_The following is the Witness Statement of Route Driver Manager Mark Atkinson, which was submitted 20 days after the deadline set by the Employment Tribunal Judge Grazin. I will set out his statement and if I have a comment about any paragraph I will place the comments underneath. There are MANY LIES in this statement, and for those of you who read this, please pay particular attention to the Rule Book.
"Lying when giving oral evidence, is Perjury, contrary to s1(1) of the Perjury Act 1911".
Atkinson, this will come back to haunt you, believe me!
THIS STATEMENT IS A "WILFULLY MADE" FALSE STATEMENT.
PROVEN BY THIS MAN`S POSITION WITHIN THIS COMPANY AND HIS KNOWLEDGE OF RULES AND REGULATIONS.
WITNESS STATEMENT OF MARK ATKINSON
I, MARK ATKINSON, of Bridgewater House, 60 Whitworth Street, Manchester will say as follows:
1 I have been employed by First/Keolis TransPennine Express Limited (“the Company”) since January 2008 as a Route Driver Manager. I have been in the rail industry for 24 years. I am currently responsible for Driver operations at Manchester, Blackpool, Barrow, Sheffield and Cleethorpes depots. My role is to manage all areas of Driver management with a team of line managers. I am responsible for ensuring that the depots operate correctly, within budget, maintain a good safety record and, in partnership with the unions, the role of a Driver is delivered in a safe working environment at all locations.
2 During my time in the railway business, I have conducted about 15 disciplinary hearings and always approach them with an open mind, to listen to the points raised and to make my decision on the evidence available. I was allocated this hearing as I was an independent manager with no prior involvement in the case.
There was no open mind in my case, this man`s aggression was proof of that. He paid no attention to any point I made and the evidence he was using as I will show was not factual and did not come from the investigation. Indeed if he made his decision on "evidence that was available", where did he find his evidence that suggested I failed to follow the procedure for reporting a complete failure of the warning horn from? After all, it is not mentioned once in the investigation report!
CASE LAW: This should have been taken into account.
In Strouthos v London Underground Ltd  IRLR 636 CA.
"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".
3 On 14 January 2009, the Company's maintenance staff discovered a repair slip in the repair book, in the Driver's cab of the train driven that day by Perry Webb, listing the details of three train defects. The defects related to a defective warning horn, the Driver's cab side wiper and the Driver's cab side door drop down window. The slip also made a report of a near miss incident involving track workers not being given adequate warning from the train due to the faulty horn. The slip had been incorrectly completed as the reporter had omitted to include their details. The train remained in service, when it should have been removed, and was driven by numerous Drivers prior to it returning to the depot and the defect slip being found. There is no obligation on Drivers to check the repair book on the trains they are driving and as such the other Drivers were unaware of these defects.
a. As a Driver who probably filled in 3 or 4 repair slips every day, it was clearly not intentional that this repair slip had not been completed correctly. If there had not been mass confusion when I arrived at York, this repair sheet would have been finished.
b. Mark Atkinson`s FIRST LIE, "The train remained in service, when it should have been removed", if you are a driver from TPE reading this, have you ever known TPE remove a train from service with a partial failure of the warning horn? And if you were brutally honest how many of you ever bother to report a partial failure of the warning horn because it is such a common every day occurrence in cold and extremely damp weather conditions.
Mark Atkinson is supposedly a Route Driver Manager, so how could he possibly fail to understand,
A, the Rule Book in connection with a partial failure of the warning horn (TW5 37.3b) and
B, his own companies Contingency Plans.
Do either of these tell a Driver that the train must be removed from traffic?
This man is a BLATANT LIAR.
c. "and was driven by numerous Drivers prior to it returning to the depot and the defect slip being found". So obviously there was nothing wrong with this unit and therefore no danger to anyone. Because no other Driver made a complaint.
d, "and as such the other Drivers were unaware of these defects". NOISE, any other Driver would have ignored the noise because its natural to that working environment, does this however cause a problem with the safe running of that unit?
Personally I would say it is a constant distraction and badly affects a persons hearing due to it being an every working day condition, but then who ever in TPE Management took notice of what I thought?
e, "and as such the other Drivers were unaware of these defects". WIPERS, Wiper faults are a common occurrence, If any driver had a problem during the journey they would have mentioned it to control and put it in the repair book, wouldn`t they? Does this however cause a problem with the safe running of that unit?
"all the Company trains have wiper faults", which all of us were aware of and because they have been there like the noise and warning horn problems since introduction. Makes me ask, why wasn`t these faults picked up during the testing of these units in Germany? Also after numerous reports and 3 years down the line, why were we nowhere near rectification? This hardly looks good on SIEMENS, which could and should pose many questions to be asked especially as numerous British jobs depend on how contracts are awarded.
f, "and as such the other Drivers were unaware of these defects". WARNING HORN. So does Mark Atkinson think that any other Driver using that cab never used the warning horn? If any Driver that day had a problem, they would have informed control and acted accordingly, wouldn`t they?
A, Rule Book: Partial Failure of the Warning Horn. TW5 37.3
37.3 When in service
b) Partial failure
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 operator’s control at the first convenient opportunity
• carry out the instructions given.
Where in the above ruling does it state that a train must be removed from service?
B, TPE Contingency Plans
Management of defective on train equipment Procedure OM3.4 Issue 4 Revision 3 Dated 7th January 2009 page 34 of 43
Appendix C Defect and Action Matrix
Equipment Class Condition In Service Actions
Warning Horn 185 Partially Defective Train may complete
One tone failed in its journey
an active cab
Where in these Contingency Plans does it say, train must be removed from service?
Yet Route Driver Manager, Mark Atkinson stood up in the tribunal and said, "The train remained in service, when it should have been removed ", I believe lying in a tribunal is called PERJURY. Mark Atkinson has committed PERJURY. There is no procedure in place to remove a train from service for a partially defective warning horn.
Further proof of this LIE is from TPE`s own bundle of evidence which shows at page 48 the procedure for a partial failure of the warning horn.
