Health and Safety? (Lymington sacking)

[jopsuk]

Apparently Mystic Wolmar will be on as a pundit.

 

[BestWestern]

Just to add a different angle to this; SWT are somewhat renowned for being ruthless in their disciplinary tactics, and aren't generally known for their fairness. It may be that there was some history to this situation, but it could just as likely be that he made a mistake and paid the price. I would say that arranging a power isolation is a fairly major thing to undertake, and it will inevitably find it's way back to the management, he should have expected this incident to be known about, and sadly he'd have done better to have followed the appropriate rules. SWT would undoubtably have required an incident report, so perhaps that's how it came to light. On the other hand, if no report was filed that's another failure to follow rules; these things can stack up so easily. He did the right thing, up to the point where he ventured onto the line himself. He'd already been in contact with the panel, all he had to do was ask them to get it dealt with. I'd be interested to know how that conversation went, as I'd have expected the signaller to question his intentions if he'd let on that he was going to climb down there himself, but then who knows what was actually said.

Nevertheless, a great shame

 

[ralphchadkirk]

No - although it still constitutes a safety risk, and could case damage to a train.

As people have stated, there's more to this story than what's been reported, which is obvious.

I quite agree there was a safety risk - mostly to the station manager. I was pointing out that it isn't going to kill people so those going round saying he prevented death (incidentally, including Ian Farretto) took a bit of a reality check.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Apparently Mystic Wolmar will be on as a pundit.

Well that's lowered my expectations already, if rent-a-quote's there.

 

[Hydro]

I would say that arranging a power isolation is a fairly major thing to undertake, and it will inevitably find it's way back to the management, he should have expected this incident to be known about, and sadly he'd have done better to have followed the appropriate rules.

"I was also told that the power hadn't actually been turned off either."

Definitely not the whole story here.

 

[tempests1]

Just to add a different angle to this; SWT are somewhat renowned for being ruthless in their disciplinary tactics, and aren't generally known for their fairness. It may be that there was some history to this situation, but it could just as likely be that he made a mistake and paid the price. I would say that arranging a power isolation is a fairly major thing to undertake, and it will inevitably find it's way back to the management, he should have expected this incident to be known about, and sadly he'd have done better to have followed the appropriate rules. SWT would undoubtably have required an incident report, so perhaps that's how it came to light. On the other hand, if no report was filed that's another failure to follow rules; these things can stack up so easily. He did the right thing, up to the point where he ventured onto the line himself. He'd already been in contact with the panel, all he had to do was ask them to get it dealt with. I'd be interested to know how that conversation went, as I'd have expected the signaller to question his intentions if he'd let on that he was going to climb down there himself, but then who knows what was actually said.

Nevertheless, a great shame

I agree the above comments, I don't understand why he did not contact the signaller & leave it with them to deal with. They could have then blocked the line. Contacted the Incident Controller at Wessex Integrated Control Centre (Waterloo), who could have spoken with the MOM (who deal with this type of thing regularly & hold a COSS ticket) one of which may have been on duty at Brockenhurst as they do have MOM's based there or failing that got one from Eastleigh or Bournemouth, they could have then arranged for the Isolation with Eastleigh ECR. The Station Assistant (RO2) would have then covered themselves as they would have following the correct procedure & rules. They may argue they were preventing delays but I imagine the service is not too intense on a Sunday on this line!! & plus the same unit is probably used all day so the signaller would have just held it in the loop at Brockenhurst so it wouldnt have affected the main line. People have asked who reported him in theory he reported himself as the signaller/ECRO would have reported the matter to the Wessex Integrated Control Centre - Where NWR Control sit beside SWT Control they both would have entered this into their respective control logs a no brainer!.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I quite agree there was a safety risk - mostly to the station manager. I was pointing out that it isn't going to kill people so those going round saying he prevented death (incidentally, including Ian Farretto) took a bit of a reality check.

Agreed What the worst that would have happened hundreds of ton of train slowing for a station stop hitting a trolley! He could argue he was preventing death but would be taking absolute rubbish!!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I cannot believe that someone would be sacked for what is a relatively minor rules breach unless he was on a final warning or had a record of breaching rules, which makes me think there is more to this than he is letting on.

Agreed - Perhaps he has a poor disciplinary record, & is quite reckless & of course may have done something very similar in the past.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well that's lowered my expectations already, if rent-a-quote's there.

Just who you need for sensible, reasoned, & balanced comment's. He will speak up the TOC as well! yeah right!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If a baby or child fell onto the track and he/member of staff went down to get them off the line would he been still sacked for breaching H&S? The truth is SWT didn't want to pay his pension.

