• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Hull Trains Strike over dismissal

woodmally1979

Member
Joined
19 Aug 2024
Messages
14
Location
Sheffield
So its been reported that Hull Trains are going on strike because someone got sacked. Now I dont know if it was a justified or unjustified sacking. But surely this is riddiculous. Why dont they just go for unfair dismissal and take Hull Trains to court if they dont agree with the decision?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Zontar

Member
Joined
10 Oct 2018
Messages
553
Location
Birmingham
So its been reported that Hull Trains are going on strike because someone got sacked. Now I dont know if it was a justified or unjustified sacking. But surely this is riddiculous. Why dont they just go for unfair dismissal and take Hull Trains to court if they dont agree with the decision?
This has much more impact and probably quicker to get a resolution. Plus it sends a signal from the union
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
9,425
Location
Somewhere, not in London
So its been reported that Hull Trains are going on strike because someone got sacked. Now I dont know if it was a justified or unjustified sacking. But surely this is riddiculous. Why dont they just go for unfair dismissal and take Hull Trains to court if they dont agree with the decision?
Because if one goes through the courts for unfair dismissal, in the very unlikely event of a favourable outcome, there isn't actually any real penalty that will make any difference and it wouldn't result in a reversal or expunging of the record of their dismissal which can significantly affect future employment.
 

Bigfoot

Established Member
Joined
2 Dec 2013
Messages
1,256
I would suggest there is more too it than what is public, possibly Union agreements being ignored. A sacking with genuine reasoning rarely gets to the point of a strike.
 

Failed Unit

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2009
Messages
9,192
Location
Central Belt
I would suggest there is more too it than what is public, possibly Union agreements being ignored. A sacking with genuine reasoning rarely gets to the point of a strike.
I would agree, hypothetically if the driver was dismissed for constantly arriving late to a shift and HT had followed the agreed discipline procedures that would never result in a strike as it looks bad on the union. However with the same hypothetical situation that they were dismissed for a single incident that is more likely to cause friction with the union.
 

Snow1964

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2019
Messages
8,060
Location
West Wiltshire
To some extent a union (should) aim to uphold employment conditions and protect individuals from victimisation etc. What they should never do is call action if the actions of an individual employee were grossly inappropriate, or recklessly endangered others, or was continuing to do things properly after warnings etc. basically blatantly breaking the standard's required in their employment contract. (remember it is two way contract, get money for certain conditions so employee has responsibility too)

In practice there is a rather grey between the two. No idea what the details of this case are so not going to speculate if calling a strike is justified. But if they are calling a strike over sacking it ought to be appropriate and not some power crazed official flexing his/her ego.
 

43066

On Moderation
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
11,532
Location
London
What they should never do is call action if the actions of an individual employee were grossly inappropriate, or recklessly endangered others, basically blatantly breaking the standard's required in their employment contract. (remember it is two way contract, get money for certain conditions so employee has responsibility too)

There’s no evidence of that, though? Employers should never unfairly penalise sack employees for raising safety concerns, yet that’s apparently what’s happened here. As a passenger I’d be more concerned about that, than the union‘s response.

In practice there is a rather grey between the two. No idea what the details of this case are so not going to speculate if calling a strike is justified. But if they are calling a strike over sacking it ought to be appropriate and not some power crazed official flexing his/her ego.

“Calling a strike” means balloting the membership who make the decision and certainly isn’t down to “some power crazed official flexing his/her ego”. You’ve said yourself you have no idea about the underlying reasons - so why suggest it?
 

185

Established Member
Joined
29 Aug 2010
Messages
5,473
Our tribunal system is a disgrace, not fit for purpose and in recent years, does not address the law properly. I can fully understand why those affected would now look for other action rather than the inappropriate legal route.

Some examples:
1. Employee v TOC tribunal. Case initially won by employee. Reopened at appeal hearing on the basis of a blatantly false claim by an HR manager. At tribunal CCTV confirms otherwise and TOC's solicitor admits the HR woman's false claim was untrue and apologises for 'misremembering'. TOC goes on to win case based on the basis of further new claims. Case later had to be resolved outside of tribunal at the High Court who expressed utter shock at the goings on at the employment tribunal service.