What you have to ask, is why did Mark Atkinson state that the train should have been removed from service? The answer to this question will become apparent later on.
4 The repair book contains repair slips each with 3 copies. Upon completion of a repair slip, the top copy is to be removed by the Driver and sent to Company Control for reporting purposes . The second copy is to be passed to the maintenance team at the depot and the third sheet is a copy which is to remain in the book.
a, The top copy is removed from the book and is supposed to be faxed to control, but how many of us have put these copies in our bags and completely forgot to fax them? How many times have we gone to use the fax machine, especially at York and found it out of use? Is forgetting to fax a repair sheet such a bad offence?
5 Due to the potential ramifications of the allegations contained on the repair slip, upon discovery at the depot, the unit was immediately taken out of service which led to a shortage of units and disruption to the Company's service the following day as two services (the 07:16 Liverpool Lime Street to Scarborough service and the 14:47 Scarborough to Liverpool Lime Street service) had to run with a reduced number of carriages.
a, TPE however have many different reasons as to why the unit was kept out of traffic. All the reasons printed below are from the Investigation Report compiled by Stephen Percival.
(88) Due to the severity of the allegations.
(90) Pending investigation (not written by SP, but investigation into near miss concluded before 00.30hrs) and corrective maintenance as found to be necessary.
(91) As a result of the additional investigations carried out by depot staff.
(93) Risks. The main consequence of this incident was that two services were short formed.
(98) Unit had been withdrawn from traffic due to allegations about defects.
(106) The unit being unavailable for traffic the following day to undergo the necessary safety checks.
(107) The unit would have been expected to be in service in the morning, to address the issues raised it entered passenger service at 14.27
If this unit went on the Depot with only the issues about wipers, noise and warning horn then I have no doubt whatsoever that this unit would have been out as planned the following morning.
Yet the investigation clearly states, "The unit being unavailable for traffic the following day to undergo the necessary safety checks". Now you would think that necessary safety checks are mandatory, but sadly that is not true, as I have proven in the sections, "Warning Horns (The Shocking Truth)".
I have proof that units with COMPLETE Warning Horn Failures never under went any necessary safety checks and were turned out to traffic without rectification. See Warning Horns (The Shocking Truth).
6 On the same day, Mr Webb completed a standard 100 report form highlighting the same issues and handed it in at the end of the day. In doing so Mr Webb failed to carry out the mandatory reporting requirements correctly as any safety line incidents should be reported immediately. The train remained in service for roughly a further 12 hours with the alleged defects. The form highlighted excessive cab noise and made reference to the incomplete repair slip reporting the faults and the near miss incident.
a, What "mandatory reporting requirements", did I fail to carry out? What safety (of the) line incident is Mark Atkinson referring too?
b, I ask each and every TPE Driver, can any of you recall TPE ever taking a unit out of service with intermittent faults to the warning horn and wipers? As for the noise, its an every day issue that you have to put up with.
** I have hundreds of reports and repair book slips highlighting issues about noise, when you get older and your hearing fails, contact me for these reports, you will definitely have the grounds for a claim. ** Even more so the fact that Siemens admitted the noise was a problem and carried out a modernisation programme of the side door seals in 2007 which clearly never worked.
7 On 15 January 2009, Mr Webb was interviewed at an investigatory meeting where he admitted that he had filled in the anonymous repair slip and that the near miss incident never occurred. A further investigatory meeting was held on 20 January 2009 where he was suspended from duty.
8 On 5 February 2009, the Company wrote to Mr Webb explaining that he was being charged with the following charges of gross misconduct:
8.1 “on Wednesday 14 January you failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting a defective warning horn”;
Guilty of gross misconduct for failing to follow the correct procedure, the procedure I allegedly did not follow, as cited by MA (MA 16 & 18) at the beginning of my hearing is as follows. (Information taken from my Interrogation or should I say hearing minutes is now published along with the audio tape of that hearing).
1. “You didn`t stop and report it at the controlling signaler”.
Mark Atkinson LIE`S again, why would I stop at the controlling signaler for a partial failure of the warning horn?
2. “You didn`t report it to the train operating company control”.
No, I didn`t, but in my defence I did try on 2 occasions to get through to them via the NRN, both times the call failed, The warning horn eventually rectified itself on the approach to York due to the rise in temperature. On arrival in York the set was turned round and went to Middlesbrough, so it was being driven from the other cab. As I have pointed out before, people were getting on this train thinking it was an Airport service and in all the confusion I forgot to finish the repair book entry, (which most of you can testify to, that was not like me as I was a prolific writer in repair books).
I worked York 908 Diagram that day, RELD by ME 901 at 10.21 and then you REL ME 912 at 10.49, my train was running late and after all the confusion I needed the toilet and a drink, hence completely forgetting to inform control, yet how many of us have done exactly the same? In your minds, does this warrant a charge of Gross Misconduct?
3. “At no point did you reduce the train speed”.
Yet another Mark Atkinson LIE, why would I need to "reduce the train speed"? Mark Atkinson is still after everything that was said in my hearing charging me with a Complete Failure of the Warning Horn, ask yourselves why? The answer is so plainly obvious, they were all so blinkered with their agenda to get rid of me at any cost, they made stupid mistakes like this.
4. “You didn`t complete the repair book procedure correctly”.
We all know how to fill a repair book in, is there such thing as a written procedure? Is the failure to complete a repair book such a bad offence?
ALL COMPLETE LIES, because as Judge Burton states in his Written Reasons and from page 48 of the paperwork TPE used in the Tribunal said the following:-
4. Mr Webb knew what he had to do. The rule book, of which he was very
much aware, makes that plain. We see the relevant rule at Page 48 of the
bundle. When there is a partial failure of his horn at the first convenient
opportunity he must stop the train and he must tell the train operator's
control. The first convenient opportunity may include the next schedule
station or some other stopping point of the journey or when detained at a signal. If by stopping the train delays
occur the driver must inform the signaller of the reason for that delay.