Immediate risk to life is a different story! this case was not immediate risk to life!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Has anyone considered that perhaps the reason he did what he did was because as someone who obviously has a good deal of pride in his job and station (VERY rare these days), and knowing how the 'system' works. that rather than going through the rigmarole of permissions, isolations and other such stuff which would have likely taken hours/days, he made the judgement that the trolley was easily and safely retrievable and then did so.
Lets be honest, many of us in other highly regulated/excessive bull**** industries do the same often enough.
I'd still be interested to find out who shopped him.

If he knew how the system works he would have considered the consequences of his actions. I am sure he wouldn't have wanted to be dismissed & perhaps he would go back & change things now

 

[swt_passenger]

...Though as I said, the man was a Station Master. And as it says in his title, it's his job to look after the place. If he hadn't picked that trolley up, we could well be having this very same debate, only with a derailment involved and loss of life. If a HST had come through the place.......

There's no way he was a 'station master'. That's media exaggeration, pure and simple.

And we're discussing the fag end of low speed single track branch line, with a very slow appraoch to the buffers at Lymington Pier. If an HST was derailed here at speed that really would be a headline story...

 

[tempests1]

There's no way he was a 'station master'. That's media exaggeration, pure and simple.

And we're discussing the fag end of low speed single track branch line, with a very slow appraoch to the buffers at Lymington Pier. If an HST was derailed here at speed that really would be a headline story...

If the HST was going down the branch at speed it probably would have smashed throught the buffers & ended up in the Solent!

 

[DarloRich]

Not true, non-PTS holders are allowed on with a Track Visitors Permit under supervision from a Controller of Site Safety; this can be red or green zone and the signalman isn't involved at any stage.

Correct!

 

[Ferret]

Well, whatever the actual truth of the matter, SWT have ended up with a serious amount of egg on their faces over this one. I really think they have got far more than they bargained for! This guy must have been doing something right though - plenty of customer satisfaction in play. I suspect they've declined to comment because they fully expect legal proceedings to commence and won't want to prejudice any future case. I hope for their sakes their case is watertight otherwise it could end up being very costly.

Another thought - if they have CCTV footage of him going onto the line, do they also have CCTV footage of the cretins who put the shopping trolley there in the first place? I don't suppose for a minute this person/people are being hunted for potential prosecution.

 

[O L Leigh]

I disagree.

It's unfortunate that it's ended up in the media's lap because of their woeful lack of understanding of all matters related to railway operation. But staff have to comply with the rules that pertain to their jobs, which is something that this chap should have understood after 27 years of service. That he was popular with the punters and did a good job keeping his station tidy and went the extra mile by tending the flowerbeds is neither here nor there. This guy has apparently breached the rules and, no matter how noble the motivation for him doing so, that was his mistake. If the public or media are going to be allowed to decide what they consider is and is not acceptable we shall very soon have a erosion of safety standards. I've failed trains for some very minor faults that the passengers would no doubt ask "so what...?", but these faults will have negatively impacted on safety for whatever reason and so the train must be pulled.

Without knowing whether or not this guy has a rap sheet as long as his arm and that this was just the latest infraction we will never know whether or not the sacking is merited. He may have considered he was following a procedure, but the facts as we know them suggest he was following the wrong one. He may have thought he was preventing a derailment, but the chances of a shopping trolley actually causing such an incident were tiny.

O L Leigh

 

[Ferret]

O L Leigh - what do you disagree with? The fact they have a whole load of egg on their faces? Remember, our enlightened opinion on here doesn't really mean jack in the grand scheme of things.

 

[blacknight]

There's no way he was a 'station master'. That's media exaggeration, pure and simple.

So what else do you call the person in charge of a railway station? Personally I prefer the title Platform God Despatcher of Trains & Enforcer of Railway Byelaws but my name badge was to small
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm in agreement with O L Leigh here, why station staff are not trained in these matters to know the above procedure to get it sorted with minimal disruption within the boundaries of the Rule Book, rather than either a) wait for a MOM, or b) sort it out off your own back as has happened here.

Something to do with cost may come into it-Any idea of cost to attend PTS course IMO all platform staff should be PTS trained. Can you imagine how stupid it would look for an announcement of SWT apologise for late running of services this is due to a shopping trolley on the line delays & short term cancellations can be expected.
What is first train booked to run on Sunday he spoke to signaller & they came to an understanding of how to remove article from the line, was a MOM even on duty in that area early on Sunday morning?

 

[jon0844]

We don't know the full story and things can sometimes not be as they appear. What did Northern say about a certain person trying to use a wheelchair at Guide Bridge? Nothing.

Did that automatically make them guilty?

Why should a company get caught up in a public argument, with people baying for blood no matter what is said?

