The following is the Witness Statement of Operations Director Paul Watson, which was also submitted 20 days after the deadline set by the Employment Tribunal Judge Grazin.
Please note, as with Route Driver Manager Mark Atkinson`s Witness Statement, I will point out the LIES of Operations Director Paul Watson.
"Lying when giving oral evidence, is Perjury, contrary to s1(1) of the Perjury Act 1911".
WITNESS STATEMENT OF PAUL WATSON,
I PAUL WATSON, of Bridgewater House, 60 Whitworth Street, Manchester will say as follows:
1 I am employed by First/Keolis TransPennine Express Limited (“the Company”) as Operations Director. I have been in that role since December 2008. I have been working in the rail industry for 33 years. I began my career as a Guard before progressing to a Driver and had 10 years experience as a Trade Union representative during which time I held the post of Health & Safety representative.
2 My role involves responsibility for all areas of the Company's operational safety output, train service, performance, staff welfare and I am the Professional Head of Operational Safety.
CHALLENGE TO PAUL WATSON. As for being Professional Head of Operational Safety, I have made and shown with evidence some serious issues on health and safety, are you going to investigate these issues? Then there are other issues that relate directly to your managers, will you investigate these claims?
3 On 3 July 2009, Mr Webb appealed against the decision by Mark Atkinson to summarily dismiss him at a disciplinary hearing on 30 June 2009.
4 During my career I have conducted well over 100 appeal hearings and always conduct them in the full knowledge that if the information before me leads me to believe that the charges were not proven or the sanction was too high, then I am able to overturn the original decision. It is always my own decision based on the facts available to me.
5 Prior to the appeal hearing, I considered the Company investigation report, the Industry Rule Book, the Company procedures on defect reporting, the Occupational Health report stating that Mr Webb was fit to attend a hearing, the disciplinary hearing minutes and the disciplinary outcome letter.
6 On 7 September 2009, I conducted the appeal hearing with Mr Webb. Shaun Brady, ATCU representative, and Charlotte Pears, Employee Relations Manager, were also in attendance. Ms Pears was present to act as note taker and advise on procedure, should it be required.
Ms Pears took no notes whatsoever, instead relying upon audio taping of the appeal. Just like with my hearing, she interrupted to have her say against me, then at the end of this hearing when the tape ran out, as you will see in the minutes the following happened.
Ms Pears was unable to keep up with the dictation of the last few minutes, this is reflected in the minutes by the statement, “Following is not verbatim due to tape running out”. Other than stick her nose in when she thought it was damaging me, what was this woman there for? Paul Watson said himself that he has been present at over 100 appeal hearings.
7 I began the hearing by explaining the reasons which I understood were the basis of the appeal namely, that Mr Webb felt that evidence had not been taken into account by Mr Atkinson and that labelling the original charges as gross misconduct was excessive.
When has failing to follow the correct procedure for reporting a partially defective warning horn become a gross misconduct charge? Unless of course when you as a Manager decide to make up your own set of procedures and alter them from time to time to fit what you think is appropriate.
8 The evidence which Mr Webb asserted was not taken into account was presented to me by Mr Brady in the form of two box files. Contained within the box files were his original contracts of employment, ACAS guidance on disciplinary procedure, emails between Drivers separate to this process, weather reports and the investigation outcomes for other Driver incidents. I suggested, from the paperwork, that it appeared Mr Webb believed that his actions, in fabricating a near miss incident and reporting it to the Company, were justified as it was a result of frustration from his perception that his numerous previous fault reports had gone unanswered by the Company. I then asked Mr Webb and Mr Brady for comments.
I have said all along, the IGNORANCE and LIES of this management were unbelievable, you only have to read this website to see for yourself.
"and the investigation outcomes for other Driver incidents"? We shall see what this statement is talking about later on. It should say, outcome.
9 They suggested that there were a number of procedural breaches during the investigation and the disciplinary hearing which formed part of the grounds for appeal. These were that:
representation;
9.1 they had requested two witnesses to attend the appeal and the request was
refused;
SEE 19 BELOW.
9.2 at the initial investigation meeting Mr Webb had been refused representation;
SEE 29 BELOW.
9.3 the charges were not sufficiently outlined and did not indicate any actual breach of procedure;
SEE 11 BELOW.
9.4 the questions the disciplinary hearing officer, Mark Atkinson, posed during the hearing were aggressive and interrogative and it was alleged that Mr Webb was not allowed to answer the questions raised; and
I ask anyone to listen to the audio tape of this hearing, my representative Steve Trumm nearly called this hearing off due to the aggressive behaviour of Mark Atkinson.
I was interrupted numerous times. Mark Atkinson became so muddled up that he constantly went over the same subject time and time again.
9.5 Mr Webb had never been supplied with the updated disciplinary procedure, which made the process flawed. It was also alleged that by following the Company's procedure it had not complied with ACAS
guidance in relation to the provision of a representative during investigation meetings.
SEE 29 BELOW.
10 It was also alleged that:
10.1 the real reason Mr Webb had been dismissed was because the number of complaints he had made had led the Company to believe that he was a trouble maker;
SEE 36 BELOW.
10.2 there was predetermination of the outcome on the basis of his Trade Union activities;
SEE 36 BELOW.
10.3 the Company failed to take into account the frustration of Mr Webb following two to three years of complaints which he believed had not been dealt with; and
Correct, as my evidence will prove. As this whole website shows.
10.4 an email sent by myself in relation to the Injury Prevention (“IP”) showed that the Company were not taking safety reports seriously. The IP process was a process agreed with the Unions to enable all Drivers to report any issues which they believed may cause injury. Over the passage of time the IP reports have become used as a way of reporting all day to day problems. My email was sent to all managers responsible for the IP reports and stated that the Company would take a dim view of any reports logged on the IP database which were in there for a long period of time and not marked as resolved.
I lost count of how many IP reports I actually put in, do you think any received a response? Were any of mine actually logged on the IP database?
The first email (196 below) is from Jill James, Safety Systems Manager to (TPE all staff), management staff. It is regarding the IP (Injury Prevention) procedures, Jill states, “There are a number of Injury Prevention contacts in the database which remain open and require close out, some of which date back to previous years”. What happened to the IP reports that I submitted about the warning horns (198 & 199 below)? These were not in this database, why not? What this shows is that individual managers who received these reports from me couldn`t be bothered to implement them into the IP database. As Peter Turpin was my allocated Driver manager then I hold him responsible. This email also shows that issues brought up in IP reports are still not addressed years later.
Please note, as with Route Driver Manager Mark Atkinson`s Witness Statement, I will point out the LIES of Operations Director Paul Watson.
"Lying when giving oral evidence, is Perjury, contrary to s1(1) of the Perjury Act 1911".
WITNESS STATEMENT OF PAUL WATSON,
I PAUL WATSON, of Bridgewater House, 60 Whitworth Street, Manchester will say as follows:
1 I am employed by First/Keolis TransPennine Express Limited (“the Company”) as Operations Director. I have been in that role since December 2008. I have been working in the rail industry for 33 years. I began my career as a Guard before progressing to a Driver and had 10 years experience as a Trade Union representative during which time I held the post of Health & Safety representative.
2 My role involves responsibility for all areas of the Company's operational safety output, train service, performance, staff welfare and I am the Professional Head of Operational Safety.
CHALLENGE TO PAUL WATSON. As for being Professional Head of Operational Safety, I have made and shown with evidence some serious issues on health and safety, are you going to investigate these issues? Then there are other issues that relate directly to your managers, will you investigate these claims?
3 On 3 July 2009, Mr Webb appealed against the decision by Mark Atkinson to summarily dismiss him at a disciplinary hearing on 30 June 2009.
4 During my career I have conducted well over 100 appeal hearings and always conduct them in the full knowledge that if the information before me leads me to believe that the charges were not proven or the sanction was too high, then I am able to overturn the original decision. It is always my own decision based on the facts available to me.
5 Prior to the appeal hearing, I considered the Company investigation report, the Industry Rule Book, the Company procedures on defect reporting, the Occupational Health report stating that Mr Webb was fit to attend a hearing, the disciplinary hearing minutes and the disciplinary outcome letter.
6 On 7 September 2009, I conducted the appeal hearing with Mr Webb. Shaun Brady, ATCU representative, and Charlotte Pears, Employee Relations Manager, were also in attendance. Ms Pears was present to act as note taker and advise on procedure, should it be required.
Ms Pears took no notes whatsoever, instead relying upon audio taping of the appeal. Just like with my hearing, she interrupted to have her say against me, then at the end of this hearing when the tape ran out, as you will see in the minutes the following happened.
Ms Pears was unable to keep up with the dictation of the last few minutes, this is reflected in the minutes by the statement, “Following is not verbatim due to tape running out”. Other than stick her nose in when she thought it was damaging me, what was this woman there for? Paul Watson said himself that he has been present at over 100 appeal hearings.
7 I began the hearing by explaining the reasons which I understood were the basis of the appeal namely, that Mr Webb felt that evidence had not been taken into account by Mr Atkinson and that labelling the original charges as gross misconduct was excessive.
When has failing to follow the correct procedure for reporting a partially defective warning horn become a gross misconduct charge? Unless of course when you as a Manager decide to make up your own set of procedures and alter them from time to time to fit what you think is appropriate.
8 The evidence which Mr Webb asserted was not taken into account was presented to me by Mr Brady in the form of two box files. Contained within the box files were his original contracts of employment, ACAS guidance on disciplinary procedure, emails between Drivers separate to this process, weather reports and the investigation outcomes for other Driver incidents. I suggested, from the paperwork, that it appeared Mr Webb believed that his actions, in fabricating a near miss incident and reporting it to the Company, were justified as it was a result of frustration from his perception that his numerous previous fault reports had gone unanswered by the Company. I then asked Mr Webb and Mr Brady for comments.
I have said all along, the IGNORANCE and LIES of this management were unbelievable, you only have to read this website to see for yourself.
"and the investigation outcomes for other Driver incidents"? We shall see what this statement is talking about later on. It should say, outcome.
9 They suggested that there were a number of procedural breaches during the investigation and the disciplinary hearing which formed part of the grounds for appeal. These were that:
representation;
9.1 they had requested two witnesses to attend the appeal and the request was
refused;
SEE 19 BELOW.
9.2 at the initial investigation meeting Mr Webb had been refused representation;
SEE 29 BELOW.
9.3 the charges were not sufficiently outlined and did not indicate any actual breach of procedure;
SEE 11 BELOW.
9.4 the questions the disciplinary hearing officer, Mark Atkinson, posed during the hearing were aggressive and interrogative and it was alleged that Mr Webb was not allowed to answer the questions raised; and
I ask anyone to listen to the audio tape of this hearing, my representative Steve Trumm nearly called this hearing off due to the aggressive behaviour of Mark Atkinson.
I was interrupted numerous times. Mark Atkinson became so muddled up that he constantly went over the same subject time and time again.
9.5 Mr Webb had never been supplied with the updated disciplinary procedure, which made the process flawed. It was also alleged that by following the Company's procedure it had not complied with ACAS
guidance in relation to the provision of a representative during investigation meetings.
SEE 29 BELOW.
10 It was also alleged that:
10.1 the real reason Mr Webb had been dismissed was because the number of complaints he had made had led the Company to believe that he was a trouble maker;
SEE 36 BELOW.
10.2 there was predetermination of the outcome on the basis of his Trade Union activities;
SEE 36 BELOW.
10.3 the Company failed to take into account the frustration of Mr Webb following two to three years of complaints which he believed had not been dealt with; and
Correct, as my evidence will prove. As this whole website shows.
10.4 an email sent by myself in relation to the Injury Prevention (“IP”) showed that the Company were not taking safety reports seriously. The IP process was a process agreed with the Unions to enable all Drivers to report any issues which they believed may cause injury. Over the passage of time the IP reports have become used as a way of reporting all day to day problems. My email was sent to all managers responsible for the IP reports and stated that the Company would take a dim view of any reports logged on the IP database which were in there for a long period of time and not marked as resolved.
I lost count of how many IP reports I actually put in, do you think any received a response? Were any of mine actually logged on the IP database?
The first email (196 below) is from Jill James, Safety Systems Manager to (TPE all staff), management staff. It is regarding the IP (Injury Prevention) procedures, Jill states, “There are a number of Injury Prevention contacts in the database which remain open and require close out, some of which date back to previous years”. What happened to the IP reports that I submitted about the warning horns (198 & 199 below)? These were not in this database, why not? What this shows is that individual managers who received these reports from me couldn`t be bothered to implement them into the IP database. As Peter Turpin was my allocated Driver manager then I hold him responsible. This email also shows that issues brought up in IP reports are still not addressed years later.
_
Email
19th August 2009 from Jill Louise James, Safety Systems Manager
Quite an alarming email regarding the safety ethics of TPE. It is an admission that there are Injury prevention contacts in the database which have not been closed out, meaning IGNORED.
Especially as some date back to previous years.
Unbelievably these contacts are supposedly monitored at “Group Level” and at the “Safety Management Group” each period. So the obvious questions are, if monitored at these two levels then how was Injury Prevention contacts allowed to remain as OPEN CONTACTS over not only days or months but YEARS? Your system in place obviously does not work, the only answer to that, I see, is complacency and ignorance. You have no fail safe system in place despite many people and parts of your organization being involved and you always say, “Safety is our number one priority”!
How many of these contacts are mine? How many are regarding the serious safety concerns I regularly complained about concerning the warning horn? Because I never received any responses to these very serious issues that were and still are life threatening. Jill then goes on to point out “Good Practice”, this so called good practice is part of a Route Manager and Driver Managers basic competence requirements from their job description. This can be summed up by two descriptive words incompetence and ignorance?
Quite an alarming email regarding the safety ethics of TPE. It is an admission that there are Injury prevention contacts in the database which have not been closed out, meaning IGNORED.
Especially as some date back to previous years.
Unbelievably these contacts are supposedly monitored at “Group Level” and at the “Safety Management Group” each period. So the obvious questions are, if monitored at these two levels then how was Injury Prevention contacts allowed to remain as OPEN CONTACTS over not only days or months but YEARS? Your system in place obviously does not work, the only answer to that, I see, is complacency and ignorance. You have no fail safe system in place despite many people and parts of your organization being involved and you always say, “Safety is our number one priority”!
How many of these contacts are mine? How many are regarding the serious safety concerns I regularly complained about concerning the warning horn? Because I never received any responses to these very serious issues that were and still are life threatening. Jill then goes on to point out “Good Practice”, this so called good practice is part of a Route Manager and Driver Managers basic competence requirements from their job description. This can be summed up by two descriptive words incompetence and ignorance?
_ Email 20th August 2009 from Paul Watson, Operations Director
This email was sent to all Managers telling them to check the database for any of their individual outstanding “Open Actions”, and make sure an update is included if they cannot be closed out. The following statement says to me, that this is a get out clause, “Be aware that in some cases but not indicating the correct field when the entry is first made, it is possible to assign yourself an action out of something that was rectified on the day, if this is the case, they need to be closed down now”. What could possibly be rectified on the day? Most of these reports were probably not input the following day in to the database. It shouldn`t take weeks, months or years to close off one of these reports. You even state, “As explaining this some months later will not be acceptable”, so what about those that are a year or possibly 3 years overdue? Are they acceptable? If closed down now after 1 year open, is that acceptable?