1. The ruling at page 48 is as follows. It is for reporting a Partial failure of the warning horn.
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 and tell
the train operator’s control:
The first convenient opportunity may include the next scheduled
station or other stopping point on the journey, or when detained at
a signal showing a stop aspect. If reporting the defect will cause delay, you must tell the signaller the reason for the delay.
These charges were summed up by Mark Atkinson in his Hearing Outcome letter below.
Hearing outcome letter
According to Mark Atkinson , I failed to follow this procedure.
1. Not reporting via telephone to control.
2. Not completing the repair book in full and forwarding it to control.
3. Allowing the unit to depart York with another driver and remain in service.
So what happened to
1. Stop and report to the signaller?
2. Reduce the train speed?
Why was number 3 above added?
As is so plainly obvious again, these charges were being made up as he went along and everything was made to fit, why would a Senior Manager make mistakes like this? Yet we all know that these are not mistakes, this is done deliberately.
8.2 “you also failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting a near miss incident, resulting in a train being taken out of service. You subsequently admitted that this was a false allegation”; and
a, How on earth could I follow a procedure (that is if there was a procedure written down) for reporting something that never happened? Take a look at number 7 above, Mark Atkinson says, "and that the near miss incident never occurred". So why charge me with something that never happened?
8.3 “you failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting unit defects".
a, This must mean the wipers and noise, so why did Mark Atkinson withdraw this charge?
b, Again, I ask all of the Drivers from TPE and from any other Company, do the above charges warrant Gross Misconduct?
9 A disciplinary hearing was arranged for 13 February 2009 but it was postponed due to Mr Webb commencing a period of sickness absence.
10 On 3 March 2009, although still on sick leave, Mr Webb began a period of annual leave in Thailand which was due to end on 27 April 2009. In addition, the Company also granted him parental leave until 7 May 2009. He did not return from Thailand until 22 June 2009 and did not inform the Company at the end of either his scheduled annual or parental leave that he was still abroad.
a, Contentious issues, firstly I had sick notes and faxed them to TPE, I was never granted parental leave before I left the UK, my request was ignored, I believed that my sick notes covered me and was unaware that I had to inform TPE that I was abroad. Amazingly, even Mark Atkinson was unsure because when I said that I thought a sick note covered me, he replied, "it might cover you".
11 On 3 June 2009, the Company requested that he attend an Occupational Health appointment on 15 June 2009. He confirmed receipt of the request on 4 June 2009.
12 Mr Webb then waited until 15 June 2009 to email the Company stating that he could not attend the appointment as he was still in Thailand.
a, I still had a sick note that covered me till the end of the month.
13 On 17 June 2009, his sick pay was stopped as a result of his failure to attend a scheduled Occupational Health appointment or inform the Company that he was remaining abroad after the end of his scheduled leave.
a, Yet another LIE, my sick pay was stopped well before then, the following is taken from an email sent to me by Charlotte Pears.
"I wrote to you on 26th May to advise that company sick pay had been withdrawn with effect from 18th May. For your information attached are copies of all correspondence that I've sent to you".
14 On 22 June 2009, in light of his unauthorised absence from the Company, and the country, he was also charged with the following charge of misconduct:
a, "Unauthorised absence from the Country"!
14.1 “On 15 June 2009 you failed to comply with the Company's lawful and reasonable request to attend a medical examination with BUPA the Company's Occupational Health provider.”
a, I had a sicknote that covered me till the end of June, its hardly reasonable to travel 6000 miles to be told that I am fit to stand a hearing.
15 Prior to conducting the disciplinary hearing, I had only met Mr Webb on one previous occasion when he had been an employee representative at a capability hearing. I was impressed with his actions as a representative.
16 On 30 June 2009, I conducted the disciplinary hearing following a rearranged Occupational Health meeting on 22 June 2009 which confirmed that Mr Webb was fit to attend such a hearing. Charlotte Pears, Employee Relations Manager, took notes of the hearing. Prior to the hearing I considered the Investigation Report, the Industry Rule Book and the Company's procedures on defect reporting.
a, How could Mark Atkinson have considered the Investigation Report? It is not mentioned anywhere in that report about the state of the warning horn on the day in question.
b, So where did Mark Atkinson come up with the notion that I failed to report a Complete Failure of the Warning Horn from? Again this highlights that everything they did was made to fit.
c. Even when it was explained time and time again that the warning horn failure was a partial failure, why did this man continually refer to the Rule Book and treat the warning horn as being a complete failure?
d. The Company`s procedures, why didn`t he refer to the Contingency Plans? Which allows that train to remain in service.
Rule Book, Part A, 2.6
2.6 Train Operator`s Control receiving a report:
When the operations controller tells you the circumstances surrounding defective or isolated on-train equipment, you must:-
Decide, from the Defective On Train Equipment, (DOTE) Contingency Plans, the appropriate action to be taken and tell Operations Control what action must be taken to put the appropriate arrangements in place.
As we all know for a partial failure of the warning horn, the Contingency Plans state, "Train may complete its journey".
17 I began the hearing by outlining the charges to Mr Webb and his ATCU representative, Steve Trumm.
18 In relation to charge one, I expanded that Mr Webb's failures in reporting the horn defect were that as per the Rule Book:
What type of defect is Mark Atkinson talking about? Why such a generic response, "horn defect ". Because Barry Cook who laid the charges didn`t know what type of horn defect the train had, because Stephen Percival`s investigation failed to establish the key fact. There are two possibilities in the rule book, so how is this charge precisely framed if it warrants gross misconduct?
18.1 he did not stop immediately or at the earliest convenience (Darlington or Northallerton stations or signal stops) and report the matter to the controlling signaller as specified in the procedure; LIAR
It is either one or the other, depending on what I am being charged with, but as below Mark Atkinson states, "he did not reduce speed", then I can only assume he was treating this as a complete failure of the warning horn. Why was there no clear reference in the charge to ascertain precisely which rule had been broken?