All you'd get is more arguments saying 'well, they would say that wouldn't they?' and similar.

 

[Railjet]

Well, whatever the actual truth of the matter, SWT have ended up with a serious amount of egg on their faces over this one. I really think they have got far more than they bargained for!

I agree with this - their Press Officer/Public Relations must take blame here. To use the excuse that they won't give any details about a personnel issue doesn't wash these days, when the "other side" has given one side of the story in detail. I don't mean full disclosure of course, especially if it might go to a tribunal; but, if this is the latest in a series of contraventions, then they could at least say something.

To say nothing just makes them look foolish, and adds fuel to the fire of those who say the sacking was wrong.

 

[blacknight]

Give over. It's a small speed, and a shopping trolley is hardly going to derail or kill anyone. Remember grayrigg? 125mph derailment? Only 1 person died.

No but it could damage a brake pipe & end up with service being terminated

 

[Hydro]

To say nothing just makes them look foolish, and adds fuel to the fire of those who say the sacking was wrong.

The sacking may be entirely justified, it's not for the general public to decide whether or not it is correct or not even if SWT choose not to say anything. SWT could provide a list as long as my arm of any transgressions of a sacked employee, but you will still find that if public opinion is against it, then you will probably get a response/situation similar to the one jonmorris0844 highlighted.

 

[SS4]

I agree with this - their Press Officer/Public Relations must take blame here. To use the excuse that they won't give any details about a personnel issue doesn't wash these days, when the "other side" has given one side of the story in detail. I don't mean full disclosure of course, especially if it might go to a tribunal; but, if this is the latest in a series of contraventions, then they could at least say something.

To say nothing just makes them look foolish, and adds fuel to the fire of those who say the sacking was wrong.

It really wouldn't matter what they said. Your assumption that the news media is fair is very wide of the mark. SWT are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Better to keep silent on the matter

 

[Ferret]

We don't know the full story and things can sometimes not be as they appear. What did Northern say about a certain person trying to use a wheelchair at Guide Bridge? Nothing.

Did that automatically make them guilty?

Why should a company get caught up in a public argument, with people baying for blood no matter what is said?

All you'd get is more arguments saying 'well, they would say that wouldn't they?' and similar.

Ah, but Northern handled it so much better. They were careful in the language they used, promised to investigate fully and dealt with the matter at hand. SWT on the other hand have shot themselves in the foot with their use of language - they should've known that the use of the words 'Health & Safety' as a means of justifying the sacking would be like a red rag to a bull where the press were concerned. They only have themselves to blame for the rather public kicking they seem to be receiving - an A1 example of how not to do it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Better to keep silent on the matter

Only that's precisely what they haven't done! If they had offered a 'no comment', they'd be looking far less silly than they do now, whatever the rights and wrongs of the case.

 

[Railjet]

It really wouldn't matter what they said. Your assumption that the news media is fair is very wide of the mark. SWT are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Better to keep silent on the matter

I haven't assumed that at all - where did you get that idea from? My comments relate to public perception - the same public which pays good money to travel on SWT.

 

[SS4]

Only that's precisely what they haven't done! If they had offered a 'no comment', they'd be looking far less silly than they do now, whatever the rights and wrongs of the case.

My bad, I misread

I haven't assumed that at all - where did you get that idea from? My comments relate to public perception - the same public which pays good money to travel on SWT.

See the parts in bold below

I agree with this - their Press Officer/Public Relations must take blame here. To use the excuse that they won't give any details about a personnel issue doesn't wash these days, when the "other side" has given one side of the story in detail. I don't mean full disclosure of course, especially if it might go to a tribunal; but, if this is the latest in a series of contraventions, then they could at least say something.

To say nothing just makes them look foolish, and adds fuel to the fire of those who say the sacking was wrong.

Who else would a press officer/public relations speak to, even as an intermediary? It is highly implied that the "other side" also spoke to news media. Public perception is also highly influenced by news media (how did you find out who won the election in Scotland?). Perhaps it was incorrect to imply that you assumed the media was unfair though.

 

[Ferret]

Hmmm SS4, partially my bad as well - the words used were 'Serious safety breach' which although not quite as bed as using the dreaded words H & S, is still bad enough. My point still stands in that they've given the press a nice open goal to aim at....

 

[jopsuk]

Railjet- with the situation as is (that it is going to a tribunal) legally SWT CANNOT say more than what they've said

 

[O L Leigh]

O L Leigh - what do you disagree with? The fact they have a whole load of egg on their faces? Remember, our enlightened opinion on here doesn't really mean jack in the grand scheme of things.