2. Employee v TOC tribunal. Employee sacked for not taking a ticket machine out. At tribunal company claims employee was lazy and all the ticket machines were working fine. They also claimed no-one had ever said "don't take a machine, they're broken". On day three of the tribunal, a covert audio recording was produced, of the HR Manager with a Conductor Manager talking in the appeal meeting saying "well, all the machines were broken, and... you know, we were telling them not to take one". Judge refused to accept the audio evidence because it was covertly recorded - even though it exposed clear evidence of perjury and an absolute intent to pervert the course of justice.
 
Last edited:

Horizon22

Established Member
Associate Staff
Jobs & Careers
Joined
8 Sep 2019
Messages
9,301
Location
London
The issue is here there's a lot we don't know and it's all at this point speculative on exactly why they are on strike. People don't get sacked without a clear disciplinary process, and a Union doesn't call a strike lightly either. At the moment there are vague comments about "fatigue" and "safety". There is no way that a driver would be "sacked after raising a safety concern about fatigue" (12th Feb article) or "unfairly sacked after raising a safety concern about fatigue during a briefing by the rail company" (13th Jan article). There has to be more to it than that.

As always there are 3 sides to every story; the TOC's, the union's and - somewhere in the middle - the truth.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
16,703
There’s no evidence of that, though? Employers should never unfairly penalise sack employees for raising safety concerns, yet that’s apparently what’s happened here.
"Apparently" is doing a lot of work in that sentence. Postings elsewhere suggest that that is very much one side of the issue and that there is another side to the story. No surprise that the the truth is almost certainly in the middle somewhere.
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
11,087
“Calling a strike” means balloting the membership who make the decision and certainly isn’t down to “some power crazed official flexing his/her ego”.
Actually it can be, because the decision to call a ballot, or not, in the first place, is down to self-same officials, aware that ballots for whatever are very rarely rejected.
 

KNN

Member
Joined
9 Feb 2024
Messages
119
Location
Birmingham
The issue is here there's a lot we don't know and it's all at this point speculative on exactly why they are on strike. People don't get sacked without a clear disciplinary process, and a Union doesn't call a strike lightly either. At the moment there are vague comments about "fatigue" and "safety". There is no way that a driver would be "sacked after raising a safety concern about fatigue" (12th Feb article) or "unfairly sacked after raising a safety concern about fatigue during a briefing by the rail company" (13th Jan article). There has to be more to it than that.

As always there are 3 sides to every story; the TOC's, the union's and - somewhere in the middle - the truth.
Indeed, without knowing the details it's a bit pointless to even discuss it.

We'll get the usual "it's bad to inconvenience customers" Vs "the company is always wrong" Vs "the unions are always wrong" recycling of opinions.
 

Trackman

Established Member
Joined
28 Feb 2013
Messages
3,564
Location
Lewisham
The issue is here there's a lot we don't know and it's all at this point speculative on exactly why they are on strike. People don't get sacked without a clear disciplinary process, and a Union doesn't call a strike lightly either. At the moment there are vague comments about "fatigue" and "safety". There is no way that a driver would be "sacked after raising a safety concern about fatigue" (12th Feb article) or "unfairly sacked after raising a safety concern about fatigue during a briefing by the rail company" (13th Jan article). There has to be more to it than that.

As always there are 3 sides to every story; the TOC's, the union's and - somewhere in the middle - the truth.
I'm not willing to speculate until we know all the facts.

I read somewhere that they should have been protected as a whistleblower, but I am not sure if they were whistleblowing.
 

woodmally1979

Member
Joined
19 Aug 2024
Messages
14
Location
Sheffield
There must be more to it than that. I know people on here have their views on management but you dont just spend 1000s training up a train driver and pay him or her 60 grand a year and then dismiss them because they made a throw away comment
 

Moonshot

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2013
Messages
3,763
Actually it can be, because the decision to call a ballot, or not, in the first place, is down to self-same officials, aware that ballots for whatever are very rarely rejected.
Drivers are well aware of the consequences of a ballot.
 

43066

On Moderation
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
11,532
Location
London
Actually it can be, because the decision to call a ballot, or not, in the first place, is down to self-same officials, aware that ballots for whatever are very rarely rejected.