One procedure says report to the signaller, the procedure for a complete failure, yet I had a partial failure.
WHY was Mark Atkinson so unsure which of the above I should have done? Stop immediately or at the earliest convenience?
18.2 he did not report it to the company's control as specified in the procedures;
For a partial failure of the warning horn, but I did attempt to call it in, if I had of called it in, that train would have run without restrictions to its speed.
18.3 he did not reduce speed;
a, It was a partial failure. Or is this a case of Mark Atkinson changing the rules to fit his needs? LIAR.
18.4 he did not complete the repair book entry appropriately; and
Is this really a gross misconduct charge?
18.5 his actions ensured that the unit remained in public service until it reached the depot.
a, Lets just say that I had managed to talk to control, I explain that I have a warning horn that I consider a partial failure, and when I arrive in York the train will be driven from the other cab. I explain that in my experience the cold weather is to blame and that the horn is now functioning correctly due to the rise in temperature.
b, TPE Control in my experience would have left the train to run, but if they had used their Contingency Plans, this train would have been allowed to run at 100mph to complete its diagrammed work.
c. In my hearing, Mark Atkinson also charged me with, "You didn`t stop and report it at the controlling signaller". So why is that missing from here?
19 In relation to charge two (the near miss incident), I stated that:
19.1 he had failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting which resulted in the train not being taken out of service immediately;
ANOTHER LIE, when is a unit ever taken out of service for a near miss? Where is the procedure for reporting a near miss?
Let me open this up to every Train Driver who reads this, no matter which company you work for. Ladies and Gentlemen, in your experience as a fully qualified Train Driver, are trains taken out of service after a near miss? Please email me and rectify me if I am wrong, but with well over 20 years front end experience I have never come across one instance of a train being taken out of service for a near miss.
I personally think that the amount of mistakes Route Driver Manager, Mark Atkinson has made in his attempt to basically crucify me is disgusting, this man is clearly struggling with the basics in understanding the investigation report, the rule book and is making his own procedures to fit my execution. Yet this man is in charge of many Drivers!
19.2 he had admitted that he had made a false allegation;
19.3 he did not stop at the signal box/controlling signal to report the matter; And
Why would I need to stop and report an incident that never occurred, that would have possibly been a Gross Misconduct charge.
19.4 he had failed to report the matter to the train operating company's control.
Again, how can I report something that never happened.
20 In relation to charge three (the train defects), I stated that:
20.1 he failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting train defects;
20.2 he did not stop and report the safety defects correctly;
a, Again, ANOTHER LIE, when would a Driver ever stop and report a noisy cab or a wiper that works intermittently? Does it tell a Driver in the rule book to STOP and report the above 2 defects?
20.3 he did not inform the company's control/the signal box or controlling signal;
a, Yet ANOTHER LIE, for the above defects where does it state that I have to inform the signaller?
b, As is there for all to witness, Route Driver Manager, Mark Atkinson is clearly using procedures that he has made up himself. As a Driver, you would fail your rules with mistakes like these!
20.4 he did not complete the repair book correctly, by omitting his details; and
20.5 he allowed a train to remain in service, as a result of his above failures, with an allegedly faulty warning horn, wipers, window and excessive Driver cab noise.
a, the answer is the same as 18.5 above.
b, Lets just say that I had managed to talk to control, I explain that I have a wiper fault, noise issues and a warning horn that I consider a partial failure, and when I arrive in York the train will be driven from the other cab. I explain that in my experience the cold weather is to blame and that the horn is now functioning correctly due to the rise in temperature.
c, TPE Control in my experience would have left the train to run, but if they had used their Contingency Plans, this train would have been allowed to run at 100mph to complete its diagrammed work.
d, Check out my section, named, Warning Horns (The Shocking Truth) and then tell me, who really allows trains to remain in service with the defective warning horns, defective wipers and excessive cab noise?
21 In relation to charge four, I stated that he had failed to attend an Occupational Health appointment during a period of sick leave when he failed to return from Thailand at the end of his annual leave.
22 In relation to the above points, Mr Webb and Mr Trumm raised the following responses, that:
22.1 the full warning horn failure was as a result of low temperatures that day. Mr Webb suggested that the failure was caused by the weather and that as he could see that the weather was clearing up it would not have affected the train and therefore did not need reporting;
LETS MAKE ONE ISSUE PLAINLY OBVIOUS, WE NEVER ONCE SAID THAT THE WARNING HORN WAS A "FULL" FAILURE, YET AGAIN A BLATANT LIE.
a, "The FULL warning horn failure"! This is unbelievable, rather like the "soonest convenience".
b, We get all this way, investigation, hearing, appeal, tribunal, I never once said that I had a COMPLETE failure of the warning horn, the temperatures were below freezing until York where they were above freezing, the horn started functioning normally due to the rise in temperature.
c, Again I ask every TPE Driver, in your opinion, if the horn is now working and when you arrive in York the train is being driven from the other cab, if you forget to inform control, is there any damage? Does this deserve dismissal?
d, Forgot to say, Mark Atkinson you are once again telling a LIE, it was not a "FULL" or indeed a COMPLETE failure of the warning horn.
22.2 the excessive noise in the cab was always present on the Company's 185 trains; and
a, Like I said previously, I have reports and repair book slips in abundance specifically complaining about noise, Mark Atkinson never once denied that this noise was not there. There is also the fact that in 2007 Siemens supposedly had a modernisation programme for the side door seals to be replaced due to high noise levels.
22.3 all the Company's trains have wiper faults.
a, So in essence, we have the company TPE, never once denying that the 185 units have noise issues or wiper faults and as we see below an admission that warning horns also have problems, all since introduction!