You go on to say that, “The, “Open”, actions are now traced through your, Operations team meeting, Safety Management Group, Board and at PLC Board level, so how were these that are over a few weeks old missed each time and allowed to continue being left OPEN? You then go on to say, “Where the view being formed that anyone who has actions open for a long time that could/should have been closed are not taking safety as seriously as they should”. Personally anyone at management grade who quite clearly is not taking safety seriously should be charged with gross misconduct for not carrying out their duties as defined in their job description. Even more so on such high level safety issues that could result in DEATH, and to think Mark Atkinson had the cheek to say, I put the whole of the railway at risk! Your management never took my reports on trivial and serious safety matters seriously, just look at how many reports I made that contained the following statement, “Why am I always ignored”. If my IP reports and numerous other reports were not IGNORED then I would not be in this position now, TPE created this cesspit of ignorance, not me, you are to blame.
Your management failure to follow the IP process constitutes an UNCONTROLLED SAFETY RISK.
Your final statement says it all, “Let`s make sure we are on top of it now please”. This is high level safety, there should be no excuses for getting this right from the start, you need to take a good look at your Driver Management for allowing it to degenerate to such an atrocious level and then look at higher level and ask yourself, how was this missed and allowed to continue for such a long time?
This email was sent to all Managers telling them to check the database for any of their individual outstanding “Open Actions”, and make sure an update is included if they cannot be closed out. The following statement says to me, that this is a get out clause, “Be aware that in some cases but not indicating the correct field when the entry is first made, it is possible to assign yourself an action out of something that was rectified on the day, if this is the case, they need to be closed down now”. What could possibly be rectified on the day? Most of these reports were probably not input the following day in to the database. It shouldn`t take weeks, months or years to close off one of these reports. You even state, “As explaining this some months later will not be acceptable”, so what about those that are a year or possibly 3 years overdue? Are they acceptable? If closed down now after 1 year open, is that acceptable?
You go on to say that, “The, “Open”, actions are now traced through your, Operations team meeting, Safety Management Group, Board and at PLC Board level, so how were these that are over a few weeks old missed each time and allowed to continue being left OPEN? You then go on to say, “Where the view being formed that anyone who has actions open for a long time that could/should have been closed are not taking safety as seriously as they should”. Personally anyone at management grade who quite clearly is not taking safety seriously should be charged with gross misconduct for not carrying out their duties as defined in their job description. Even more so on such high level safety issues that could result in DEATH, and to think Mark Atkinson had the cheek to say, I put the whole of the railway at risk! Your management never took my reports on trivial and serious safety matters seriously, just look at how many reports I made that contained the following statement, “Why am I always ignored”. If my IP reports and numerous other reports were not IGNORED then I would not be in this position now, TPE created this cesspit of ignorance, not me, you are to blame.
Your management failure to follow the IP process constitutes an UNCONTROLLED SAFETY RISK.
Your final statement says it all, “Let`s make sure we are on top of it now please”. This is high level safety, there should be no excuses for getting this right from the start, you need to take a good look at your Driver Management for allowing it to degenerate to such an atrocious level and then look at higher level and ask yourself, how was this missed and allowed to continue for such a long time?
Why was this IP report completely IGNORED? This sums up the morning of the 14th January 2009, although the above points out a complete warning horn failure. It also should have started alarm bells ringing, quite simply was this situation reported using the correct procedures? If not, why not?
It also quite clearly suggests a culture of non reporting by Drivers, if as TPE always state, "safety is our number one priority", then why was this IGNORED? Where was the IP response?
I CHALLENGE DRIVER MANAGER PETER TURPIN TO ANSWER THE ABOVE.
It also quite clearly suggests a culture of non reporting by Drivers, if as TPE always state, "safety is our number one priority", then why was this IGNORED? Where was the IP response?
I CHALLENGE DRIVER MANAGER PETER TURPIN TO ANSWER THE ABOVE.
Another very serious issue regarding the behaviour of the warning horn, it shows how in the course of a journey the warning horn fails to work when you first go to use it, there is every possibility that this warning horn failed to work for previous Drivers, because I have encountered this on numerous occasions.
This also shows a possible complete failure of the warning horn, so once again, why wasn`t this report followed up, it highlights serious issues and even states, "Maybe a DEATH is required before a solution is found".
A question to any Driver Managers reading this, if you got this report on your desk, would you IGNORE it?
SO DRIVER MANAGER PETER TURPIN, WHY DID YOU IGNORE IT?
This also shows a possible complete failure of the warning horn, so once again, why wasn`t this report followed up, it highlights serious issues and even states, "Maybe a DEATH is required before a solution is found".
A question to any Driver Managers reading this, if you got this report on your desk, would you IGNORE it?
SO DRIVER MANAGER PETER TURPIN, WHY DID YOU IGNORE IT?
From above, TPE state, "IF YOU FOLLOW THE INJURY PREVENTION PRINCIPLES AND REPORT UNSAFE CONDITIONS AND CHALLENGE UNSAFE BEHAVIOURS IT WILL HELP US IMPROVE SAFETY".
Throughout this website, you will see that all I ever did was the above, but all that I ever received in return was silence, in other words, the word that you will see displayed all over this website, IGNORANCE.
Like I have always said, I CHALLENGE any TPE Manager to show otherwise.
Throughout this website, you will see that all I ever did was the above, but all that I ever received in return was silence, in other words, the word that you will see displayed all over this website, IGNORANCE.
Like I have always said, I CHALLENGE any TPE Manager to show otherwise.
"You can make a difference by":
"Reporting anything you think is unsafe, no matter how small you think it may be".
I tried to report numerous issues, what difference did it make.
THIS QUESTION IS FOR DRIVER MANAGER PETER TURPIN.
"Reporting anything you think is unsafe, no matter how small you think it may be".
I tried to report numerous issues, what difference did it make.
THIS QUESTION IS FOR DRIVER MANAGER PETER TURPIN.
The IP Principles above are an absolute joke, everything looks good on paper and in glossy magazines but in reality? This website answers the reality.
Take the statements made above, "We are committed to feeding back to you the corrective actions taken as a result of the IP process so that you can see the benefit".
Where is the feedback? Where is the feedback to anything with these people?
"We will develop a process that will mean all frontline employees will have more regular meetings with their managers which will include the identification of specific training requirements".
We couldn`t even get a safety brief as I have proven, when did any Manager speak with me?
BELOW: IP PROCESS INVOLVING THE PAST AND PRESENT MANAGING DIRECTOR`S OF TPE
Logically, you would think at this level, this process would be carried out to text book fashion, a way of showing their Management how to take this process forward, how they would like this process carried out. What I will show is, simply, no wonder all I ever came across was IGNORANCE, because their Managers do carry this process out like them. This involves Vernon Barker and Nick Donovan.
Take the statements made above, "We are committed to feeding back to you the corrective actions taken as a result of the IP process so that you can see the benefit".
Where is the feedback? Where is the feedback to anything with these people?
"We will develop a process that will mean all frontline employees will have more regular meetings with their managers which will include the identification of specific training requirements".
We couldn`t even get a safety brief as I have proven, when did any Manager speak with me?
BELOW: IP PROCESS INVOLVING THE PAST AND PRESENT MANAGING DIRECTOR`S OF TPE
Logically, you would think at this level, this process would be carried out to text book fashion, a way of showing their Management how to take this process forward, how they would like this process carried out. What I will show is, simply, no wonder all I ever came across was IGNORANCE, because their Managers do carry this process out like them. This involves Vernon Barker and Nick Donovan.
What the above IP Contact Action History actually shows:
This IP Contact came about because of a cab ride Vernon Barker had with me from York to Leeds, his observations were, "Good controlled driving", and "Adhesion sites and causes of Signals Passed At Danger, (SPADS) at Leeds", which was something I spoke with Vernon about.
However there was one other issue I brought up, which Vernon describes as,"Consider use of a seal or software override to limit the distance over which a propelling move can be made".
I brought this issue up over a York Driver, Ian Foster, who in my opinion was being harshly treated, Ian reversed his train back into the platform at Garforth after over shooting the platform. This is something Ian did out of blind panic.
To me, it is basic common sense that no Driver should be able to reverse any train just by sticking his selection handle into reverse and applying power.
I explained that there should be a manual override, linked in with a procedure that is strict in its wording about the consequences of a reversing move. I said that if a Driver tears open a seal, he or she must be aware of the actions they are about to carry out. I also pointed out that software could restrict the distance and speed of any movement, all of this would prevent the same thing from happening again.
On the 2nd October 2008, Vernon Barker assigned this IP Contact to Nick Donovan.
There is a feedback recipient date of 23rd October 2008 with the feedback recipient being Nick Donovan?
The closed dated is supposedly the 3rd July 2009?
But as you will see below, this IP Contact has not run its course, how can it possibly be closed out on the 3rd July 2009 when it has only just been brought to the attention of the engineering team?
So this referral took 10 months, that is 10 months with nothing happening on what was and still is a very serious issue that could have disastrous consequences if this was to happen again.
This IP Contact came about because of a cab ride Vernon Barker had with me from York to Leeds, his observations were, "Good controlled driving", and "Adhesion sites and causes of Signals Passed At Danger, (SPADS) at Leeds", which was something I spoke with Vernon about.
However there was one other issue I brought up, which Vernon describes as,"Consider use of a seal or software override to limit the distance over which a propelling move can be made".
I brought this issue up over a York Driver, Ian Foster, who in my opinion was being harshly treated, Ian reversed his train back into the platform at Garforth after over shooting the platform. This is something Ian did out of blind panic.
To me, it is basic common sense that no Driver should be able to reverse any train just by sticking his selection handle into reverse and applying power.
I explained that there should be a manual override, linked in with a procedure that is strict in its wording about the consequences of a reversing move. I said that if a Driver tears open a seal, he or she must be aware of the actions they are about to carry out. I also pointed out that software could restrict the distance and speed of any movement, all of this would prevent the same thing from happening again.
On the 2nd October 2008, Vernon Barker assigned this IP Contact to Nick Donovan.
There is a feedback recipient date of 23rd October 2008 with the feedback recipient being Nick Donovan?
The closed dated is supposedly the 3rd July 2009?
But as you will see below, this IP Contact has not run its course, how can it possibly be closed out on the 3rd July 2009 when it has only just been brought to the attention of the engineering team?
So this referral took 10 months, that is 10 months with nothing happening on what was and still is a very serious issue that could have disastrous consequences if this was to happen again.
Please remember, the above was carried out by 2 Managing Director`s who are both ultimately responsible for safety within TPE.
Did I ever get feedback? We all know that answer, possibly because this IP Contact has been closed down in their system and there is now no way of following the trail that has ended up with the engineering team.
I CHALLENGE, VERNON BARKER AND NICK DONOVAN TO ANSWER THE ABOVE.
Continuing with the witness statement of Paul Watson.
Did I ever get feedback? We all know that answer, possibly because this IP Contact has been closed down in their system and there is now no way of following the trail that has ended up with the engineering team.
I CHALLENGE, VERNON BARKER AND NICK DONOVAN TO ANSWER THE ABOVE.
Continuing with the witness statement of Paul Watson.
_11 To elaborate on the allegation at 9.3 (that the disciplinary charges did not indicate any actual breaches of procedure), Mr Webb stated that the horn failure he was charged with not reporting correctly, was actually only a partial horn failure and therefore the reporting procedure did not apply and in any event, that by making two attempts to report the fault over the national radio network (NRN) at Darlington and Northallerton stations he had fully complied with the procedure. The difference between a full and partial horn failure is that each train has two horn tones. The situation can occur where one of the horn tones fails. This is a partial horn failure.
ACAS GUIDELINES STATE:
"What should disciplinary procedures contain? When drawing up and applying procedures, employers should
always bear in mind the requirements of natural justice. For example, employees should be informed of the allegations against them, together with the supporting evidence, in advance of the meeting".
CASE LAW STATES:
Shaun Brady said in my appeal, "The other issues that I would like to raise is also about the charges, once
again I go back to us because one thing we were always brought up with is we live by the rule book, the rule book was there and that if you did something wrong it was identified under which rule, which rule you'd broken and which rule you then had to defend from. Under the charges labelled against Driver Webb they were not outlined. There was no charges under which rule book or which procedure he had actually broken. So straight away I am saying that that hearing could never be fair because if you don’t identify which
rule that you have to say was broken or not broken you can’t defend that".
12 Throughout the lengthy appeal hearing, Mr Webb fluctuated between stating that the horn began working during the journey in question and therefore, “it didn't need reporting” on the one hand and that his attempts to report the issue at Darlington and Northallerton fully discharged his obligations under the rules of reporting, on the other.
The following are passages from the Appeal Hearing:
"What happened on that day that warning horn behaved how they all do in freezing weather, one horn or another stops working, this can alternate as well between tones which is exactly what occurred on that day of the fourteenth".
"Now I understand Rules and Regulations TW5 37.3 Clause B. On a partial failure it says". “Tell the Train Operators Controller at the first convenient opportunity”. Now on that journey I had two convenient chances, Darlington and Northallerton. I told Steve Percival, both times I tried to ring from them places I couldn't ring out, it wouldn't go through, the attempts failed, but I did try. Now after we left Northallerton on that day the temperature in question actually rose the weather got better, when I tried the horn again it actually worked OK. Approaching a whistle board but I did try at a few other places, that warning horn then to me was no longer a partial failure it was actually working".
"Once it started working again it was no longer, it didn’t need reporting because the weather had changed",
That was my assumption of the situation, a situation I had been in numerous times before, every other time I did exactly the same as that day, so why wasn`t I pulled upon this and told I was wrong?
Let me ask all other TPE Drivers, how many of you behaved exactly the same? Does this really warrant gross misconduct? What would have TPE control have done if I managed to explain the situation? Does this pose any risk whatsoever?
If I had managed to inform control of my situation when that horn was partially defective, would that train have remained in service? Would there have been any restrictions placed on that trains speed? Especially as that train was being driven from the other cab leaving York would TPE have allowed that train to stay in service?
13 In relation to the allegation at 9.3, Mr Webb alleged that there was actually no procedure to follow. I found this argument strange as he did actually report the incident on the day albeit at the end of the day rather than at the time and therefore must have known about the procedure. It is quite clear from the rule book that Drivers have to report safety line events. Near misses amount to a safety of the line event.
How many more times ? What is Paul Watson talking about here? What procedure is this man talking about?
Firstly, when ,where and how did I actually report the incident at the end of the day?
I thought that I had made it clear from the first investigatory interview that there had NOT been a near miss. Paul Watson is saying that I should have reported a near miss incident to the signaller. That would definately have amounted to gross misconduct, just imagine the delays and having to have the line searched, this just shows that Paul Watson is hell bent on making anything against me stick, therefore there is no procedure to follow as there was NO NEAR MISS.