Keep in mind that officials are elected. The reason ballots are rarely rejected is because union officials will get a sense of opinions and only call a ballot where they know it’s likely succeed. The ultimate decision to strike or not is taken by the members, and their opinions are the only ones that matter.

There must be more to it than that. I know people on here have their views on management but you dont just spend 1000s training up a train driver and pay him or her 60 grand a year and then dismiss them because they made a throw away comment

So you don’t believe people are ever unfairly dismissed, or that management can ever act unreasonably.
 

Horizon22

Established Member
Associate Staff
Jobs & Careers
Joined
8 Sep 2019
Messages
9,301
Location
London
Another thought was that actually I imagine the Hull Trains drivers are quite a close bunch. Bare in mind they run only 7 trains per day, they must need at maximum around 30-40 drivers. This probably leads to more solidarity than you see elsewhere.

So you don’t believe people are ever unfairly dismissed, or that management can ever act unreasonably.

I don't think people have said that and is somewhat a straw-man argument.

What's more true is that a sacking is a case of gross misconduct (usually) and it's very hard to get to that stage without a full disciplinary process, and even more so in a heavily unionised industry like rail.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
14,809
Location
Isle of Man
Another thought was that actually I imagine the Hull Trains drivers are quite a close bunch. Bear in mind they run only 7 trains per day, they must need at maximum around 30-40 drivers. This probably leads to more solidarity than you see elsewhere.
As you say, it’s a small depot so they will know the driver and know what happened.

If it was a slam dunk gross misconduct the drivers wouldn’t be voluntarily losing pay about it, solidarity or no solidarity. So there must be something about it which has so exercised them.

you dont just spend 1000s training up a train driver and pay him or her 60 grand a year and then dismiss them because they made a throw away comment
Naive is the only word to describe this.
 

43066

On Moderation
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
11,532
Location
London
I don't think people have said that and is somewhat a straw-man argument.

The poster I quoted appears to have concluded that because train drivers are paid £60k management aren’t going to ever act unreasonably - that is naive to put it mildly.

What's more true is that a sacking is a case of gross misconduct (usually) and it's very hard to get to that stage without a full disciplinary process, and even more so in a heavily unionised industry like rail.

In my experience people can be and are sacked, usually justifiably. The union’s role is generally to ensure procedures are correctly followed. It’s highly unusual for a sacking to lead to strike action, which suggests there’s more to it.

As you say, it’s a small depot so they will know the driver and know what happened.

If it was a slam dunk gross misconduct the drivers wouldn’t be voluntarily losing pay about it, solidarity or no solidarity. So there must be something about it which has so exercised them.

Precisely.
 
Last edited:

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
14,809
Location
Isle of Man
Our tribunal system is a disgrace, not fit for purpose and in recent years, does not address the law properly.
Always has been. Slightly off topic, but look at the BBC’s recent reporting of the Leeds employment tribunal judge Philip Lancaster:

Three more women have accused a judge of bullying during employment tribunal hearings.

They say Judge Philip Lancaster was belittling and intimidating and made them feel stupid while they presented their cases. One said she felt his behaviour in her case verged on psychological abuse.

There are some very good tribunal judges. However my experience is that an significant minority are a bit too much like Lancaster.

And even if you get a good one and you win, a tribunal ordering reinstatement is almost unheard of.
 

Andover

Member
Joined
30 Mar 2019
Messages
41
Actually it can be, because the decision to call a ballot, or not, in the first place, is down to self-same officials, aware that ballots for whatever are very rarely rejected.
So seeing as they're apparently almost pointless, you think we should get rid of mandatory ballots then?
 

Clarence Yard

Established Member
Joined
18 Dec 2014
Messages
2,907
In a company like Hull Trains any dismissal is a big deal and it isn’t done on a whim and certainly not for just raising a safety concern.

There is indeed more to the dismissal that what the union is saying but as the employee concerned has appeal and tribunal rights, it really isn’t fair to go into details here. He might succeed in those appeals, he might not, but he deserves his chance, free from comments from outsiders.

I wouldn’t have expected anything else from the HT drivers. HT has a family atmosphere and the relevant staff will want to express solidarity with a colleague in nearly all circumstances. If I was a HT driver, I would probably be doing the same thing.