23 Mr Webb referred to a Fleet Newsletter, which stated, in relation to the Company's 185 trains, that “since introduction warning (horn) faults had become prevalent during the winter months, especially during damp conditions”. He suggested that if such faults are so prevalent then he should not have to report such problems. I did not find this argument credible as Mr Webb, as former health and safety representative, was fully aware that all safety incidents need to be reported to allow the Company to respond.
a. I would like to challenge Mark Atkinson to show me where during my hearing I inferred that because the warning horn faults are so common that a Driver shouldn`t have to report them? MARK ATKINSON, YOU ARE A LIAR.
b, When did you as a company ever respond to me? You ignored every issue I put to you, I will categorically prove this through this website and I challenge you all, take action against me if you think or have evidence that anything I state on this site is fabricated. I can back everything I say up with reports, letters, emails, audio tapes and much more.
24 In relation to the false reporting of a near miss incident, Mr Webb stated on numerous occasions that he had made similar false reports previously but had never been disciplined. He indicated that he only did it as it was the actions of a “desperate man”. Mr Trumm also stated that he did not think Mr Webb would get a fair hearing as he felt that the outcome was predetermined due to Mr Webb's previous Trade Union activities.
a. This statement is again untrue, if Mark Atkinson could have been bothered to look through my files, he would see one other report about a near miss that happened and was reported, does he honestly think if I had made allegations before they would have been overlooked? I challenge Mark Atkinson to show me "similar false reports".
b, The predetermination is evident for all to see, why would there be so many glaring errors by Mark Atkinson alone, that's before every other named Manager is highlighted. Mark Atkinson`s hearing minutes clearly show that his decision was predetermined, it comes from his own mouth and his behaviour in that hearing.
25 By way of an explanation for Mr Webb's actions, it was explained that all his previous reports had been ignored and he had witnessed an incident at Trafford Park where a railway employee had been killed by a train with a defective horn.
a. I constantly reminded Mark Atkinson that all my reports were ignored, and had witnessed a man killed by a train that never used the warning horn. Before my tribunal I told Employment Judge Grazin that TPE ignored all my reports and that I had 150 of them as proof, I actually have many more but had selected 150. He said that this was too many and to select 20 reports to be presented to TPE for their response.
15/08/2005 6 different items, cab conditions, numerous reports not replied too. Ignored
05/12/2005 15 different items, risk assessments, feedback, 185 safety rep involvement. Ignored
27/03/2006 Failure to evacuate York Station during a fire on the station. Ignored
27/03/2006 Despite highlighting safety risks, no management involvement. Ignored
27/03/2006 Unsafe working environment, no management involvement. Ignored
22/07/2006 Information requested. Health and Safety Issues. Ignored
03/09/2006 7 different items, all involving York fuel point and safe working. Ignored
14/09/2006 7 different issues with class 185 units all cab related. Ignored
29/12/2006 Issues with Siemens Depot, York Messroom and a death scenario. Ignored
30/01/2007 Problems with 185 units, including warning horn, noise and NRN reliability. Ignored
14/02/2007 Lack of any risk assessment for Siemens Depot, meeting requested. Ignored
24/10/2007 Clarification on hours taxi drivers worked that ferry staff about. Ignored
16/12/2007 ETS, Grievance and question on warning horns freezing up. Ignored
13/09/2008 Anti social behaviour, danger to staff. Ignored
29/10/2008 Failure of warning horn and warning may cause a death. Ignored
01/11/2008 Failure of warning horn, non reporting, relevant questions asked. Ignored
27/11/2008 Noise in cab stopped emergency broadcast from being understood. Ignored
03/12/2008 ETS at Manchester. Ignored
29/12/2008 Lack of cab heat and non use of H&S Reps before 185`s came into service. Ignored
TPE Could not provide one response to these reports, their ignorance is unbelievable.
Their response simply said the following, "No response or comments provided by the Claimant to the Respondent".
26 Mr Trumm also stated that the reporting failures were training issues rather than disciplinary matters.
a, This will become apparent later on, especially as it involves the interpretation of the rules.
27 There was a discussion regarding Injury Prevention (“IP”) reports and it was agreed that such reports now covered both injury prevention issues and day to day reports. I confirmed that if a Driver submits an IP report for a safety hazard then feedback may sometimes, at the discretion of the manager involved, be supplied to the Driver, however, where a Driver submits a fault report via the repair book slip then no feedback is given.
a, Mark Atkinson was asked about IP reports and the IP Procedure, the following is Mark Atkinson`s description of the IP Process!
b, “So the IP, for Steve`s clarity, the IP sometimes is a general staff contact interface. How are you? What would you like to discuss kind of stuff. Clearly that doesn’t generate any type of feedback. Where people are specific in hazards, other things that they want feedback for, it can work a trail where people will get feedback even if they, face to face or written, this is what we`ve found”.
c, I ask any TPE Drivers or Conductors, is this how you perceive the IP Process? Because if anyone can understand this, will you please email me.
d, I have information that states the following, "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 ".
e, Maybe this means, "it can work a trail where people will get feedback even if they, face to face or written, this is what we have found".
28 It was alleged by Mr Webb that charge two was unclear and that the false statement element was not part of the charge as it was just a footnote.
a. "You subsequently admitted that this was a false allegation". Is this an actual charge?
29 I asserted during the hearing that if Mr Webb was as concerned about the horn defects as he alleged he was, then prior to arriving in York he should have reported the matter immediately and made sure the train did not go any further. In response to this, he admitted that he did not report the matter at the first available opportunity.
a, When did anyone from TPE ever take notice of my concerns?
b. Have you ever known a train be taken out of service through a driver`s concerns?
c, yet again, (LIAR) what procedure says that I should report a partially defective warning horn immediately?
d, What would have happened with the unit only having a partially defective warning horn and I say that this unit should not go any further and prevent another driver from moving that train? Can any Driver say that they have known TPE remove a train from service for a partial warning horn failure?
e, Mark Atkinson says, "He should have reported the matter immediately", then states that I "did not report the matter at the first available opportunity", the rule book states, "tell the train operator’s control at the first convenient opportunity". How can this Route Driver Manager get this so fundamentally wrong?
This is what was actually said in the hearing:
MA 206: “Hang on a minute, if your so concerned about the train having faults on it, at the point when you arrived in York, that is the time and place to make sure the train doesn't go any further”.