How can we get all this way and Paul Watson is still of the opinion that I should have reported something that did not happen? Remember my charge was failing to follow the correct procedure for reporting a near miss, yet as I have already proven, TPE themselves had no idea where this procedure is to be found, firstly stating the rule book then the driver competence standards booklet!
14 Also in relation to his allegation at 9.3, Mr Webb also denied that the completion of the repair slip amounted to a falsification of records as he felt the note he made did not relate to a repair.
“A deliberate falsification of records”? What did I supposedly falsify? I wrote in a train vehicle repair book, what I stated about the defects were real case events, these problems had existed. The remainder concerning the near miss was not a falsification of a vehicle defect, if this is the case, then the following drivers should also be charged the same as me, (106 to 106d) these are ten repair sheets, the comments of which are nothing to do with repairs being required, similar to my comments, except these comments are far worse and could easily cause offence to be taken, yet not one of these drivers has even been spoken with, there was also many, many more times when I came across examples like these and still retain the copies.
If I had wrote about the near miss on a drivers report form and handed it in, then that would have been a falsification of an actual record.
THESE REPAIR BOOK ENTRIES APPEAR BELOW:
ACAS GUIDELINES STATE:
"What should disciplinary procedures contain? When drawing up and applying procedures, employers should
always bear in mind the requirements of natural justice. For example, employees should be informed of the allegations against them, together with the supporting evidence, in advance of the meeting".
CASE LAW STATES:
- 1. It is a basic proposition in internal proceedings that a charge against an employee facing dismissal should be precisely framed and the evidence should be confined to the particulars given in the charge, see Strouthos v London Underground Ltd [2004] IRLR 636 CA.
Shaun Brady said in my appeal, "The other issues that I would like to raise is also about the charges, once
again I go back to us because one thing we were always brought up with is we live by the rule book, the rule book was there and that if you did something wrong it was identified under which rule, which rule you'd broken and which rule you then had to defend from. Under the charges labelled against Driver Webb they were not outlined. There was no charges under which rule book or which procedure he had actually broken. So straight away I am saying that that hearing could never be fair because if you don’t identify which
rule that you have to say was broken or not broken you can’t defend that".
12 Throughout the lengthy appeal hearing, Mr Webb fluctuated between stating that the horn began working during the journey in question and therefore, “it didn't need reporting” on the one hand and that his attempts to report the issue at Darlington and Northallerton fully discharged his obligations under the rules of reporting, on the other.
The following are passages from the Appeal Hearing:
"What happened on that day that warning horn behaved how they all do in freezing weather, one horn or another stops working, this can alternate as well between tones which is exactly what occurred on that day of the fourteenth".
"Now I understand Rules and Regulations TW5 37.3 Clause B. On a partial failure it says". “Tell the Train Operators Controller at the first convenient opportunity”. Now on that journey I had two convenient chances, Darlington and Northallerton. I told Steve Percival, both times I tried to ring from them places I couldn't ring out, it wouldn't go through, the attempts failed, but I did try. Now after we left Northallerton on that day the temperature in question actually rose the weather got better, when I tried the horn again it actually worked OK. Approaching a whistle board but I did try at a few other places, that warning horn then to me was no longer a partial failure it was actually working".
"Once it started working again it was no longer, it didn’t need reporting because the weather had changed",
That was my assumption of the situation, a situation I had been in numerous times before, every other time I did exactly the same as that day, so why wasn`t I pulled upon this and told I was wrong?
Let me ask all other TPE Drivers, how many of you behaved exactly the same? Does this really warrant gross misconduct? What would have TPE control have done if I managed to explain the situation? Does this pose any risk whatsoever?
If I had managed to inform control of my situation when that horn was partially defective, would that train have remained in service? Would there have been any restrictions placed on that trains speed? Especially as that train was being driven from the other cab leaving York would TPE have allowed that train to stay in service?
13 In relation to the allegation at 9.3, Mr Webb alleged that there was actually no procedure to follow. I found this argument strange as he did actually report the incident on the day albeit at the end of the day rather than at the time and therefore must have known about the procedure. It is quite clear from the rule book that Drivers have to report safety line events. Near misses amount to a safety of the line event.
How many more times ? What is Paul Watson talking about here? What procedure is this man talking about?
Firstly, when ,where and how did I actually report the incident at the end of the day?
I thought that I had made it clear from the first investigatory interview that there had NOT been a near miss. Paul Watson is saying that I should have reported a near miss incident to the signaller. That would definately have amounted to gross misconduct, just imagine the delays and having to have the line searched, this just shows that Paul Watson is hell bent on making anything against me stick, therefore there is no procedure to follow as there was NO NEAR MISS.
How can we get all this way and Paul Watson is still of the opinion that I should have reported something that did not happen? Remember my charge was failing to follow the correct procedure for reporting a near miss, yet as I have already proven, TPE themselves had no idea where this procedure is to be found, firstly stating the rule book then the driver competence standards booklet!
14 Also in relation to his allegation at 9.3, Mr Webb also denied that the completion of the repair slip amounted to a falsification of records as he felt the note he made did not relate to a repair.
“A deliberate falsification of records”? What did I supposedly falsify? I wrote in a train vehicle repair book, what I stated about the defects were real case events, these problems had existed. The remainder concerning the near miss was not a falsification of a vehicle defect, if this is the case, then the following drivers should also be charged the same as me, (106 to 106d) these are ten repair sheets, the comments of which are nothing to do with repairs being required, similar to my comments, except these comments are far worse and could easily cause offence to be taken, yet not one of these drivers has even been spoken with, there was also many, many more times when I came across examples like these and still retain the copies.
If I had wrote about the near miss on a drivers report form and handed it in, then that would have been a falsification of an actual record.
THESE REPAIR BOOK ENTRIES APPEAR BELOW:
_15 As Mr Webb had done during his investigatory meeting, he again admitted he had made a false allegation in relation to his near miss report and stated that it was his way of highlighting what could actually happen one day if his defect reports continued to be ignored.
I CHALLENGE ANYONE reading this to tell me the case scenario below could not happen.
A driver sets of on a journey, he has a partial failure of the warning horn, however the rule book and TPE contingency plans allow this train to run without any restrictions to its speed. it’s a cold damp day, like many days we have in this country. His speed builds up to 100mph, he enters an area of twists and turns, with many bridges spanning the railway, as he approaches a left bend, he goes under a bridge, suddenly not 1000ft away are a gang of track workers, he pushes his warning horn lever upwards, he gets no response, (remember the train is still moving at 100mph, at that speed, you travel 150 feet per second), when he gets over the initial shock of no response if he doesn`t freeze, he presses the lever down, again there is no response, (your still travelling at 100mph, 150 feet per second), what next? Myself personally, I can only hope and pray that this never happens, not only would the relatives of the deceased be distraught but think of the driver and what impact it would have on him. Then spare a thought for the police, ambulance and anyone else who has to take the body away and clean the mess up.
Is it safe therefore to run a train where that scenario could happen? It may well be hypothetical, but in realistic terms, it could happen. Is it safe, no it isn`t. Do TPE or Siemens take any notice? No they don`t.
16 He also alleged that Mr Atkinson had been incorrect in concluding that Mr Webb had made the report on a premeditated basis as it was a “spur of the moment thing.” I did not find this allegation credible as Mr Webb had put in two separate written records of this near miss incident and had admitted, during the
disciplinary hearing, to making numerous false reports in the past. His actions seemed to be aimed at creating a situation which would ensure the maximum response from the Company. As a former health and safety representative Mr Webb was aware of our policies and had on line access to our statements on the
standards we expect. As part of his Driver training he would also have knowledge of rule book module TW5 which lays down what Drivers must do upon establishing defective equipment and the details on when a train is not allowed to enter/remain in service. He knew how the Company would react to such a report and, in my view, this is why he conducted the fabrication. He knew that if such a report was found and not been reported immediately then the Company would investigate the matter thoroughly given the potential safety
implications. The fact that he understood this, cast doubt in my mind about his explanation that his actions were as a result of the Company's lack of response to his reports as he knew that the Company would react in the way it did to such a report.
Premeditated: Characterised by deliberate purpose and some degree of planning; "a premeditated crime"
Where did I ever put in 2 separate written records and if I had, how would this make my actions premeditated? I never once said that my actions were premeditated, they were a thought I had that morning when the warning horn started to malfunction.
Where in my hearing did I ever state specifically, "to making numerous false reports in the past"?
I am quite sure that if I had previously fabricated a near miss I would have been jumped upon.
Paul Watson is possibly referring to the following,
247. (PW 343) “As I say, I have done these type of things previously, I`ve not even had a warning. It’s not the first time”. Meaning, behaviour on the day in question, not informing control. But also by reporting using a scenario situation or referring to the hazards. (172) (173) (174) (175) (176) & (177).
6 reports which all state consequences involved with a situation regarding a train fault.
The article below is from another report, it uses a scenario situation to help get my point across.
I CHALLENGE ANYONE reading this to tell me the case scenario below could not happen.
A driver sets of on a journey, he has a partial failure of the warning horn, however the rule book and TPE contingency plans allow this train to run without any restrictions to its speed. it’s a cold damp day, like many days we have in this country. His speed builds up to 100mph, he enters an area of twists and turns, with many bridges spanning the railway, as he approaches a left bend, he goes under a bridge, suddenly not 1000ft away are a gang of track workers, he pushes his warning horn lever upwards, he gets no response, (remember the train is still moving at 100mph, at that speed, you travel 150 feet per second), when he gets over the initial shock of no response if he doesn`t freeze, he presses the lever down, again there is no response, (your still travelling at 100mph, 150 feet per second), what next? Myself personally, I can only hope and pray that this never happens, not only would the relatives of the deceased be distraught but think of the driver and what impact it would have on him. Then spare a thought for the police, ambulance and anyone else who has to take the body away and clean the mess up.
Is it safe therefore to run a train where that scenario could happen? It may well be hypothetical, but in realistic terms, it could happen. Is it safe, no it isn`t. Do TPE or Siemens take any notice? No they don`t.
16 He also alleged that Mr Atkinson had been incorrect in concluding that Mr Webb had made the report on a premeditated basis as it was a “spur of the moment thing.” I did not find this allegation credible as Mr Webb had put in two separate written records of this near miss incident and had admitted, during the
disciplinary hearing, to making numerous false reports in the past. His actions seemed to be aimed at creating a situation which would ensure the maximum response from the Company. As a former health and safety representative Mr Webb was aware of our policies and had on line access to our statements on the
standards we expect. As part of his Driver training he would also have knowledge of rule book module TW5 which lays down what Drivers must do upon establishing defective equipment and the details on when a train is not allowed to enter/remain in service. He knew how the Company would react to such a report and, in my view, this is why he conducted the fabrication. He knew that if such a report was found and not been reported immediately then the Company would investigate the matter thoroughly given the potential safety
implications. The fact that he understood this, cast doubt in my mind about his explanation that his actions were as a result of the Company's lack of response to his reports as he knew that the Company would react in the way it did to such a report.
Premeditated: Characterised by deliberate purpose and some degree of planning; "a premeditated crime"
Where did I ever put in 2 separate written records and if I had, how would this make my actions premeditated? I never once said that my actions were premeditated, they were a thought I had that morning when the warning horn started to malfunction.
Where in my hearing did I ever state specifically, "to making numerous false reports in the past"?
I am quite sure that if I had previously fabricated a near miss I would have been jumped upon.
Paul Watson is possibly referring to the following,
247. (PW 343) “As I say, I have done these type of things previously, I`ve not even had a warning. It’s not the first time”. Meaning, behaviour on the day in question, not informing control. But also by reporting using a scenario situation or referring to the hazards. (172) (173) (174) (175) (176) & (177).
6 reports which all state consequences involved with a situation regarding a train fault.
The article below is from another report, it uses a scenario situation to help get my point across.
_"Mr Webb was aware of our policies and had on line access to our statements on the standards we expect".
What a LIE, I constantly complained about not having access to the very basics required to be able to carry out my functions as an health and safety rep, I will show later on this site where my complaint went to the HMRI, I did not have online access to any of TPE`s policies.
Is IGNORANCE a TransPennine Standard?
"He knew how the Company would react to such a report and, in my view, this is why he conducted the fabrication. He knew that if such a report was found and not been reported immediately then the Company would investigate the matter thoroughly given the potential safety implications. The fact that he understood this, cast doubt in my mind about his explanation that his actions were as a result of the Company's lack of response to his reports as he knew that the Company would react in the way it did to such a report". An unbelievable statement, I have put harder hitting reports in than this one and always been totally IGNORED, to be truthful, I didn`t expect any reaction from the statement I made because I never received any response to previous reports. If I expected to receive charges of gross misconduct does Paul Watson really believe that I would have written this statement?
The potential safety implications are there for everyone to see, the scenario in 15 ABOVE shows this, but it has never been about what I thought, its only what they think that matters. TPE and Siemens cannot see that the scenario I have pointed out can happen, because if they had carried out a thorough investigation and combined it with basic common sense and a risk assessment, they can only come to my conclusion.
I CHALLENGE ANYONE TO PROVE OTHERWISE.
But TPE overcome this very problem with their contingency plans, which allow any train with a partial failure of the warning horn to run at 100mph. Therefore the POTENTIAL SAFETY IMPLICATIONS, which are what I have pointed out, are quite simply IGNORED.
17 In relation to paragraph 9.1, prior to the appeal hearing taking place, Mr Webb had requested Geoff Lee, Driver, Steve Bridge, Technical Engineering Manager and Ged Higgins, Driver Standards Manager attend as witnesses. Mr Webb wanted these witnesses in attendance as he said he felt their statements would
show that the outcome of the disciplinary hearing had been predetermined as it had been relayed to him prior to the hearing that Mr Lee had witnessed his manager, Mr Higgins, stating that Mr Webb was going to be dismissed.
SEE 19 BELOW.
18 Mr Webb actually raised this issue at the end of the disciplinary hearing, and as a result the Company conducted an investigation into the matter. When the investigating manager Ian Humphries interviewed Mr Lee on 14 July 2009, Mr Lee stated that he made the comment regarding Mr Webb being sacked and not
his manager. Mr Lee then rang the investigator on 17 July 2009 and attempted to withdraw his comment suggesting it was actually Mr Higgins who made the comment. Mr Higgins was interviewed on 24 July 2009, during which he denied making such a comment. Given that there was no independent witness, the
Company was unable to establish who had actually made the statement.
It was raised at the end of my hearing as a last resort and not brought up before because I knew this would cause Driver Geoff Lee massive problems with the bullyboy Management, which is precisely what happened and Geoff had to grievance the situation.
The above statement is not factually correct, (ask Driver Geoff Lee and he will tell you), Mr Lee rang Ian Humphries to ask that what he said off record be placed in the minutes, which was, "Ged said to me "We are going to sack him", I responded by saying "You can't fucking say that", Ged then said "We took the train out of service for 2 days for no reason and it cost us £40,000" to which I responded "Well you could say that about every driver who reports a fault".