But the Hull Trains management hold the safety responsibilities and sometimes those holders have to carry out that role irrespective of any IR implications.
 

WelshBluebird

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2010
Messages
5,222
People don't get sacked without a clear disciplinary process
I mean that is simply not true. Lots of people do. Sometimes they manage to get justice but quite often they don't. Yes we don't know if that happened here, but by the same measure you can't make such a claim either.
 

generalnerd

Member
Joined
20 Jan 2025
Messages
265
Location
Hull
This has been known for a short while now, although hull trains have denied the claim, and I’m slightly suspicious of both sides claims.

I don’t believe HT would sack somebody for one small claim, let alone a driver.

I also don’t think they would do something like that, especially considering they are an open access company and could go bust if they lose business or can’t sell tickets.

If they have, they should be held responsible, but I don’t think that is the case.
 

OneOfThe48

Member
Joined
6 Mar 2023
Messages
121
Location
London
In a company like Hull Trains any dismissal is a big deal and it isn’t done on a whim and certainly not for just raising a safety concern.

There is indeed more to the dismissal that what the union is saying but as the employee concerned has appeal and tribunal rights, it really isn’t fair to go into details here. He might succeed in those appeals, he might not, but he deserves his chance, free from comments from outsiders.

I wouldn’t have expected anything else from the HT drivers. HT has a family atmosphere and the relevant staff will want to express solidarity with a colleague in nearly all circumstances. If I was a HT driver, I would probably be doing the same thing.

But the Hull Trains management hold the safety responsibilities and sometimes those holders have to carry out that role irrespective of any IR implications.
Without going into the details (a lot of people would be interested but understand it’s your choice not to share) do you think the dismissal is justified?

If you do not wish to say then don’t of course!
 
Last edited:

Msq71423

Member
Joined
30 Jun 2022
Messages
78
Location
North West
This was the main news article on local BBC TV news a few days ago, and while I can't link to the video as it is no longer on iPlayer, in summary the report mentioned that the driver, who was very experienced, was sacked for self reporting a fatigue issue as well as making a flippant remark with other staff.

The ASLEF rep was interviewed from the studio, who made the point that this sacking would potentially have safety ramifications across the entire railway industry as it may make other drivers nationally wary to self report fatigue if it could potentially result in a sacking.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
16,703
This was the main news article on local BBC TV news a few days ago, and while I can't link to the video as it is no longer on iPlayer, in summary the report mentioned that the driver, who was very experienced, was sacked for self reporting a fatigue issue as well as making a flippant remark with other staff.

The ASLEF rep was interviewed from the studio, who made the point that this sacking would potentially have safety ramifications across the entire railway industry as it may make other drivers nationally wary to self report fatigue if it could potentially result in a sacking.
So it was just the ASLEF point of view...
 

irp

Member
Joined
14 Aug 2023
Messages
75
Location
Cov, UK
The issue is here there's a lot we don't know and it's all at this point speculative on exactly why they are on strike. People don't get sacked without a clear disciplinary process, and a Union doesn't call a strike lightly either. At the moment there are vague comments about "fatigue" and "safety". There is no way that a driver would be "sacked after raising a safety concern about fatigue" (12th Feb article) or "unfairly sacked after raising a safety concern about fatigue during a briefing by the rail company" (13th Jan article). There has to be more to it than that.

As always there are 3 sides to every story; the TOC's, the union's and - somewhere in the middle - the truth.
Risking going very off topic, so I'll keep it to one word: "Vorlons" [Babylon 5 reference] (with regards to the 3 sides comment)
 
Last edited:

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
31,962
In a company like Hull Trains any dismissal is a big deal and it isn’t done on a whim and certainly not for just raising a safety concern.

There is indeed more to the dismissal that what the union is saying but as the employee concerned has appeal and tribunal rights, it really isn’t fair to go into details here. He might succeed in those appeals, he might not, but he deserves his chance, free from comments from outsiders.

I wouldn’t have expected anything else from the HT drivers. HT has a family atmosphere and the relevant staff will want to express solidarity with a colleague in nearly all circumstances. If I was a HT driver, I would probably be doing the same thing.

But the Hull Trains management hold the safety responsibilities and sometimes those holders have to carry out that role irrespective of any IR implications.

Well said sir.
 

Top