found for reporting a near miss. So why was I charged with this? I requested from Employee Relations Manager Charlotte Pears a copy of the near miss reporting procedure, Miss Pears response via email, (71) para 2,said, “In respect of the near miss reporting procedure this would be as per the rule book”. I requested a copy of the rule book near miss reporting procedure because I could not find the procedure.
I was then informed by Miss Pears, (72) first paragraph,“I understand the rule book does not specifically cover near miss incidents, however this is covered in Train Driver Competence Standards & Guidance, (SC1)”. There is also no mention of a so called near miss reporting procedure in this document. Is this evidence of Manager Barry Cook having a
reasonable belief, supposedly in my guilt, that when the procedure he refers to and TPE are then asked for a copy, they cannot pinpoint where it can be found.
48. Looking at issue 1, I have just shown that there was no near miss therefore even if there was a procedure to follow, the procedure would not be relevant. Also there is no such procedure written down as a set of instructions to follow, therefore how can I be charged with gross misconduct on this so called failure to follow a procedure?
49. Issue 2, resulting in a train being taken out of service. This is not a charge and the train was not taken out of service, it finished its booked diagram work at the end of the day.
50. Issue 3, you subsequently admitted that this was a false allegation. I believe that this is the main ingredient in TPE`s case against me, the false allegation. Is this statement though, actually charging me with making a false allegation? Or am I being charged with the admittance of making a false allegation? This would be totally different. If the false allegation was the main issue and as the wording of the investigation says, “false allegation of a near miss incident on a unit defect slip”, why wasn`t this charge worded as a charge in its own right and not as a footnote.
51. On charge 3. You failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting unit defects. Like charge one, very non specific and without showing which part of the rule book I allegedly failed to follow. I can only assume it refers to the windscreen wiper and the noise coming from the driver`s door. How can this be classed as gross misconduct without a procedure to follow? Even if there was a procedure it would not amount to gross
misconduct.
45. The reason why this charge was not specific is because nowhere in the investigation did the investigating Manager Stephen Percival ascertain what, when, where, or how, my warning horn behaved and was used on that morning. Yet this warning horn was the most paramount issue and concern that sparked my repair book entry. For interest, I was also never asked once about the wipers or noise issues that were also part of my repair book entry.
46. 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. I split this into 3 separate issues.
47. Issue 1, you also failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting a near miss incident. I explained from the very first interview on the 15th January 2009 that I had not been involved in a near miss, (70) para 4, it says, “but also confirmed he had NOT had a near miss”. However there is no procedure to be found for reporting a near miss. So why was I charged with this? I requested from Employee Relations Manager Charlotte Pears a copy of the near miss reporting procedure, Miss Pears response via email, (71) para 2,said, “In respect of the near miss reporting procedure this would be as per the rule book”. I requested a copy of the rule book near miss reporting procedure because I could not find the procedure.
I was then informed by Miss Pears, (72) first paragraph,“I understand the rule book does not specifically cover near miss incidents, however this is covered in Train Driver Competence Standards & Guidance, (SC1)”. There is also no mention of a so called near miss reporting procedure in this document. Is this evidence of Manager Barry Cook having a
reasonable belief, supposedly in my guilt, that when the procedure he refers to and TPE are then asked for a copy, they cannot pinpoint where it can be found.
48. Looking at issue 1, I have just shown that there was no near miss therefore even if there was a procedure to follow, the procedure would not be relevant. Also there is no such procedure written down as a set of instructions to follow, therefore how can I be charged with gross misconduct on this so called failure to follow a procedure?
49. Issue 2, resulting in a train being taken out of service. This is not a charge and the train was not taken out of service, it finished its booked diagram work at the end of the day.
50. Issue 3, you subsequently admitted that this was a false allegation. I believe that this is the main ingredient in TPE`s case against me, the false allegation. Is this statement though, actually charging me with making a false allegation? Or am I being charged with the admittance of making a false allegation? This would be totally different. If the false allegation was the main issue and as the wording of the investigation says, “false allegation of a near miss incident on a unit defect slip”, why wasn`t this charge worded as a charge in its own right and not as a footnote.
51. On charge 3. You failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting unit defects. Like charge one, very non specific and without showing which part of the rule book I allegedly failed to follow. I can only assume it refers to the windscreen wiper and the noise coming from the driver`s door. How can this be classed as gross misconduct without a procedure to follow? Even if there was a procedure it would not amount to gross
misconduct.
LATEST NEWS: (14th March) Barry Cook has a GRIEVANCE against him on grounds of BULLYING from a Sheffield driver.
Barry Cook's involvement in the Lisa Dunster case is another issue coming back to haunt him!
Barry Cook's involvement in the Lisa Dunster case is another issue coming back to haunt him!