Geoff never had chance to sign off the minutes as being verbatim, this investigation was still going on after my appeal! The interview minutes which are on this website of Ged Higgins simply do not read true, it reads like a cut and paste job. Below is the exact reason why.
MY APPEAL HEARING: 7th SEPTEMBER 2009
EMAIL: 28th JANUARY 2010
The following is an email from a Driver who became involved in the Ged Higgins saga, what this email shows is that the investigation into what happened between Manager Ged Higgins and Driver Geoff Lee was still ongoing, it is also proof that, TPE DELIBERATELY WITHHELD 5 pages of evidence from me.
This investigation should have been concluded before my appeal hearing.
What a LIE, I constantly complained about not having access to the very basics required to be able to carry out my functions as an health and safety rep, I will show later on this site where my complaint went to the HMRI, I did not have online access to any of TPE`s policies.
Is IGNORANCE a TransPennine Standard?
"He knew how the Company would react to such a report and, in my view, this is why he conducted the fabrication. He knew that if such a report was found and not been reported immediately then the Company would investigate the matter thoroughly given the potential safety implications. The fact that he understood this, cast doubt in my mind about his explanation that his actions were as a result of the Company's lack of response to his reports as he knew that the Company would react in the way it did to such a report". An unbelievable statement, I have put harder hitting reports in than this one and always been totally IGNORED, to be truthful, I didn`t expect any reaction from the statement I made because I never received any response to previous reports. If I expected to receive charges of gross misconduct does Paul Watson really believe that I would have written this statement?
The potential safety implications are there for everyone to see, the scenario in 15 ABOVE shows this, but it has never been about what I thought, its only what they think that matters. TPE and Siemens cannot see that the scenario I have pointed out can happen, because if they had carried out a thorough investigation and combined it with basic common sense and a risk assessment, they can only come to my conclusion.
I CHALLENGE ANYONE TO PROVE OTHERWISE.
But TPE overcome this very problem with their contingency plans, which allow any train with a partial failure of the warning horn to run at 100mph. Therefore the POTENTIAL SAFETY IMPLICATIONS, which are what I have pointed out, are quite simply IGNORED.
17 In relation to paragraph 9.1, prior to the appeal hearing taking place, Mr Webb had requested Geoff Lee, Driver, Steve Bridge, Technical Engineering Manager and Ged Higgins, Driver Standards Manager attend as witnesses. Mr Webb wanted these witnesses in attendance as he said he felt their statements would
show that the outcome of the disciplinary hearing had been predetermined as it had been relayed to him prior to the hearing that Mr Lee had witnessed his manager, Mr Higgins, stating that Mr Webb was going to be dismissed.
SEE 19 BELOW.
18 Mr Webb actually raised this issue at the end of the disciplinary hearing, and as a result the Company conducted an investigation into the matter. When the investigating manager Ian Humphries interviewed Mr Lee on 14 July 2009, Mr Lee stated that he made the comment regarding Mr Webb being sacked and not
his manager. Mr Lee then rang the investigator on 17 July 2009 and attempted to withdraw his comment suggesting it was actually Mr Higgins who made the comment. Mr Higgins was interviewed on 24 July 2009, during which he denied making such a comment. Given that there was no independent witness, the
Company was unable to establish who had actually made the statement.
It was raised at the end of my hearing as a last resort and not brought up before because I knew this would cause Driver Geoff Lee massive problems with the bullyboy Management, which is precisely what happened and Geoff had to grievance the situation.
The above statement is not factually correct, (ask Driver Geoff Lee and he will tell you), Mr Lee rang Ian Humphries to ask that what he said off record be placed in the minutes, which was, "Ged said to me "We are going to sack him", I responded by saying "You can't fucking say that", Ged then said "We took the train out of service for 2 days for no reason and it cost us £40,000" to which I responded "Well you could say that about every driver who reports a fault".
Geoff never had chance to sign off the minutes as being verbatim, this investigation was still going on after my appeal! The interview minutes which are on this website of Ged Higgins simply do not read true, it reads like a cut and paste job. Below is the exact reason why.
MY APPEAL HEARING: 7th SEPTEMBER 2009
EMAIL: 28th JANUARY 2010
The following is an email from a Driver who became involved in the Ged Higgins saga, what this email shows is that the investigation into what happened between Manager Ged Higgins and Driver Geoff Lee was still ongoing, it is also proof that, TPE DELIBERATELY WITHHELD 5 pages of evidence from me.
This investigation should have been concluded before my appeal hearing.
_19 Mr Webb was told prior to the appeal hearing by Ms Pears that if he could provide reasons for the witnesses needing to attend at the hearing and request each of the witnesses to attend then the Company would not prevent them from attending. Prior to the hearing, he did not provide any reasons why he wished
the witnesses to attend and after checking with Mr Bridge and Mr Higgins it was clear that Mr Webb had not requested them to attend. I was unable to check with Mr Lee whether he had been approached as he was at that time on sick leave. Mr Webb, however, confirmed he had not contacted him in any event.
THE FOLLOWING IS AN EMAIL FROM CHARLOTTE PEARS.
Forwarded by Charlotte Pears/FKTPE/FirstGroup on 29/07/2009 15:57 -----
Charlotte Pears/FKTPE/FirstGroup
29/07/2009 14:57
To [email protected] cc [email protected], Paul Watson/FKTPE/FirstGroup@FIRSTGROUP
Subject Re: Perry WebbLink
Dear Steve
I write further to your emails of 26th July 2009 in which you have requested additional information.
You state that you have not been provided with a recording of the meeting, but you have acknowledged that Perry did receive a copy of the minutes at the start of last week, these minutes are in effect the actual record of the meeting and were produced from the Dictaphone, so it is my understanding that a record of this meeting has been provided. As requested and previously advised to your head office, due to the size of the voice files, these have had to be burnt to a CD and a copy was posted to Perry Webb, with a second copy posted to ACTU Head office on Friday 24th July.
In respect to my hand written notes, I am unclear what the benefit would be as the actual record of the meeting, as I've mentioned above is accurately recorded in the transcript from the Dictaphone. However as requested attached are a copy of my handwritten notes.
In respect to the interview notes of both Driver Lee and Driver Standards Manager G Higgins, I have previously advised Perry that these would not be available until the beginning of this week. However this has been further delayed due to Driver Lee being off work sick and the notes having to be resent to his home address.
You also ask for confirmation that arrangements have been made for Driver Lee to attend the hearing as a witness. This is the first request I have had for Driver Lee to attend as a witness. In any event I am unclear what the purpose of Driver Lee attending as a witness is as he has already been interviewed and provided a statement to this effect. The purpose of witnesses is to add clarification and not to be cross examined. If you have questions that you wish to put to Driver Lee, please let me know the questions and the relevance of these so that I can make arrangements for them to be put to him. this also applies to Steve Bridge.
In relation to your request for "all minutes relating to his discipline" I'm unsure what other minutes you are referring to, can I ask you to please clarify which other minutes you require.
In respect to the downloaded graphs and data, these graphs were sent to Perry together with a copy of the BUPA medical report on Friday 24th July. As I previously advised Perry, to be able to analysis the download data the appropriate software is required. The software is provided by Arrowvale, and I am unable to provide you with a copy of this software due to licence requirements.
You have also asked for copies of all safety briefs and safety encounter documents, Perry attended safety briefs on 9th Nov 06. In 2007 FTPE introduced a new format of Safety briefs and Perry attended Cycle 1 of these briefs on 11th Oct 2007. I can find no record of Perry attending Cycle 2 or Cycle 3, although Cycle 3 commenced after Perry had been suspended in relation to the investigation of the near miss. Face to face briefings were also conducted with Perry 22nd Feb 05, 14th Sep 09, 22nd Feb 07, 11 Sept 07, 15th Oct 07, 18th Feb 08, 30th May 08, 30th June 08 and 31st Oct 08. Copies of the records of attendance are attached.
You also mentioned that the investigating officer brought up the issue that Perry has a history of reporting defects on units and request copies of these reports, together with Perry's disciplinary record, I will arrange for Perry to be handed a copy of these reports tomorrow as it is my understanding that Perry will be attending a meeting in Bridgewater House.
In respect to the near miss reporting procedure this would be as per the rulebook. With reference to your request for a copy of the investigation into the non reported near miss, a copy of this investigation was sent to Perry in January with a second copy sent to Perry in June, within the investigation was a copy of the control log which you have also requested. This documentation is therefore with you already. You have also requested the train diagram for unit 185119 which is also attached.
Taking into consideration of all the above together with the fact that Perry has already confirmed his attendance we believe the appeal hearing should go ahead as planned on Thursday 30th July, however on this occasion we are prepared to reschedule the hearing as per your request. Due to my involvement in this difficult case and my role as advisor and procedural expert, I am unable to reschedule this hearing to take place before Tuesday 25th August. As you have requested I provide you with a series of suitable dates I can offer you the following: Tuesday 25th August, Thursday 27th August or Wednesday 3rd September 2009. Please let me know which you'd prefer.
I ask anyone, if a person is given 3 charges of gross misconduct by any company, what would make it a "difficult case"? The difficulty is the knowledge that I wouldn`t lie down, Miss Pears knew they had a fight on their hands, because she knew my charges did not warrant gross misconduct.
Kind regards,
Charlotte
A FURTHER EMAIL FROM CHARLOTTE PEARS.
28/08/2009
Dear Perry
Apologies for not replying sooner, as you are aware I have only just returned from Annual Leave this week and am still in the process of catching up with emails. In respect of you requests for further information, as you are aware some of the information requested isn't readily accessible and relies on the input of others, which I',m still awaiting, below is a summary of the current position.
Copy of Driver Geoff Lee`s and manager G Higgins interview minutes- I am still awaiting the signed of minutes of these meeting from one of the parties concerned, this is currently being pursued and both will be sent to you together.
We would also still request Driver G Lee and Engineer S Bridge to attend as witnesses - I refer back to my previous response " I am unclear what the purpose of Driver Lee attending as a witness is as he has already been interviewed and provided a statement to this effect. The purpose of witnesses is to add clarification and not to be cross examined. If you have questions that you wish to put to Driver Lee, please let me know the questions and the relevance of these so that I can make arrangements for them to be put to him. this also applies to Steve Bridge."
A copy of the "Rule Book" near miss reporting procedure.- I understand the rule book does not specifically cover "near miss" incidents, however this is covered in Train Driving Competence Standards & Guidance (SC1)
The train diagram for the 14th January.- This was previously provided, but you advised wasn't the correct diagram. I have been advised that unit 185119 covered parts of 3 different unit diagrams. I have attached the diagrams with the parts of each highlighted in yellow to show which parts of the diagram 185119 covered.
As per S Percivals comment in his investigatory interview page 6, 5.8, I would like, the exact reports Mr percival is stating contain sarcastic and derogatory comments. - I have already provided you with copies of all your reports
All responses to each IP report I have made, including serial number issues. including the responses to 1P291568, 1P258273 (3 reports). - As per Paul's previous email, I am unclear of the purpose of this request, however these are currently being collated by the Safety Department.
Copy of the correct procedure for reporting a defective warning horn.- This can be found in section in TW5 of the rule book to which you should still have a copy in your possession, I have however attached the relevant page from the rule book.
Copies of Safety Management Group performance Reports Feb 2004 to date. - I am unclear as to the relevance of these reports in relation to your appeal, and therefore will not be providing these
All Maintenance Control Log Incident Summaries from Feb 2004 to date please. - Again I am unclear as to the relevance of these reports in relation to your appeal, as requested this is far to broad and am therefore I am unable to provide these.
Finally you had stated that Shaun Brady will now be representing you and not Steve Trumm, can you therefore ensure that Shaun Brady provides the relevant documentation to demonstrate that he has been trained and is accredited to represent employees at grievance and disciplinary hearings. Failure to provide this documentation will result in the hearing going ahead without Shaun being able to be present to make representations on your behalf. This information was requested and supplied previously for Steve Trumm.
Kind regards,
Charlotte
MY RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE EMAIL.
To charlotte pears, Paul Watson TPE, dave nixon, Shaun Brady
Dear Charlotte
So sorry that TPE seems to stop because you are on holiday, I suppose it would be unreasonable to expect that someone else could have been assigned your duties, they seemed to manage very well while you were away. What would now happen if you were to go long term sick? Would everything come to a standstill till you returned? But just say you didn`t return, then what?
Remember what was said of me because I didn`t return from Thailand while under a sick note, I wasn`t reasonable!!
Also does it take 4 days to catch up with emails? To say I am unhappy is the biggest understatement ever. Just more stress piled on me.
Copy of Driver Geoff Lee`s and manager G Higgins interview minutes-
These statements were taken weeks ago, well before you went on holiday, there is no excuse.
A copy of the "Rule Book" near miss reporting procedure.-
Amazing, its now not a "rule book reporting procedure", yet thats all you ever referred it to. previous emails state this.
The train diagram for the 14th January.-
But you never provided what you have now sent me.
As per S Percivals comment in his investigatory interview page 6, 5.8, I would like, the exact reports Mr percival is stating contain sarcastic and derogatory comments. -
The reports you provided me with do not contain sarcastic or derogatory comments. So on my appeal day, please pick out and show me the exact reports you rely on that show sarcastic and derogatory comments.
All responses to each IP report I have made, including serial numbers issues, including the responses to 1P291568, 1P258273 (3 reports). -
"Unclear to why I asked for these"? Because you and I both know that the responses I recieved were not even 1% of the amount of reports that I put in. Which I will prove.
Copy of the correct procedure for reporting a defective warning horn.
Thanks for the rule book page.
Copies of safety group performance reports February 2004 to date and all maintenance control log incident summaries from February 2004 to date.
These are extremely relevant to my case, because the few that I am in possesion of highlight the amount of times that train crews have not reported train defects, so its only logical to assume that there will be many more reports of this in the other documents. That is why you are refusing to let me have these documents, you know full well that my incident is not an isolated incident. If you have nothing to hide then produce these documents.
We would also still request Driver G Lee and Engineer Steve Bridge to attend as witnesses.
Its not for you to question the purpose, they are asked because they help my case, but that is the main reason you do not want them to attend. What have you possibly to be scared of by them attending? They will add clarification to points I have previously mentioned but been ignored on. They are relevant to me.
I have not asked for anything that is unreasonable, but you are denying me my right to a fair appeal hearing, I expect the items that I have asked for to be given to me in enough time to be able to prepare my defence. Remembering my appeal is for Monday the 7th September, ideally I would like them a week before, I do not think that this is being unreasonable, do you? But because you only replied Friday this week after being back at work since Monday there is no chance of this happening, If I do not recieve them by Wednesday next week then you will have to allow (once again) more time for me to prepare. But just to let you know, we are aware of the 3 month rule and will be applying to a tribunal. Once again, if you do not provide me with my requested documents or allow those witnesses requested to attend you are denying me my right to a fair appeal hearing.
If you hadn`t taken nearly 4 weeks to supply us with the minutes from the original hearing we would not be in this position now.