Categorical proof that the above statement is a LIE!
30 A second Company document was also referenced by Mr Trumm in an attempt to show that the Company was not complying with its own safety briefs. It stated that upon a defective horn report if the engineers assessment response was that “no fault had been found or that it was working on arrival” then the Company would simply not accept the assessment. I was already aware of the document and it was clear that the Company's intention was for the engineers to provide more feedback information on the tests they performed to enable the Company to be aware that Driver reports had been checked appropriately. I noted that the newsletter was created to inform the train crews of the Company's response to their reports and to encourage future reports. The feedback form contained within this document allowed Drivers to raise any concerns they had relating to the Fleet and receive a response either personally or via an item in the next Fleet newsletter. Mr Webb had not followed this line of reporting.
a. That form of reporting along with every other way possible of reporting had been used before, I never received any response. My question is, why should I have to escalate a simple report so many ways in an attempt to obtain a response?
b. I followed your IP reporting and drivers standard report forms, why didn`t I get any response?
c, Safety Briefs were always a standard joke among Train Crew, email evidence I have from Drivers backs this up and I only attended 3 in 5 years! Ladbroke Grove, the Cullen Report, who cares?
31 After investigation at the depot it was established that there were problems with the Driver's side wiper at low speed (not at high), that a latch mechanism had failed on the window and that the horn was fully operational.
a, Why do you think the warning horn was fully operational when tested? Does the familiar, Tested on depot, NFF" spring to mind? What happened to this? "It stated that upon a defective horn report if the engineers assessment response was that “no fault had been found or that it was working on arrival” then the Company would simply not accept the assessment". Not accept the assessment?
32 There was a discussion as to whether or not the horn defect was a partial failure or a full failure. This was in reference to the fact that the 185 trains have two tones on their horns. If there is a partial failure, i.e. one of the horn tones fails but the other remains working, then the procedure for Drivers is to report the issue at the soonest convenience as there is always the possibility that the other horn would fail.
a, I challenge Mark Atkinson to show me where we had a discussion on whether or not the horn defect was a partial failure or a full failure. ANOTHER MASSIVE LIE. (EXTREMELY RELEVANT).
b. In which procedure does it state report the issue at the "soonest" convenience?
c, Here we have a Route Driver Manager, a Senior Manager in rank, he makes up his own wording for his own procedures. But more importantly this Manager cannot see the dangers of his companies own contingency plans. As all Drivers are aware, these plans allow the class 185 trains which have a partial failure of the warning horn to run at 100mph. No matter how serious I deemed this, it makes no difference, if I reported a partial failure and then ran my train at a speed enabling me to stop short of any p way men or obstructions of any sort I would be charged with Gross Misconduct because the rule book and TPE Contingency plans allow this train to run at 100mph.
The following is what I said to Mark Atkinson in my hearing.
"Take a look at this scenario, a driver sets of on a journey, 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 100ft 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 or her. 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.
Now lets return to the last words Mark Atkinson said, "as there is always the possibility that the other horn would fail". So here we have a Route Driver Manager realising that the other tone of the warning horn could fail, yet being fully aware of this extremely dangerous risk does absolutely nothing about it. If I can see what the consequences could be and I was just a Driver, why does a man in his senior position become oblivious to this? More importantly why is every Manager at TPE oblivious to this? Furthermore, why hasn`t any Manager put in place there idea of how to deal with this and changed the Contingency Plans?
I CHALLENGE any one of TransPennine Management to tell me that the scenario above could not possibly happen AND IF YOU DON`T ANSWER ME, THEN I EXPECT YOU TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. I ACTUALLY EXPECT YOU, MARK ATKINSON TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Because if there is any incident causing injury or death through a defective warning horn, I will hold you personally responsible.
33 Mr Webb also referred to recent incidents where defects had not been reported by other Drivers but did not provide examples. He initially alleged that those employees were as guilty as he was but after discussion, he agreed that his actions had differed to the comparators he raised in that he had reported an incident which did not take place.
a, What a BLATANT LIAR this man is, and I CHALLENGE Mark Atkinson once again to show me where we agreed my actions were different?
b, A further LIAR, I had numerous repair slips in my hand, which I tried to give him and laid them on the table in front of him, he totally ignored them. I refer to numbers (164 and 389) in the hearing minutes, where I said, 164, "can I let you read that Mark please, this just let me, Steve that occurred before my incident, that's just one of them", 389, “ There`s so many of these reports that will not have been rung in and dealt with properly. Some of these here, with what the drivers say”. Yet above he blatantly LIES and says, "but did not provide examples". I actually had with me, 2 A4 binders, one was full of reports and the other full of repair slips.
34 Mr Trumm confirmed that the core issue was the frustration which Mr Webb said he had felt as a result of the number of defect reports he had previously submitted where he felt there had been no response from the Company.
a, Frustration that will be highlighted later on with evidence of their ignorance and lie`s, unlike them, I can prove everything I say.
35 I then adjourned the hearing for one hour and 30 minutes. I reconvened to give my conclusions, having considered all the points raised by Mr Webb and Mr Trumm.
36 In relation to charge four, I concluded that Mr Webb had failed to attend the Occupational Health appointment and that given that he was not on authorised annual leave at the time it had been a reasonable request from the Company for him to be available for such an appointment. I also stated however, that given that his absence was genuinely down to sickness, his sick pay would be reinstated and back paid. Although I could have decided that his failure to comply with his contractual obligations meant that he was still not entitled to payment I decided to show some compassion and reinstate it.
a, "that given his absence was genuinely down to sickness", At the outset of the hearing I explained the following, I did not feel in the frame of mind to be able to do myself justice. As Dr David G Thomas pointed out,"there was clear evidence of anxiety and depression, I needed medication and counseling",and although he stated that there is no medical reason not to attend this hearing, I was at a handicap with not being able to focus or think straight.