I don't think that you, I, the TOC's or anyone else connected with the industry gives a flying f*** what the media think. This is just yet another example of the media gets it's pants in a twist because they think they've got a nice hook to hang another story from. They don't know, understand or even care about the real facts behind this sacking and certainly aren't interested in finding out or understanding them, and the public is generally gullible enough to believe every word.

Why should SWT be embarrassed about this? They have a statutory duty to ensure the safety of their staff, customers and contractors, and that means ensuring that they are all sufficiently competent in the rules pertaining to their jobs and dealing with any breaches. Provided SWT have done everything by the book I can't see what purpose is served by dragging them through trial by media and the scrutiny of the public who would always find for the little guy irrespective of the actual facts of the situation.

I hope this guy gets his job back because I firmly believe he felt he was doing "the right thing". But you can't just go around ignoring the rules no matter how noble the motivation for doing so. If he's been found out breaking the rules then his manager would be negligent if he/she took no action at all. I have to say that I suspect it's not a first offence which is probably why he's found himself in the situation he's in now. Just like anyone else, if you keep doing things like that you run the risk of being sacked. If this guy does indeed have a history his manager is going to be wondering when the next rules breach might occur and just what the consequence of that breach might be.

O L Leigh
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No but it could damage a brake pipe & end up with service being terminated

Perhaps. Wire mesh shopping trolleys can be tricky little b@stards at the best of times because they can easily get tangled up under the lead bogie or around the underfloor equipment and require cutting away.

However, that really isn't the point. There was 30 minutes before the first train was due, so there was never any risk of it going under a train in the first place. He should have just reported it to the box and let Nitwit Rail sort it out. He would only be permitted to go onto the line to retrieve it if it was an emergency and in order to prevent injury or death. None of these boxes are ticked here.

O L Leigh

 

[pendolino]

However, this is not to say that some rules are stupid. The banning of ladders in many places of work has created several stupid risks as MEWP's and scaffolding are brought into places which are not suited for them just to get at a light that is only 8 feet off the floor.

The HSE haven't banned ladders, that's a myth. They just want to see that appropriate controls are in place when working at height, which is fair enough given that people have died as a result of falls from height in the past. In many cases the right equipment for the job will be a stepladder.

Seriously, anyone who carries out a risk assessment and concludes that a MEWP is required to change a lightbulb 8 feet off the floor instead of a decent, fit-for-purpose stepladder needs to be retrained in how to carry out a risk assessment.

 

[Ferret]

I've just been sat perusing several sites that are running the story, and it appears that as you say O L Leigh, quite a few people do give a flying ### what the media thinks, and furthermore they treat everything they read in the Mail or Sun or whatever as gospel. Sad that nobody is prepared to cast a critical eye these days, but there we are.

In answer to your question - SWT should care because they've been made to/made themselves look stupid. The guy was in no danger, as most have correctly identified - and he solved the problem and is still here to tell the tale. A bollocking maybe, but sacking? Oh dear....

 

[9K43]

When I did my induction before starting my current post, and indeed with other TOCS, the question of what to do if there is an obstruction/person on the tracks came up.

The official reply on every occasion I have had this discussion is that only PTS qualified staff are allowed onto the tracks. Non safety critical staff are supposed to contact the signalman and inform him of the situation and ask for the signals to be changed/power turned off. When this is done a PTS holder will then access the tracks and deal with the incident.

I know that in real life the obvious thing to do is to jump down yourself and do it but you are potentially becoming a casualty yourself and therefore in breach of most TOC's health and safety policies.

I have been told categorically that people who are non PTS holders who access the tracks for ANY reason will be immediately dismissed and may also face charges.

I know that the story featured is missing some details but it looks like this is the reason the gentleman was dismissed on Health & Safety grounds.

If the obstruction was on an electrified line, I would expect to contact the SB and ask the signalman to stop all traffic on the effected road, and get the juice turned off before I ventured forth to deal with the problem.
I would need a verbal assurance that the juice was off and that all movements on about the effected lines had been stopped.
As train crew I have been in situations where I required this done quite a few times.
Your safety and that of others must always be your first priority in cases like this.
As frail as a supermarket trolley is, it can hurt someone or do damage to a loco.
I always carried out this procedure on engineering trains under the 25KV wires.
The question was to the PIC, " Are those wires isolated and is it safe to work under them?

 

[Hydro]

The man himself is quoted as saying:

"I was also told that the power hadn't actually been turned off either."

which shows a clear understanding had not been reached when he ventured onto the track.

 

[jopsuk]

A bollocking maybe, but sacking? Oh dear....

My best guess was that he didn't take well to the bollocking...

Edit: Hydro, where's that quote sourced from?

 

[pendolino]

Edit: Hydro, where's that quote sourced from?

From the Telegraph article I think.