Regards
Perry Webb
Charlotte Pears Response email
charlotte pears
To PEZ Webb, Shaun Brady, dave nixon, Paul Watson TPE
Dear Perry
Firstly can I say that I find the tone of your email to be rude and unhelpful, with all due respect your email is just one of a number of emails that required my attention following my annual leave, and that trying to draw any similarity between my agreed annual leave and your period of absence is not based on fact. As was pointed out to Steve Trumm, your then chosen representative, I was about to go onto annual leave and in fact I gave Steve a number of dates for the rescheduled appeal as he requested, but unfortunately I never received a response from him.
Copy of Driver Geoff Lee`s and manager G Higgins interview minutes - As previously advised, I am reliant on the input of others and as Geoff Lee is off work sick as such the minutes have not been signed off as agreed. Although I have attached a copy of both sets please be mindful that these are not agreed. I am still unclear as to their relevance to your appeal as this issue was raised at the end of the hearing after Mark Atkinson had made his decision.
As per S Percivals comment in his investigatory interview page 6, 5.8, I would like, the exact reports Mr Percival is stating contain sarcastic and derogatory comments. - I note your comments and your view, however I am sure that you will have the opportunity at your appeal to demonstrate why you believe these comments are unfair.
All responses to each IP report I have made, including serial numbers issues, including the responses to 1P291568, 1P258273 (3 reports). Attached are three IP Contacts, however I am again unclear as to the relevance to the charges that have been put to you
Copies of safety group performance reports February 2004 to date and all maintenance control log incident summaries from February 2004 to date. Given the content that you have requested these, we are struggling to understand which reports you are asking us to produce. Having examined the Safety Management Group (SMG) report, we can't identify any record of non reported defects. However you state that you have several that do, if you can provide me with the dates of your reports we'll re-check our evidence.
We would also still request Driver G Lee and Engineer Steve Bridge to attend as witnesses - I refer back to what I have said previously, but as you are calling them as witnesses it's your responsibility to ask them if they wish to attend. If they are willing to attend you need to notify us so that we can ensure they have been released. However their relevance to the charges you face will need to be understood on the day.
I would like to point out to you again that a number of items you say you need to prepare for your appeal were not requested prior to the hearing or the original appeal date, therefore the appeal will go ahead as planned on the 7th September.
Kind regards,
Charlotte
I DID REQUEST THAT BOTH ATTEND, I CONTACTED SIEMENS DEPOT IN RESPECT OF STEVE BRIDGE, BUT GOT NO RESPONSE, GEOFF LEE HOWEVER, I WAS TOLD WAS OFF WORK SICK, WHICH TPE KNEW WAS NOT THE CASE, IT TRANSPIRED THAT GEOFF WAS ACTUALLY ON HOLIDAY, WHICH TPE KNEW ABOUT ALL ALONG. LIARS AGAIN!
DID I GIVE A REASON WHY I WANTED THEM TO ATTEND? YES.
20 Once I was satisfied Mr Webb and Mr Brady had raised all their points, I raised a number of questions to clarify some issues.
21 In relation to Mr Webb's assertion that he had lodged the report of the fabricated near miss incident with the Company through frustration, I asked him why he had not, in the alternative, progressed the matter beyond the usual reporting lines by either emailing myself or the Managing Director if he did not believe his
complaints were being dealt with appropriately. I stated that since his suspension he had done exactly that and I wanted to establish why he did not do this in the first place. I stated that I felt such an option had always been open to him. His response was that he did not know why he had not done this. Mr Brady then suggested the Drivers were scared to contact such high profile managers. I responded that I did not feel this was true as he had been contacting me regularly since then and I was aware that there were previous examples of him escalating his complaints up to such a level and beyond. The example I gave was Mr Webb's complaint regarding passive smoking in 2006, prior to the smoking ban, where he, after raising the complaint through the ordinary reporting channels, had complained to higher managers and ultimately to Her
Majesty's Railway Institution (“HMRI”). In response to his complaint, the Company actually engaged a scientific body to test the air quality on its trains. The conclusion was that his complaints were unfounded.
"I asked him why he had not, in the alternative, progressed the matter beyond the usual reporting lines by either emailing myself or the Managing Director if he did not believe his complaints were being dealt with appropriately". Because as I will show on the page, "Blatant LIES to the HMRI", what happens is, TPE Management deny that I have informed them of any issues I raise with the HMRI. My evidence will show otherwise.
"The example I gave was Mr Webb's complaint regarding passive smoking in 2006, prior to the smoking ban, where he, after raising the complaint through the ordinary reporting channels, had complained to higher managers and ultimately to Her Majesty's Railway Institution (“HMRI”). In response to his complaint, the Company actually engaged a scientific body to test the air quality on its trains. The conclusion was that his complaints were unfounded". LIAR, there was no scientific body used to test the air quality on trains regarding passive smoking in the driving cabs, which I specifically complained about.
I CHALLENGE YOU, PAUL WATSON TO SHOW YOUR SUPPOSED EVIDENCE ON THIS.
22 I clarified with Mr Webb and Mr Brady that the base belief behind the appeal was Mr Webb felt that nothing had been done in relation to the defects he had raised in the past and that in such a situation his actions were reasonable. Mr Webb agreed that this was the case.
Our base belief was that the charges should not have been classed as gross misconduct, that in terms of EQUITY, I was being singled out for something that every other Driver was guilty of. But as for nothing being done in relation to the defects, why since introduction in 2006 has nothing been done to remedy the situation? How many reports did I have to make? 20, 50, 100, where does it end? The simple answer is, talk to me, explain your situation, don`t sit back and play the ignorance card like you have always done, speak to me.
23 I then referred to the Traction Bulletin/Fleet Update for period 10 which was released on 3 January 2009. This is a document released by the Company in each period to illustrate to employees the actions which the Company takes in relation to defect reports and provide a breakdown of the cost such defects have on the business as a whole. The Traction Bulletins actively encourage Drivers to provide feedback on any problems they are having with any Company equipment. I established that Mr Webb was aware of these documents but had not reported any issues under this process.
I had previously used this way of reporting before but never received a response. How many reporting processes do I have to use? Of all the ones I have used, there has never been a response, where does this end? Do we have to get to the 25th reporting procedure before I get a response?
24 I had a discussion with Mr Webb and Mr Brady regarding the general misconduct incident he was found to have committed relating to a failure to attend an Occupational Health appointment.
I was never once informed that it was a statutory requirement to attend an Occupational Health Appointment if you were off work and covered by a sick note.
25 I stated that it was clear from the evidence available that following his suspension on 20 January 2009, he began a period of sickness absence which had resulted in the postponement of a disciplinary hearing due to take place on 13 February 2009. During his absence, Mr Webb went abroad on annual leave from 8 March 2009 and he believed his return date was to be 27 April 2009. He was granted extra parental leave until 7 May 2009. Despite this he remained in Thailand until 22 June 2009. He had not informed the Company that he was still abroad at the end of either his annual or parental leave and on 3 June 2009, the Company emailed him informing him that he was required to attend an Occupational Health appointment on 15 June 2009. Mr Webb confirmed receipt of the email on 4 June 2009 but then he left it until 15 June 2009 to email the Company and inform them that he could not attend the Occupational Heath appointment as he was still abroad. On 17 June 2009 his sick pay was stopped. He eventually returned on 22 June 2009 and attended the rearranged
Occupational Health appointment on 25 June 2009. He alleged that the behaviour of the Company was unreasonable and suggested that as he was on a sick note he did not need to be in the country.
I was never once informed that it was a statutory requirement to attend an Occupational Health Appointment if you were off work and covered by a sick note. I thought the sick note covered me.
26 I concluded that Mr Webb seemed to be deliberately missing the point. It was and is my understanding that sickness absence is for recuperation and as part of his terms and conditions he was required to be available to attend any Occupational Health referrals during that period. He clearly could not do this whilst in Thailand. I stated that even if he was permitted to be abroad during his sickness absence, there was a gap when he knew he was supposed to be back in the country and that the Company was expecting his attendance at an Occupational Health appointment but he waited until the day of the appointment to inform the Company that he would not be attending. It was clear from this behaviour that the misconduct had taken place and Mr Brady ultimately confirmed that Mr Webb was not appealing against the outcome of this issue.
We didn`t appeal against the outcome of the issue because no sanction was applied and Mark Atkinson reinstated my pay. I have never seen terms and conditions that explain I should be required to attend a medical.
27 I then adjourned the hearing to consider the documentation and the comments of Mr Brady and Mr Webb. On reconvening the hearing after approximately an hour and a half, I provided my conclusions.
28 In relation to the allegation at paragraph 9.1 (the witnesses Mr Webb had requested to attend), I confirmed that the Company had requested he provide an explanation of their relevance and that he request each witness individually to attend. He had not complied with either of these requests. I stated that I was
unable to confirm one way or the other who had made the alleged comment that Mr Webb was going to be sacked or if it had been said at all. In any event, I did not feel it was relevant to the matter being considered as I could not see that there had been any predetermination by Mr Atkinson as he had clearly taken
account of all the issues raised during the disciplinary hearing and there was certainly no predetermination of the outcome of my hearing.
As for the witnesses, see 19 ABOVE.
As for the G. Lee & G. Higgins words, see 18 ABOVE and Ged Higgins Responses page.
No Predetermination of the outcome hearing:
Why would Mark Atkinson be openly aggresive? Please read the following from this hearing and make your own mind up on predetermination.
ST, Steve Trumm, MA, Mark Atkinson, PW, Perry Webb.
ST asks MA (ST 88) to, “Define your company`s definition of gross misconduct”?
MA responds (MA 89) with, “yes”. (No other reply is given, 5 seconds elapse.)
ST prompts MA (ST 90) asking, “What is it”?
MA responds (MA 91) with, “These clearly comply with gross misconduct”.
ST asks again (ST 92), “What is your definition of gross misconduct that you are applying to these charges”? (6 seconds elapse without any response). 3 charges levelled against me of gross misconduct and MA cannot think or indeed does not know to what specific area of gross misconduct these come under in TPE disciplinary procedures.
I interrupt the silence (PW 93), explaining if these are gross misconduct then you have a lot more people to charge the same, because they are all guilty.
MA responds (MA 94), “That`s a serious allegation, Perry”. If this allegation is that serious then why didn`t MA follow it up?
I agreed, (PW 95), and reiterate that they are all guilty.
MA eventually finds what he thinks my charges relate to, and states (MA 96), “Examples of gross misconduct that these charges are for”, (3 seconds of silence elapse) then MA says “deliberate falsification of records”, (there is then 6 seconds of silence) before MA says “Serious negligence which cause, might cause loss (?) of might cause damage or injury”, ( there is then a further 7 seconds silence) before MA says “ Breaches of health and safety rules and procedures, they all fall in the context of gross misconduct charges”.
It is blatantly obvious that he did not have the slightest clue why I was being charged with gross misconduct, MA had to read through TPE`s disciplinary procedures of examples of gross misconduct, (105 & 105a) to find the section under number 9 of these procedures. The time lapses show that hehad to read through the examples and pick out what he thought was appropriate, hardly professional for such severe and serious charges.
Going back to (MA 91) where MA states that, “ THESE CLEARLY COMPLY WITH GROSS MISCONDUCT”, that says it all, in his mind he already knows the outcome. Before he even listens to my defence, he admits the charges are CLEARLY GROSS MISCONDUCT. Let`s remember, at that present time, the charge is only, “if established”. All ST asked was define TPE`s definition on gross misconduct that you are applying to these charges, but MA could not help himself, he jumped in because he already knew that whatever was said that day a decision was already made as to the outcome of my hearing. MA had already established in his mind that I was guilty, a presumption made before I had a chance to defend myself. If he was retaining an open mind with a fair and reasonable approach this answer would never be given. He let his emotion get involved because he had to show me in the worst possible light, that now explains his aggressive and rude attitude.
29 In relation to paragraphs 9.2 and 9.5, (Mr Webb's allegations that the Company had failed to comply with ACAS guidelines and that the disciplinary procedure had never been confirmed to him), I concluded that the disciplinary procedure had been agreed by the relevant parties in November 2006 and that Mr Brady's
suggestion that Mr Webb should have been entitled to legal representation at the investigation meeting was incorrect. The ACAS guidelines do not state that such representation should be permitted.
When I requested the disciplinary procedures from TPE, Charlotte Pears emailed me procedures dated February 2004, yet Paul Watson is saying here that TPE used a set of disciplinary procedures dated November 2006 against me, I have never seen or been given either set of these procedures.
ACAS GUIDELINES:
2. Fairness and transparency are promoted by developing and using rules and procedures for handling disciplinary and grievance situations. These should be set down in writing, be specific and clear. Employees
and, where appropriate, their representatives should be involved in the development of rules and procedures. It is also important to help employees and managers understand what the rules and procedures are, where they can be found and how they are to be used.
Rules and procedures should be clear, and should preferably be put in writing. They should be known and understood by all employees
• All employees should have ready access to a copy of the rules and disciplinary procedures
Paul Watson states, “So then moving on again with the procedural stuff you have mentioned the ACAS Code
of Practice we are actually aware of that but we do have an agreed procedure and this agreed procedure
doesn't include representation at investigatory interviews and that is a Code of Practice it’s not an applicable code it’s a Code of Practice".
Paul Watson again states, “and this agreed procedure doesn't include representation at investigatory interviews”. (234 A) The drivers rostering and manning agreement states, (1) “All incidents will be thoroughly investigated and drivers treated fairly and consistently”. (3) “Following every incident an investigation will be carried out by the Driver Standards Manager. The investigation will include interviewing the driver and any witnesses”. (234b) “Whilst the right to accompaniment is not triggered at this stage, a fellow employee, staff representative or TU official may attend to support the driver provided that this is possible without unnecessarily prolonging or causing undue delay to the process”. So straight away Paul Watson does not know his own companies procedures.
Paul Watson makes the point, “Again just for clarification because I haven't seen it challenged during your case you stated that Perry was actually denied a rep. I have to accept clearly there was not one present and I have to say that I can see no evidence that there was one requested and I have to say that is captured in two sets of notes which have never been challenged up to this point. Haven't been challenged today actually”.
This was challenged by SB (236) at the beginning of my appeal. As for the two sets of notes Paul Watson is referring to, these are the investigatory interview notes, you will notice that these were not signed off by myself or Stephen Percival. Also what this proves is that Paul Watson had clearly not read through the investigation report, because I make it quite clear (54) Appendix K, I said, “How can that entry in that repair book be of such a serious nature that I am taken for a second interview, not given the chance to have representation, just like the first interview and then suspended from driving”.
Any investigatory meeting should be conducted by a management representative and should be confined to
establishing the facts of the case. If at any stage it becomes apparent that formal disciplinary action may be needed then the interview should be terminated and a formal hearing convened at which the employee will have the right to be accompanied.
Shaun Brady said, "The most serious things is, when Perry was asked to come to an investigation and we asked for representation and that was refused, outwardly, and I think the issue was raised that it was not part of our disciplinary and part of ACAS so we don’t actually apply to ACAS but that’s not ACAS that’s the Law and the Employment Act and the basis is that at an investigation at the first instance it becomes apparent that there may be sanction or punishment applied you must stop that meeting and apply representation. That never happened". So Shaun Brady never challenged this issue under ACAS Guidelines as Paul Watson makes out!