37 In relation to charge one, I found that it had been proven that he had failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting a defective warning horn as he had not done so as soon as the matter arose and that as a result of this action the train had stayed in service which was a risk to those on or about the railway infrastructure.
a, "a risk to those on or about the railway infrastructure". So I assume every train that runs round with a partially defective warning horn will be classed as a risk to those on or about the railway infrastructure?
b, What has Mark Atkinson done about this? are class 185 trains still allowed to run at 100mph with a partially defective warning horn? I personally would have thought that being such a safety conscious company plans would be put in place to reduce the risk should the other tone of the warning horn fail to work, as Mark Atkinson quite rightly pointed out earlier.
c, How very relevant, notice that all Mark Atkinson says here is, "defective warning horn ", not "Full " or complete or even partial.
d. The rule book does not tell me to report a partial failure of the warning horn as soon as the matter arises, another LIE.
Mark Atkinson gave a different response earlier in this witness statement as shown below.
29 "I asserted during the hearing that if Mr Webb was as concerned about the horn defects as he alleged he was, then prior to arriving in York he should have reported the matter immediately and made sure the train did not go any further. In response to this, he admitted that he did not report the matter at the first available opportunity".
38 In relation to charge two, I found that it had been proven. It was clear that Mr Webb had failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting a near miss incident as he had not completed the form correctly and had not reported the incident to Control or the signaller as soon as it had allegedly occurred. I also noted that he had admitted that he had fabricated the incident, had shown no remorse for his actions, indicated that he had previously fabricated other incidents and that ultimately he had lied to the Company.
a, How on earth could I possibly have failed to follow a procedure that I informed TPE about as soon as I was questioned that never happened?
b, You will be given the opportunity later to read my hearing minutes and listen to the audio tape of that interview, I had never come across such a rude and aggressive Hearing Officer as how Mark Atkinson behaved. Despite explaining to this man so many times that I did not have a complete failure of the warning horn it became apparent that no matter what I said, the outcome was predetermined.
c, I never once said that I had previously fabricated other incidents.
d. "Ultimately he had lied", what does this whole website show you regarding the integrity of Route Driver Manager Mark Atkinson? I have labelled him with proof an HABITUAL LIAR.
39 In relation to charge three, I felt that charge one had covered this and that there was no point in repeating a charge for the same offence, I therefore withdrew the charge.
a, How does charge one cover this charge when it involves different items of equipment?
b, If you withdrew the charge, why earlier on in this statement did you say:-
8.3 “you failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting unit defects".
20 In relation to charge three (the train defects), I stated that:
20.1 he failed to follow the correct procedure for reporting train defects;
20.2 he did not stop and report the safety defects correctly;
20.3 he did not inform the company's control/the signal box or controlling signal;
20.4 he did not complete the repair book correctly, by omitting his details; and
20.5 he allowed a train to remain in service, as a result of his above failures, with an allegedly faulty warning horn, wipers, window and excessive Driver cab noise.
ONE EXTREMELY MIXED UP INDIVIDUAL, BECAUSE ONCE YOU START THE LIE'S, THERE IS NO WAY BACK AND YOU ROUTE DRIVER MANAGER MARK ATKINSON ARE IN THIS UP TO YOUR NECK!
40 Above all, I noted that Mr Webb had demonstrated a wilful and blatant disregard for the procedures. Although I noted that he blamed this on his frustration at not receiving a response from the Company in relation to his previous reports, I did not feel that this was a sufficient excuse for his actions and that it appeared that the relationship between him and the Company had broken down as he seemed to have breached procedures in order to punish the Company. In relation to the various points which Mr Webb and Mr Trumm raised during the hearing I found the following:
a, Where did I ever give the impression, where did I ever state, that I was out to punish the company?
b, How can he say that I demonstrated a wilful and blatant disregard for the procedures? I behaved that day as I always had in relation to that partial failure, if I was doing something wrong, why wasn`t this picked up before?
40.1 the Company does not have to report to the Drivers following the submission of a defect report. I stated to Mr Webb that the only way to gain feedback on defect reports is for the Driver in question to ask for a response directly. It is not the procedure of the Company to report back to the Driver on every defect;
a, Please show me where myself or ST raised the issue of receiving feedback for blue slips?
b, Is it also not the procedure of the company (as you put it) to give feedback on serious health and safety issues from standard reports and IP reports? Otherwise if it is, where was my feedback over the years of reporting?
40.2 in relation to the allegation that the outcome of the hearing was predetermined, on the basis of his Trade Union activities, I confirmed that I was present to listen to his responses and judge the matter on the information I received that day. As mentioned above, aside from witnessing Mr Webb representing an employee at a disciplinary hearing I had no knowledge of his previous Trade Union activities. I saw no evidence to suggest that the matter was predetermined. Certainly I had not predetermined it;
a, Please read the following passage of dialogue from my hearing and then make your own decision on predetermination. The audio is available on this site, you will notice how the silence lasts an eternity because he was clueless.
ST = Steve Trumm, ATCU Rep
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 leveled 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 he had 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.
40.3 in relation to the suggestion by Mr Webb that the Company's alleged failures to respond to his defect reports had forced him to take the actions he did, I found that even if he was right (which I did not find was the case) that there were a number of issues with the trains which the Company was failing to respond to, that did not justify his fabrication of a near miss incident;
a, You have in this statement insinuated that you have looked into my complaint that my defect reports were not responded to. So what did you do to justify your statement where you said, ("which I did not find was the case")? Earlier you reckoned that you approached this hearing with no prior knowledge?
40.4 having considered Mr Webb's admission that he had fabricated incidents before and reported them without disciplinary sanction, I confirmed, following consideration of further documentation, that such fabrications had not been apparent to the Company and therefore it could not have responded. If such fabrication had been established, I would have expected the Company to act in the same way again due to the potential seriousness of the impact upon the business;
a, If you took other reports into account, which ones were they, how many mentioned a near miss?
b, Which documentation are you referring to where you state, “I confirmed, following consideration of further documentation”.
c, The following is what I said in my hearing, “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. Evidence will be shown later.