Lets remember Hearing Officer Mark Atkinson`s aggressive stance,
“I comply with our policy, not ACAS guidelines”.
30 In relation to 10.3 and the issue which I understood to be the basis for Mr Webb's appeal (that his fabrication of a near miss incident was justified due to the frustration Mr Webb felt as a result of his perception that the Company were not answering his previous defect reports), I confirmed that he had stated that the desired effect of his report was to get the Company to sit up and take notice of the issue. I stated that I believed there were other steps which he could and should have taken which did not involve the falsification of records and stated that there was evidence given within the file of documents he provided on the day that showed he had escalated issues in the past beyond the standard reporting lines and that the Company had dealt with them accordingly. I therefore could not conclude that Mr Webb's actions were justified.
SEE 21 ABOVE. How many steps would it have taken, 5, 10, 15, ?
31 In relation to paragraph 9.3, (Mr Webb's assertion that he had fully complied with the rule book when reporting the horn defect through making his two unsubstantiated attempts to call the Company's control centre at Darlington and Northallerton) , I clarified, in reference to the procedures, that he had not
followed the procedure in the rule book namely that when a Driver becomes aware of a defect on horn equipment, they are to inform the Train Operator's control and the line signaller. The report for a full horn failure should be made immediately and for a partial failure it should be at the first convenient opportunity which may include the next scheduled station stop, any other stopping point in the journey, or even when detained at a signal following a stop aspect. If reporting the defect would cause a delay, the Driver must then tell the signaller the reason for the delay. I concluded that Mr Webb could and should have delayed his train at either Darlington or Northallerton and called control from the station phones present. I believed he also had the option of using the conductors phone or utilising station staff to do so. He had chosen not to utilise any of these options but instead opted to continue his journey without making a valid report. It appeared to me that if Mr Webb was as concerned as he alleged he was about the defects then he would and should have made further attempts to report the issues on different reporting lines.
Paul Watson`s Statements from above:
"they are to inform the Train Operator's control and the line signaller".
LIAR, from my partial warning horn failure, which procedure states the above?
"could and should have delayed his train".
LIAR, where does it tell me I should have delayed that train.
"He had chosen not to utilise any of these options".
As a Driver, it is my decision, nowhere in any rule book does it explain how and when I inform control
from a partial failure, only when it is "convenient", everyone has their own idea of convenience, there
is every possibility that 5 different Drivers would have reported this 5 different ways, just because Paul
Watson`s idea is different to mine, should it mean that I am so wrong that it warrants gross misconduct.
"It appeared to me that if Mr Webb was as concerned as he alleged he was about the defects then he would and should have made further attempts to report the issues on different reporting lines".
Again, where in the rule book does it tell me to make numerous attempts using different lines? What Paul Watson is forgetting here, it was never once about what concerns I had, my concerns were never looked at, just IGNORED, my thoughts have been relayed to them many times.
32 In relation to Mr Webb's suggestion that no report was actually required regarding the horn as it was only a partial horn defect, I stated that this was not the case. Both full and partial failures are safety line faults which need reporting
Where did I state that, "no report was actually required regarding the horn as it was only a partial horn defect"? So what has he done about the numerous repair slips on this website that prove other drivers never reported complete failures of the warning horn let alone partial failures?
33 In relation to the allegation that the Company did not respond to the defect reports, I informed Mr Webb that this was not the case and that the Company takes all such reports very seriously. I referred to the fact that the Company had engaged specialist contractors to deal with his previous complaints regarding
passive smoking as evidence and stated that all complaints are assessed on their merits.
LIAR, you never used specialist contractors to deal with passive smoking in the driving cabs. How many defect reports have I put in since TPE took over? All the way through this website I refer to the term IGNORANCE, because of all my ignored reports, and the only answer that I can see is your suggestion that, "the Company takes all reports very seriously", using only one example, to which I am calling you a LIAR.
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.
So Paul Watson ignored the Doctors report finding where his management blatantly ignored her recommendations, which clearly showed what happens when a person is IGNORED.
The FRUSTRATION was caused by the BULLYING of his Managers. I CHALLENGE ANYONE not to react to years of IGNORANCE.
The train was kept out of service to undergo mandatory safety checks as a result of faults that clearly existed.
This train was not taken out of service because of a report about a near miss, Paul Watson you are a disgusting lying human being, the length of time that train stayed out of service was down to the "ACTUAL" faults being dealt with, not the near miss report.
35 Given the potential safety implications of reporting failures, I felt that contrary to what Mr Webb believed the charges being labelled as gross misconduct were appropriate.
"Potential Safety Implications". I CHALLENGE YOU, PAUL WATSON to explain what you think the potential safety implications are. Other Drivers were equally as guilty, if guilty is the right word, why only single me out? I can prove this and will.
With this website absolutely full of evidence to show that other drivers behaved the same way or far worse than me regarding reporting procedures and that TPE and Siemens allowed trains to remain in service with Complete and partial failures of the warning horn for days. Trains actually went on to Siemens Depots with warning horn faults and came off the depot with the very same faults. Undisputable evidence of this is in the sections of "Warning Horns (the Shocking Truth)".
36 Prior to Mr Webb committing this offence, I had not met him in person. I was unaware of his Trade Union activities aside from one instance, just before the appeal hearing, where I had seen him act as a representative for a fellow employee. The suggestion that his Trade Union activities had any effect on the
outcome of the hearing is unfounded.
This whole website is testament to the fact, that as anyone who works on the railway knows, these charges did not amount to gross misconduct, therefore there had to be an ulterior motive. Just by highlighting their lies and ignorance surely shows that there was serious issues between them and me. Further proof is the withdrawal of the outside investigation promised by MD Vernon Barker and withdrawn by Employee Relation Manager Charlotte Pears, what possibly did TPE have to be frightened of from allowing the investigation to go ahead, as MD Vernon Barker said, "we take accusations of bullying seriously", but obviously not that serious, evidence follows.
37 In relation to 10.4, I explained to Mr Brady that contrary to what he was suggesting I felt my email demonstrated how seriously the Company regarded safety reports. The email clearly illustrated that the Company wanted any reports dealt with and noting on the system that this had taken place.
But Paul Watson forgets to mention that some of these are years old and his own Managing Directors failed miserably in using this system.
38 I had also seen no evidence to support the suggestion at paragraph 10.1 that Mr Webb was charged and dismissed because of his many previous defect reports. On the contrary, in my role as Operational Director I encourage all employees to raise safety reports and I found that this was reflected in the Traction Bulletin I
referred to in paragraph 24. Nor could I find any evidence from the minutes of the disciplinary hearing to suggest that Mr Atkinson had conducted the hearing inappropriately as alleged at paragraph 9.4.
Paul Watson did not want to find evidence, judge for yourselves with the audio of my hearing and the contents of this website.
39 In my view, Mr Webb's position was that he had been affected by horn defects in the past as he had witnessed safety line accidents which had resulted in a death. I could not comprehend however, how the actions he took on 14 January 2009 supported his position. The Drivers have the rule book and reporting procedures to stop any potential dangers arising as a result of defects. By breaching the Rule Book, Mr Webb actually increased the risk of a dangerous incident occurring which therefore negated what he alleged he was actually attempting to do.
"Mr Webb actually increased the risk of a dangerous incident occurring which therefore negated what he alleged he was actually attempting to do".
Like I have pointed out so many times, how can a failure to follow the correct procedure to report a partially defective warning horn be a gross misconduct charge, I have so much evidence that shows, firstly, the way I dealt with that situation was how I had always done. That other Drivers behaved the same or even worse in that complete failures of the warning horn were not reported.
Paul Watson knows that his Companies own procedures would allow that train to run regardless. It amazes me that TPE and Siemens allowed trains to run with Complete Failures of the Warning Horn. What I did was an attempt to finally get them to realise their own failings, I had tried so many times but nobody ever listened or responded, what else did I have left?
Going to the HMRI was of no use, because TPE just LIE to them and say I have never reported this previously, and YES I do have proof that this has happened in the past and will display this shortly.
It was not down to a simple case of breaching the rule book, it was down to the interpretation of the rules, Paul Watson interpreted them differently to me, I believe these rules are ambiguous and open to interpretation.
WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT
1. The only Rule Book wording that applies is the following. It is not a cavalier view taken by me, but my interpretation and understanding of these particular rules, I never changed my approach that day to these rules, I always behaved exactly the same way and still stand by my interpretation.
Rule Book TW5, Part A, 1.2, Reporting defective on train equipment.
1.2 b, Stopping train at the first CONVENIENT opportunity.
You must stop your train at the first CONVENIENT opportunity when you become aware of a defect on the following equipment, (warning horn – partial failure) and tell the train operators control.
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.
IF reporting the defect will cause delay, you must inform the signaler the reason for the delay.
Rule Book TW5, 37.3 b
Partial failure of the warning horn. If the warning horn becomes partially defective, (for example, one tone not working) on a train which is in service, you must:
Tell the train operators control at the first CONVENIENT opportunity.
Carry out the instructions given.
Rule Book, Part A, 2.2 Driver reporting a defect.
When you are required to report defective on train equipment, depending on the on train equipment concerned, you must.
Tell the train operators control at the first convenient opportunity (see 1.2b).
If possible you must avoid stopping the train:
On a junction.
At any other place where it might be difficult to deal with the situation.
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.
To this day, those rules are still open to interpretation. Drivers are still failing to report defects using the correct procedures and I can prove this with information I have.
40 This statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
There are LIES in this statement, therefore Operations Director Paul Watson you have committed PERJURY.
Signed
…...........................................
PAUL WATSON
Dated
…...........................................
25824-34 FTPE Webb Statement of P Watson (final) 24 Jun 10.odt 24 June 2010 12:31 Page 11 of 11
Produced by Vikki Sowerby
the witnesses to attend and after checking with Mr Bridge and Mr Higgins it was clear that Mr Webb had not requested them to attend. I was unable to check with Mr Lee whether he had been approached as he was at that time on sick leave. Mr Webb, however, confirmed he had not contacted him in any event.
THE FOLLOWING IS AN EMAIL FROM CHARLOTTE PEARS.
Forwarded by Charlotte Pears/FKTPE/FirstGroup on 29/07/2009 15:57 -----
Charlotte Pears/FKTPE/FirstGroup
29/07/2009 14:57
To [email protected] cc [email protected], Paul Watson/FKTPE/FirstGroup@FIRSTGROUP
Subject Re: Perry WebbLink
Dear Steve
I write further to your emails of 26th July 2009 in which you have requested additional information.
You state that you have not been provided with a recording of the meeting, but you have acknowledged that Perry did receive a copy of the minutes at the start of last week, these minutes are in effect the actual record of the meeting and were produced from the Dictaphone, so it is my understanding that a record of this meeting has been provided. As requested and previously advised to your head office, due to the size of the voice files, these have had to be burnt to a CD and a copy was posted to Perry Webb, with a second copy posted to ACTU Head office on Friday 24th July.
In respect to my hand written notes, I am unclear what the benefit would be as the actual record of the meeting, as I've mentioned above is accurately recorded in the transcript from the Dictaphone. However as requested attached are a copy of my handwritten notes.
In respect to the interview notes of both Driver Lee and Driver Standards Manager G Higgins, I have previously advised Perry that these would not be available until the beginning of this week. However this has been further delayed due to Driver Lee being off work sick and the notes having to be resent to his home address.
You also ask for confirmation that arrangements have been made for Driver Lee to attend the hearing as a witness. This is the first request I have had for Driver Lee to attend as a witness. In any event I am unclear what the purpose of Driver Lee attending as a witness is as he has already been interviewed and provided a statement to this effect. The purpose of witnesses is to add clarification and not to be cross examined. If you have questions that you wish to put to Driver Lee, please let me know the questions and the relevance of these so that I can make arrangements for them to be put to him. this also applies to Steve Bridge.
In relation to your request for "all minutes relating to his discipline" I'm unsure what other minutes you are referring to, can I ask you to please clarify which other minutes you require.
In respect to the downloaded graphs and data, these graphs were sent to Perry together with a copy of the BUPA medical report on Friday 24th July. As I previously advised Perry, to be able to analysis the download data the appropriate software is required. The software is provided by Arrowvale, and I am unable to provide you with a copy of this software due to licence requirements.
You have also asked for copies of all safety briefs and safety encounter documents, Perry attended safety briefs on 9th Nov 06. In 2007 FTPE introduced a new format of Safety briefs and Perry attended Cycle 1 of these briefs on 11th Oct 2007. I can find no record of Perry attending Cycle 2 or Cycle 3, although Cycle 3 commenced after Perry had been suspended in relation to the investigation of the near miss. Face to face briefings were also conducted with Perry 22nd Feb 05, 14th Sep 09, 22nd Feb 07, 11 Sept 07, 15th Oct 07, 18th Feb 08, 30th May 08, 30th June 08 and 31st Oct 08. Copies of the records of attendance are attached.
You also mentioned that the investigating officer brought up the issue that Perry has a history of reporting defects on units and request copies of these reports, together with Perry's disciplinary record, I will arrange for Perry to be handed a copy of these reports tomorrow as it is my understanding that Perry will be attending a meeting in Bridgewater House.
In respect to the near miss reporting procedure this would be as per the rulebook. With reference to your request for a copy of the investigation into the non reported near miss, a copy of this investigation was sent to Perry in January with a second copy sent to Perry in June, within the investigation was a copy of the control log which you have also requested. This documentation is therefore with you already. You have also requested the train diagram for unit 185119 which is also attached.
Taking into consideration of all the above together with the fact that Perry has already confirmed his attendance we believe the appeal hearing should go ahead as planned on Thursday 30th July, however on this occasion we are prepared to reschedule the hearing as per your request. Due to my involvement in this difficult case and my role as advisor and procedural expert, I am unable to reschedule this hearing to take place before Tuesday 25th August. As you have requested I provide you with a series of suitable dates I can offer you the following: Tuesday 25th August, Thursday 27th August or Wednesday 3rd September 2009. Please let me know which you'd prefer.
I ask anyone, if a person is given 3 charges of gross misconduct by any company, what would make it a "difficult case"? The difficulty is the knowledge that I wouldn`t lie down, Miss Pears knew they had a fight on their hands, because she knew my charges did not warrant gross misconduct.
Kind regards,
Charlotte
A FURTHER EMAIL FROM CHARLOTTE PEARS.
28/08/2009
Dear Perry
Apologies for not replying sooner, as you are aware I have only just returned from Annual Leave this week and am still in the process of catching up with emails. In respect of you requests for further information, as you are aware some of the information requested isn't readily accessible and relies on the input of others, which I',m still awaiting, below is a summary of the current position.
Copy of Driver Geoff Lee`s and manager G Higgins interview minutes- I am still awaiting the signed of minutes of these meeting from one of the parties concerned, this is currently being pursued and both will be sent to you together.
We would also still request Driver G Lee and Engineer S Bridge to attend as witnesses - I refer back to my previous response " I am unclear what the purpose of Driver Lee attending as a witness is as he has already been interviewed and provided a statement to this effect. The purpose of witnesses is to add clarification and not to be cross examined. If you have questions that you wish to put to Driver Lee, please let me know the questions and the relevance of these so that I can make arrangements for them to be put to him. this also applies to Steve Bridge."
A copy of the "Rule Book" near miss reporting procedure.- I understand the rule book does not specifically cover "near miss" incidents, however this is covered in Train Driving Competence Standards & Guidance (SC1)
The train diagram for the 14th January.- This was previously provided, but you advised wasn't the correct diagram. I have been advised that unit 185119 covered parts of 3 different unit diagrams. I have attached the diagrams with the parts of each highlighted in yellow to show which parts of the diagram 185119 covered.
As per S Percivals comment in his investigatory interview page 6, 5.8, I would like, the exact reports Mr percival is stating contain sarcastic and derogatory comments. - I have already provided you with copies of all your reports
All responses to each IP report I have made, including serial number issues. including the responses to 1P291568, 1P258273 (3 reports). - As per Paul's previous email, I am unclear of the purpose of this request, however these are currently being collated by the Safety Department.
Copy of the correct procedure for reporting a defective warning horn.- This can be found in section in TW5 of the rule book to which you should still have a copy in your possession, I have however attached the relevant page from the rule book.
Copies of Safety Management Group performance Reports Feb 2004 to date. - I am unclear as to the relevance of these reports in relation to your appeal, and therefore will not be providing these
All Maintenance Control Log Incident Summaries from Feb 2004 to date please. - Again I am unclear as to the relevance of these reports in relation to your appeal, as requested this is far to broad and am therefore I am unable to provide these.
Finally you had stated that Shaun Brady will now be representing you and not Steve Trumm, can you therefore ensure that Shaun Brady provides the relevant documentation to demonstrate that he has been trained and is accredited to represent employees at grievance and disciplinary hearings. Failure to provide this documentation will result in the hearing going ahead without Shaun being able to be present to make representations on your behalf. This information was requested and supplied previously for Steve Trumm.
Kind regards,
Charlotte
MY RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE EMAIL.
- RE: Requests
To charlotte pears, Paul Watson TPE, dave nixon, Shaun Brady
Dear Charlotte
So sorry that TPE seems to stop because you are on holiday, I suppose it would be unreasonable to expect that someone else could have been assigned your duties, they seemed to manage very well while you were away. What would now happen if you were to go long term sick? Would everything come to a standstill till you returned? But just say you didn`t return, then what?
Remember what was said of me because I didn`t return from Thailand while under a sick note, I wasn`t reasonable!!
Also does it take 4 days to catch up with emails? To say I am unhappy is the biggest understatement ever. Just more stress piled on me.
Copy of Driver Geoff Lee`s and manager G Higgins interview minutes-
These statements were taken weeks ago, well before you went on holiday, there is no excuse.
A copy of the "Rule Book" near miss reporting procedure.-
Amazing, its now not a "rule book reporting procedure", yet thats all you ever referred it to. previous emails state this.
The train diagram for the 14th January.-
But you never provided what you have now sent me.
As per S Percivals comment in his investigatory interview page 6, 5.8, I would like, the exact reports Mr percival is stating contain sarcastic and derogatory comments. -
The reports you provided me with do not contain sarcastic or derogatory comments. So on my appeal day, please pick out and show me the exact reports you rely on that show sarcastic and derogatory comments.
All responses to each IP report I have made, including serial numbers issues, including the responses to 1P291568, 1P258273 (3 reports). -
"Unclear to why I asked for these"? Because you and I both know that the responses I recieved were not even 1% of the amount of reports that I put in. Which I will prove.
Copy of the correct procedure for reporting a defective warning horn.
Thanks for the rule book page.
Copies of safety group performance reports February 2004 to date and all maintenance control log incident summaries from February 2004 to date.
These are extremely relevant to my case, because the few that I am in possesion of highlight the amount of times that train crews have not reported train defects, so its only logical to assume that there will be many more reports of this in the other documents. That is why you are refusing to let me have these documents, you know full well that my incident is not an isolated incident. If you have nothing to hide then produce these documents.
We would also still request Driver G Lee and Engineer Steve Bridge to attend as witnesses.
Its not for you to question the purpose, they are asked because they help my case, but that is the main reason you do not want them to attend. What have you possibly to be scared of by them attending? They will add clarification to points I have previously mentioned but been ignored on. They are relevant to me.
I have not asked for anything that is unreasonable, but you are denying me my right to a fair appeal hearing, I expect the items that I have asked for to be given to me in enough time to be able to prepare my defence. Remembering my appeal is for Monday the 7th September, ideally I would like them a week before, I do not think that this is being unreasonable, do you? But because you only replied Friday this week after being back at work since Monday there is no chance of this happening, If I do not recieve them by Wednesday next week then you will have to allow (once again) more time for me to prepare. But just to let you know, we are aware of the 3 month rule and will be applying to a tribunal. Once again, if you do not provide me with my requested documents or allow those witnesses requested to attend you are denying me my right to a fair appeal hearing.
If you hadn`t taken nearly 4 weeks to supply us with the minutes from the original hearing we would not be in this position now.
Regards
Perry Webb
Charlotte Pears Response email
- Requests
charlotte pears
To PEZ Webb, Shaun Brady, dave nixon, Paul Watson TPE
Dear Perry
Firstly can I say that I find the tone of your email to be rude and unhelpful, with all due respect your email is just one of a number of emails that required my attention following my annual leave, and that trying to draw any similarity between my agreed annual leave and your period of absence is not based on fact. As was pointed out to Steve Trumm, your then chosen representative, I was about to go onto annual leave and in fact I gave Steve a number of dates for the rescheduled appeal as he requested, but unfortunately I never received a response from him.
Copy of Driver Geoff Lee`s and manager G Higgins interview minutes - As previously advised, I am reliant on the input of others and as Geoff Lee is off work sick as such the minutes have not been signed off as agreed. Although I have attached a copy of both sets please be mindful that these are not agreed. I am still unclear as to their relevance to your appeal as this issue was raised at the end of the hearing after Mark Atkinson had made his decision.
As per S Percivals comment in his investigatory interview page 6, 5.8, I would like, the exact reports Mr Percival is stating contain sarcastic and derogatory comments. - I note your comments and your view, however I am sure that you will have the opportunity at your appeal to demonstrate why you believe these comments are unfair.
All responses to each IP report I have made, including serial numbers issues, including the responses to 1P291568, 1P258273 (3 reports). Attached are three IP Contacts, however I am again unclear as to the relevance to the charges that have been put to you
Copies of safety group performance reports February 2004 to date and all maintenance control log incident summaries from February 2004 to date. Given the content that you have requested these, we are struggling to understand which reports you are asking us to produce. Having examined the Safety Management Group (SMG) report, we can't identify any record of non reported defects. However you state that you have several that do, if you can provide me with the dates of your reports we'll re-check our evidence.
We would also still request Driver G Lee and Engineer Steve Bridge to attend as witnesses - I refer back to what I have said previously, but as you are calling them as witnesses it's your responsibility to ask them if they wish to attend. If they are willing to attend you need to notify us so that we can ensure they have been released. However their relevance to the charges you face will need to be understood on the day.
I would like to point out to you again that a number of items you say you need to prepare for your appeal were not requested prior to the hearing or the original appeal date, therefore the appeal will go ahead as planned on the 7th September.
Kind regards,
Charlotte
I DID REQUEST THAT BOTH ATTEND, I CONTACTED SIEMENS DEPOT IN RESPECT OF STEVE BRIDGE, BUT GOT NO RESPONSE, GEOFF LEE HOWEVER, I WAS TOLD WAS OFF WORK SICK, WHICH TPE KNEW WAS NOT THE CASE, IT TRANSPIRED THAT GEOFF WAS ACTUALLY ON HOLIDAY, WHICH TPE KNEW ABOUT ALL ALONG. LIARS AGAIN!
DID I GIVE A REASON WHY I WANTED THEM TO ATTEND? YES.
20 Once I was satisfied Mr Webb and Mr Brady had raised all their points, I raised a number of questions to clarify some issues.
21 In relation to Mr Webb's assertion that he had lodged the report of the fabricated near miss incident with the Company through frustration, I asked him why he had not, in the alternative, progressed the matter beyond the usual reporting lines by either emailing myself or the Managing Director if he did not believe his
complaints were being dealt with appropriately. I stated that since his suspension he had done exactly that and I wanted to establish why he did not do this in the first place. I stated that I felt such an option had always been open to him. His response was that he did not know why he had not done this. Mr Brady then suggested the Drivers were scared to contact such high profile managers. I responded that I did not feel this was true as he had been contacting me regularly since then and I was aware that there were previous examples of him escalating his complaints up to such a level and beyond. The example I gave was Mr Webb's complaint regarding passive smoking in 2006, prior to the smoking ban, where he, after raising the complaint through the ordinary reporting channels, had complained to higher managers and ultimately to Her
Majesty's Railway Institution (“HMRI”). In response to his complaint, the Company actually engaged a scientific body to test the air quality on its trains. The conclusion was that his complaints were unfounded.
"I asked him why he had not, in the alternative, progressed the matter beyond the usual reporting lines by either emailing myself or the Managing Director if he did not believe his complaints were being dealt with appropriately". Because as I will show on the page, "Blatant LIES to the HMRI", what happens is, TPE Management deny that I have informed them of any issues I raise with the HMRI. My evidence will show otherwise.
"The example I gave was Mr Webb's complaint regarding passive smoking in 2006, prior to the smoking ban, where he, after raising the complaint through the ordinary reporting channels, had complained to higher managers and ultimately to Her Majesty's Railway Institution (“HMRI”). In response to his complaint, the Company actually engaged a scientific body to test the air quality on its trains. The conclusion was that his complaints were unfounded". LIAR, there was no scientific body used to test the air quality on trains regarding passive smoking in the driving cabs, which I specifically complained about.
I CHALLENGE YOU, PAUL WATSON TO SHOW YOUR SUPPOSED EVIDENCE ON THIS.
22 I clarified with Mr Webb and Mr Brady that the base belief behind the appeal was Mr Webb felt that nothing had been done in relation to the defects he had raised in the past and that in such a situation his actions were reasonable. Mr Webb agreed that this was the case.
Our base belief was that the charges should not have been classed as gross misconduct, that in terms of EQUITY, I was being singled out for something that every other Driver was guilty of. But as for nothing being done in relation to the defects, why since introduction in 2006 has nothing been done to remedy the situation? How many reports did I have to make? 20, 50, 100, where does it end? The simple answer is, talk to me, explain your situation, don`t sit back and play the ignorance card like you have always done, speak to me.
23 I then referred to the Traction Bulletin/Fleet Update for period 10 which was released on 3 January 2009. This is a document released by the Company in each period to illustrate to employees the actions which the Company takes in relation to defect reports and provide a breakdown of the cost such defects have on the business as a whole. The Traction Bulletins actively encourage Drivers to provide feedback on any problems they are having with any Company equipment. I established that Mr Webb was aware of these documents but had not reported any issues under this process.
I had previously used this way of reporting before but never received a response. How many reporting processes do I have to use? Of all the ones I have used, there has never been a response, where does this end? Do we have to get to the 25th reporting procedure before I get a response?
24 I had a discussion with Mr Webb and Mr Brady regarding the general misconduct incident he was found to have committed relating to a failure to attend an Occupational Health appointment.
I was never once informed that it was a statutory requirement to attend an Occupational Health Appointment if you were off work and covered by a sick note.
25 I stated that it was clear from the evidence available that following his suspension on 20 January 2009, he began a period of sickness absence which had resulted in the postponement of a disciplinary hearing due to take place on 13 February 2009. During his absence, Mr Webb went abroad on annual leave from 8 March 2009 and he believed his return date was to be 27 April 2009. He was granted extra parental leave until 7 May 2009. Despite this he remained in Thailand until 22 June 2009. He had not informed the Company that he was still abroad at the end of either his annual or parental leave and on 3 June 2009, the Company emailed him informing him that he was required to attend an Occupational Health appointment on 15 June 2009. Mr Webb confirmed receipt of the email on 4 June 2009 but then he left it until 15 June 2009 to email the Company and inform them that he could not attend the Occupational Heath appointment as he was still abroad. On 17 June 2009 his sick pay was stopped. He eventually returned on 22 June 2009 and attended the rearranged
Occupational Health appointment on 25 June 2009. He alleged that the behaviour of the Company was unreasonable and suggested that as he was on a sick note he did not need to be in the country.
I was never once informed that it was a statutory requirement to attend an Occupational Health Appointment if you were off work and covered by a sick note. I thought the sick note covered me.
26 I concluded that Mr Webb seemed to be deliberately missing the point. It was and is my understanding that sickness absence is for recuperation and as part of his terms and conditions he was required to be available to attend any Occupational Health referrals during that period. He clearly could not do this whilst in Thailand. I stated that even if he was permitted to be abroad during his sickness absence, there was a gap when he knew he was supposed to be back in the country and that the Company was expecting his attendance at an Occupational Health appointment but he waited until the day of the appointment to inform the Company that he would not be attending. It was clear from this behaviour that the misconduct had taken place and Mr Brady ultimately confirmed that Mr Webb was not appealing against the outcome of this issue.
We didn`t appeal against the outcome of the issue because no sanction was applied and Mark Atkinson reinstated my pay. I have never seen terms and conditions that explain I should be required to attend a medical.
27 I then adjourned the hearing to consider the documentation and the comments of Mr Brady and Mr Webb. On reconvening the hearing after approximately an hour and a half, I provided my conclusions.
28 In relation to the allegation at paragraph 9.1 (the witnesses Mr Webb had requested to attend), I confirmed that the Company had requested he provide an explanation of their relevance and that he request each witness individually to attend. He had not complied with either of these requests. I stated that I was
unable to confirm one way or the other who had made the alleged comment that Mr Webb was going to be sacked or if it had been said at all. In any event, I did not feel it was relevant to the matter being considered as I could not see that there had been any predetermination by Mr Atkinson as he had clearly taken
account of all the issues raised during the disciplinary hearing and there was certainly no predetermination of the outcome of my hearing.
As for the witnesses, see 19 ABOVE.
As for the G. Lee & G. Higgins words, see 18 ABOVE and Ged Higgins Responses page.
No Predetermination of the outcome hearing:
Why would Mark Atkinson be openly aggresive? Please read the following from this hearing and make your own mind up on predetermination.
ST, Steve Trumm, MA, Mark Atkinson, PW, Perry Webb.
ST asks MA (ST 88) to, “Define your company`s definition of gross misconduct”?
MA responds (MA 89) with, “yes”. (No other reply is given, 5 seconds elapse.)
ST prompts MA (ST 90) asking, “What is it”?
MA responds (MA 91) with, “These clearly comply with gross misconduct”.
ST asks again (ST 92), “What is your definition of gross misconduct that you are applying to these charges”? (6 seconds elapse without any response). 3 charges levelled against me of gross misconduct and MA cannot think or indeed does not know to what specific area of gross misconduct these come under in TPE disciplinary procedures.