40.5 in relation to the allegation that as the horn defect was due to the weather then Mr Webb did not need to report it as the weather was clearing up, I did not consider this argument to be credible as Mr Webb was fully aware that all defects needed to be reported whether it was weather related or not;
a, The warning horn partial failure that morning self rectified through the rise in temperature. On arrival in York it was fully functional. What good would it have done in reporting a defect that had rectified itself from a very common and well known issue? Ask yourselves, what would TPE have done if I informed them that the warning horn had been a partial failure but now it was working correctly?
b, Does this warrant a charge of Gross Misconduct?
40.6 in relation to the allegation that all the Company's trains have excessive cab noise and wiper faults, I acknowledged that faults do occur but noted that this does not detract from a Driver's obligation to inform the Company of them, which is exactly why the procedures are present;
a, My sins were that I forgot to fax the repair sheet, is this really a Gross Misconduct charge?
40.7 in relation to the suggestion that the reporting failures were training issues and not disciplinary issues, given that Mr Webb openly admitted fabricating a report, I was unable to accept that it was a training issue; and
a, According to yourselves in the tribunal and the Judges written reasons the fabricated report played no part in my dismissal, and if as a company you were so confident that I was the only driver who never reported the defects using the correct procedures then why was the only recommendation to come out of Stephen Percival's Investigation Report as follows?
“FTPE Operations Standards Department to incorporate the correct reporting procedure into the safety briefs”
b, You would have thought that the above recommendation would have been implemented into the safety briefs, but unbelievably this never happened. The following responses are from TransPennine Drivers who will not be named, they are from emails and are in request to my question, "Did you have the correct reporting procedures incorporated into your safety briefs?
1. "Not had a safety brief since Sept 2009, no nothing about warning horn".
2. "No idea when my last safety brief was, but I know it didn’t mention warning horns".
3. "I don’t remember the exact date I last had a safety brief, the recommendation you refer to was not briefed".
4. "It was last year sometime when I last had a safety brief, I don’t remember seeing/hearing anything about warning horns".
5. "Regarding safety briefs, I had one a couple of weeks ago and don’t recall “FTPE Operations Standards Department to incorporate the correct reporting procedure into the safety briefs” been mentioned".
6. "The only safety brief I have had in the last 18 months was on 7th October last year, there was nothing about horns mentioned".
7. "It would have been either November or December 2009, to the best of my knowledge the recommendation below wasn`t discussed".
8. "My last safety brief was around August or September last year, I have no recollection of any discussion regarding the reporting procedure for defective warning horns".
9. "My last safety brief was before Christmas and I think before we even had any snow and cold weather, so I don`t think we did have the recommendation".
10. "Had a safety brief on January 13th, I can`t remember whether they mentioned the warning horn or not".
11. "To be honest the answer is no, I aint had a brief since last year".
12. "Finally, Listen to this response (64d) , I had a safety brief recently and the reporting of defective warning horns was never mentioned. We did have a visit from the maintenance director Nick Donovan, so I brought up the question asking what was being done about the warning horn situation as they are extremely poor and I voiced my concerns that someone on the track could get killed if the problem wasn`t sorted. He seemed to play down the problems insisting that other TOC`s had similar problems with their warning horns as well, but he did say that since introduction, there had been 3 modifications done that had not cured the problems and that a Siemens engineer was investigating ways to try and allieviate the problem. I left thinking that once again I had just been fobbed off. I don’t think that FTPE are as bothered about safety as they are performance. GOING ON TO SAY, “maybe if someone is killed there will be some real action taken with regards to the warning horns".
These answers are not what you would expect especially bearing in mind how much danger was supposedly caused by my charges and as an extremely safety first company you would be sure to think that at every safety brief from February 2009 onwards the correct reporting procedures would have been implemented into the safety briefs.
But the answers also highlight the fact that safety briefs are hard to come by, which on the face of things does not surprise me in the slightest, because I only had 3 safety briefs in 5 years and according to TPE`s records they only had me down for having 2, I had to inform them that it was actually 3.
We had Lord Cullens recommendation of 2 safety briefs a year because of the tragic loss of life at Ladbroke Grove. Why do TPE ignore this.
Number 12 above, look at the final email.......The final email shows that TPE are no further forward than when they dismissed me in sorting out this horn problem, how does that make you feel from a safety perspective?
40.8 in relation to the suggestion that charge two was unclear and the fabrication element was just a footnote, I concluded it was clear from the wording to what the charge related and that the fabrication element was not just a footnote.
41 I summarily dismissed Mr Webb on two counts of gross misconduct and informed him of his right to appeal. I took a lot of time to come to this decision, I adjourned the hearing for approximately 1 hour 30 minutes to consider the options available to me but in light of his lack of remorse, blatant admission that he had made up the incident and that he would do it again I felt dismissal was the appropriate sanction.
a, Lack of remorse? His volatile behaviour left no room for any remorse, but when you think about it, if these charges are that serious to justify Gross Misconduct then remorse would make no difference to the decision, otherwise we could all misbehave and say sorry.
b,"And that he would do it again", Mark Atkinson strikes again with a blatant lie, I never once said that I would do it again, I challenge you once again, show me where I said this? LIAR.
42 Mr Trumm prior to leaving the hearing raised an allegation that the dismissal had been predetermined and that this could be shown through witness evidence. There was no predetermination of any issues by myself but I made a note to have the Company investigate these claims.
a, This was raised in the form of an email I received regarding what Manager Ged Higgins said, this will be highlighted later.
43 This statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
THIS IS MY CHALLENGE TO YOU MARK ATKINSON, WHEREVER I CALL YOU A LIAR, PROVE ME WRONG.
THERE ARE AT LEAST 14 PLACES IN THIS STATEMENT WHERE MARK ATKINSON BLATANTLY LIES!
I have published the hearing minutes and audio tape, lets see what people make of your behaviour at that hearing.