I interrupt the silence (PW 93), explaining if these are gross misconduct then you have a lot more people to charge the same, because they are all guilty.
MA responds (MA 94), “That`s a serious allegation, Perry”. If this allegation is that serious then why didn`t MA follow it up?
I agreed, (PW 95), and reiterate that they are all guilty.
MA eventually finds what he thinks my charges relate to, and states (MA 96), “Examples of gross misconduct that these charges are for”, (3 seconds of silence elapse) then MA says “deliberate falsification of records”, (there is then 6 seconds of silence) before MA says “Serious negligence which cause, might cause loss (?) of might cause damage or injury”, ( there is then a further 7 seconds silence) before MA says “ Breaches of health and safety rules and procedures, they all fall in the context of gross misconduct charges”.
It is blatantly obvious that he did not have the slightest clue why I was being charged with gross misconduct, MA had to read through TPE`s disciplinary procedures of examples of gross misconduct, (105 & 105a) to find the section under number 9 of these procedures. The time lapses show that hehad to read through the examples and pick out what he thought was appropriate, hardly professional for such severe and serious charges.
Going back to (MA 91) where MA states that, “ THESE CLEARLY COMPLY WITH GROSS MISCONDUCT”, that says it all, in his mind he already knows the outcome. Before he even listens to my defence, he admits the charges are CLEARLY GROSS MISCONDUCT. Let`s remember, at that present time, the charge is only, “if established”. All ST asked was define TPE`s definition on gross misconduct that you are applying to these charges, but MA could not help himself, he jumped in because he already knew that whatever was said that day a decision was already made as to the outcome of my hearing. MA had already established in his mind that I was guilty, a presumption made before I had a chance to defend myself. If he was retaining an open mind with a fair and reasonable approach this answer would never be given. He let his emotion get involved because he had to show me in the worst possible light, that now explains his aggressive and rude attitude.
29 In relation to paragraphs 9.2 and 9.5, (Mr Webb's allegations that the Company had failed to comply with ACAS guidelines and that the disciplinary procedure had never been confirmed to him), I concluded that the disciplinary procedure had been agreed by the relevant parties in November 2006 and that Mr Brady's
suggestion that Mr Webb should have been entitled to legal representation at the investigation meeting was incorrect. The ACAS guidelines do not state that such representation should be permitted.
When I requested the disciplinary procedures from TPE, Charlotte Pears emailed me procedures dated February 2004, yet Paul Watson is saying here that TPE used a set of disciplinary procedures dated November 2006 against me, I have never seen or been given either set of these procedures.
ACAS GUIDELINES:
2. Fairness and transparency are promoted by developing and using rules and procedures for handling disciplinary and grievance situations. These should be set down in writing, be specific and clear. Employees
and, where appropriate, their representatives should be involved in the development of rules and procedures. It is also important to help employees and managers understand what the rules and procedures are, where they can be found and how they are to be used.
Rules and procedures should be clear, and should preferably be put in writing. They should be known and understood by all employees
• All employees should have ready access to a copy of the rules and disciplinary procedures
Paul Watson states, “So then moving on again with the procedural stuff you have mentioned the ACAS Code
of Practice we are actually aware of that but we do have an agreed procedure and this agreed procedure
doesn't include representation at investigatory interviews and that is a Code of Practice it’s not an applicable code it’s a Code of Practice".
Paul Watson again states, “and this agreed procedure doesn't include representation at investigatory interviews”. (234 A) The drivers rostering and manning agreement states, (1) “All incidents will be thoroughly investigated and drivers treated fairly and consistently”. (3) “Following every incident an investigation will be carried out by the Driver Standards Manager. The investigation will include interviewing the driver and any witnesses”. (234b) “Whilst the right to accompaniment is not triggered at this stage, a fellow employee, staff representative or TU official may attend to support the driver provided that this is possible without unnecessarily prolonging or causing undue delay to the process”. So straight away Paul Watson does not know his own companies procedures.
Paul Watson makes the point, “Again just for clarification because I haven't seen it challenged during your case you stated that Perry was actually denied a rep. I have to accept clearly there was not one present and I have to say that I can see no evidence that there was one requested and I have to say that is captured in two sets of notes which have never been challenged up to this point. Haven't been challenged today actually”.
This was challenged by SB (236) at the beginning of my appeal. As for the two sets of notes Paul Watson is referring to, these are the investigatory interview notes, you will notice that these were not signed off by myself or Stephen Percival. Also what this proves is that Paul Watson had clearly not read through the investigation report, because I make it quite clear (54) Appendix K, I said, “How can that entry in that repair book be of such a serious nature that I am taken for a second interview, not given the chance to have representation, just like the first interview and then suspended from driving”.
Any investigatory meeting should be conducted by a management representative and should be confined to
establishing the facts of the case. If at any stage it becomes apparent that formal disciplinary action may be needed then the interview should be terminated and a formal hearing convened at which the employee will have the right to be accompanied.
Shaun Brady said, "The most serious things is, when Perry was asked to come to an investigation and we asked for representation and that was refused, outwardly, and I think the issue was raised that it was not part of our disciplinary and part of ACAS so we don’t actually apply to ACAS but that’s not ACAS that’s the Law and the Employment Act and the basis is that at an investigation at the first instance it becomes apparent that there may be sanction or punishment applied you must stop that meeting and apply representation. That never happened". So Shaun Brady never challenged this issue under ACAS Guidelines as Paul Watson makes out!
Lets remember Hearing Officer Mark Atkinson`s aggressive stance,
“I comply with our policy, not ACAS guidelines”.
30 In relation to 10.3 and the issue which I understood to be the basis for Mr Webb's appeal (that his fabrication of a near miss incident was justified due to the frustration Mr Webb felt as a result of his perception that the Company were not answering his previous defect reports), I confirmed that he had stated that the desired effect of his report was to get the Company to sit up and take notice of the issue. I stated that I believed there were other steps which he could and should have taken which did not involve the falsification of records and stated that there was evidence given within the file of documents he provided on the day that showed he had escalated issues in the past beyond the standard reporting lines and that the Company had dealt with them accordingly. I therefore could not conclude that Mr Webb's actions were justified.
SEE 21 ABOVE. How many steps would it have taken, 5, 10, 15, ?
31 In relation to paragraph 9.3, (Mr Webb's assertion that he had fully complied with the rule book when reporting the horn defect through making his two unsubstantiated attempts to call the Company's control centre at Darlington and Northallerton) , I clarified, in reference to the procedures, that he had not
followed the procedure in the rule book namely that when a Driver becomes aware of a defect on horn equipment, they are to inform the Train Operator's control and the line signaller. The report for a full horn failure should be made immediately and for a partial failure it should be at the first convenient opportunity which may include the next scheduled station stop, any other stopping point in the journey, or even when detained at a signal following a stop aspect. If reporting the defect would cause a delay, the Driver must then tell the signaller the reason for the delay. I concluded that Mr Webb could and should have delayed his train at either Darlington or Northallerton and called control from the station phones present. I believed he also had the option of using the conductors phone or utilising station staff to do so. He had chosen not to utilise any of these options but instead opted to continue his journey without making a valid report. It appeared to me that if Mr Webb was as concerned as he alleged he was about the defects then he would and should have made further attempts to report the issues on different reporting lines.
Paul Watson`s Statements from above:
"they are to inform the Train Operator's control and the line signaller".
LIAR, from my partial warning horn failure, which procedure states the above?
"could and should have delayed his train".
LIAR, where does it tell me I should have delayed that train.
"He had chosen not to utilise any of these options".
As a Driver, it is my decision, nowhere in any rule book does it explain how and when I inform control
from a partial failure, only when it is "convenient", everyone has their own idea of convenience, there
is every possibility that 5 different Drivers would have reported this 5 different ways, just because Paul
Watson`s idea is different to mine, should it mean that I am so wrong that it warrants gross misconduct.
"It appeared to me that if Mr Webb was as concerned as he alleged he was about the defects then he would and should have made further attempts to report the issues on different reporting lines".
Again, where in the rule book does it tell me to make numerous attempts using different lines? What Paul Watson is forgetting here, it was never once about what concerns I had, my concerns were never looked at, just IGNORED, my thoughts have been relayed to them many times.
32 In relation to Mr Webb's suggestion that no report was actually required regarding the horn as it was only a partial horn defect, I stated that this was not the case. Both full and partial failures are safety line faults which need reporting
Where did I state that, "no report was actually required regarding the horn as it was only a partial horn defect"? So what has he done about the numerous repair slips on this website that prove other drivers never reported complete failures of the warning horn let alone partial failures?
33 In relation to the allegation that the Company did not respond to the defect reports, I informed Mr Webb that this was not the case and that the Company takes all such reports very seriously. I referred to the fact that the Company had engaged specialist contractors to deal with his previous complaints regarding
passive smoking as evidence and stated that all complaints are assessed on their merits.
LIAR, you never used specialist contractors to deal with passive smoking in the driving cabs. How many defect reports have I put in since TPE took over? All the way through this website I refer to the term IGNORANCE, because of all my ignored reports, and the only answer that I can see is your suggestion that, "the Company takes all reports very seriously", using only one example, to which I am calling you a LIAR.
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.
So Paul Watson ignored the Doctors report finding where his management blatantly ignored her recommendations, which clearly showed what happens when a person is IGNORED.
The FRUSTRATION was caused by the BULLYING of his Managers. I CHALLENGE ANYONE not to react to years of IGNORANCE.
The train was kept out of service to undergo mandatory safety checks as a result of faults that clearly existed.
This train was not taken out of service because of a report about a near miss, Paul Watson you are a disgusting lying human being, the length of time that train stayed out of service was down to the "ACTUAL" faults being dealt with, not the near miss report.
35 Given the potential safety implications of reporting failures, I felt that contrary to what Mr Webb believed the charges being labelled as gross misconduct were appropriate.
"Potential Safety Implications". I CHALLENGE YOU, PAUL WATSON to explain what you think the potential safety implications are. Other Drivers were equally as guilty, if guilty is the right word, why only single me out? I can prove this and will.
With this website absolutely full of evidence to show that other drivers behaved the same way or far worse than me regarding reporting procedures and that TPE and Siemens allowed trains to remain in service with Complete and partial failures of the warning horn for days. Trains actually went on to Siemens Depots with warning horn faults and came off the depot with the very same faults. Undisputable evidence of this is in the sections of "Warning Horns (the Shocking Truth)".
36 Prior to Mr Webb committing this offence, I had not met him in person. I was unaware of his Trade Union activities aside from one instance, just before the appeal hearing, where I had seen him act as a representative for a fellow employee. The suggestion that his Trade Union activities had any effect on the
outcome of the hearing is unfounded.
This whole website is testament to the fact, that as anyone who works on the railway knows, these charges did not amount to gross misconduct, therefore there had to be an ulterior motive. Just by highlighting their lies and ignorance surely shows that there was serious issues between them and me. Further proof is the withdrawal of the outside investigation promised by MD Vernon Barker and withdrawn by Employee Relation Manager Charlotte Pears, what possibly did TPE have to be frightened of from allowing the investigation to go ahead, as MD Vernon Barker said, "we take accusations of bullying seriously", but obviously not that serious, evidence follows.
37 In relation to 10.4, I explained to Mr Brady that contrary to what he was suggesting I felt my email demonstrated how seriously the Company regarded safety reports. The email clearly illustrated that the Company wanted any reports dealt with and noting on the system that this had taken place.
But Paul Watson forgets to mention that some of these are years old and his own Managing Directors failed miserably in using this system.
38 I had also seen no evidence to support the suggestion at paragraph 10.1 that Mr Webb was charged and dismissed because of his many previous defect reports. On the contrary, in my role as Operational Director I encourage all employees to raise safety reports and I found that this was reflected in the Traction Bulletin I
referred to in paragraph 24. Nor could I find any evidence from the minutes of the disciplinary hearing to suggest that Mr Atkinson had conducted the hearing inappropriately as alleged at paragraph 9.4.
Paul Watson did not want to find evidence, judge for yourselves with the audio of my hearing and the contents of this website.
39 In my view, Mr Webb's position was that he had been affected by horn defects in the past as he had witnessed safety line accidents which had resulted in a death. I could not comprehend however, how the actions he took on 14 January 2009 supported his position. The Drivers have the rule book and reporting procedures to stop any potential dangers arising as a result of defects. By breaching the Rule Book, Mr Webb actually increased the risk of a dangerous incident occurring which therefore negated what he alleged he was actually attempting to do.
"Mr Webb actually increased the risk of a dangerous incident occurring which therefore negated what he alleged he was actually attempting to do".
Like I have pointed out so many times, how can a failure to follow the correct procedure to report a partially defective warning horn be a gross misconduct charge, I have so much evidence that shows, firstly, the way I dealt with that situation was how I had always done. That other Drivers behaved the same or even worse in that complete failures of the warning horn were not reported.
Paul Watson knows that his Companies own procedures would allow that train to run regardless. It amazes me that TPE and Siemens allowed trains to run with Complete Failures of the Warning Horn. What I did was an attempt to finally get them to realise their own failings, I had tried so many times but nobody ever listened or responded, what else did I have left?
Going to the HMRI was of no use, because TPE just LIE to them and say I have never reported this previously, and YES I do have proof that this has happened in the past and will display this shortly.
It was not down to a simple case of breaching the rule book, it was down to the interpretation of the rules, Paul Watson interpreted them differently to me, I believe these rules are ambiguous and open to interpretation.
WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT
1. The only Rule Book wording that applies is the following. It is not a cavalier view taken by me, but my interpretation and understanding of these particular rules, I never changed my approach that day to these rules, I always behaved exactly the same way and still stand by my interpretation.
Rule Book TW5, Part A, 1.2, Reporting defective on train equipment.
1.2 b, Stopping train at the first CONVENIENT opportunity.
You must stop your train at the first CONVENIENT opportunity when you become aware of a defect on the following equipment, (warning horn – partial failure) and tell the train operators control.
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.
IF reporting the defect will cause delay, you must inform the signaler the reason for the delay.
Rule Book TW5, 37.3 b
Partial failure of the warning horn. If the warning horn becomes partially defective, (for example, one tone not working) on a train which is in service, you must:
Tell the train operators control at the first CONVENIENT opportunity.
Carry out the instructions given.
Rule Book, Part A, 2.2 Driver reporting a defect.
When you are required to report defective on train equipment, depending on the on train equipment concerned, you must.
Tell the train operators control at the first convenient opportunity (see 1.2b).
If possible you must avoid stopping the train:
On a junction.
At any other place where it might be difficult to deal with the situation.
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.
To this day, those rules are still open to interpretation. Drivers are still failing to report defects using the correct procedures and I can prove this with information I have.
40 This statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
There are LIES in this statement, therefore Operations Director Paul Watson you have committed PERJURY.
Signed
…...........................................
PAUL WATSON
Dated
…...........................................
25824-34 FTPE Webb Statement of P Watson (final) 24 Jun 10.odt 24 June 2010 12:31 Page 11 of 11
Produced by Vikki Sowerby