Northern Rail - Blackpool Guards strike

[rishton82]

Does anyone know if Northern guards were on some form of dispute on Saturday as they put an accouncement over saying they could not sell tickets. This was the 08:55 departure from Rishton. Also may dad caught one of the Ormskirk to Preston trains and was told the same thing,

 

[WCMLaddict]

Guards strike at Blackpool.
Managers were called in to work the trains...

 

[Statto]

This is the reason. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-34227832

Rail staff at a Lancashire station are on strike this weekend after a worker was sacked for allegedly putting hand gel in a supervisor's coffee cup.
About 50 people attended a protest at Blackpool North after Chad Vickers was fired from his post, the Rail, Maritime and Transport union (RMT) said....

 

[Kite159]

So striking due to a colleague pulling a 'prank' which could have had killed the supervisor (depending on the chemical make up of the liquid soap)

Got to love the RMT...

 

[Robertj21a]

This is the reason. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-34227832

I prefer the story from Northern, it's rather unlikely they'd make this all up. In which case why on earth are others striking in sympathy, seems it's more likely to be an immature idiot.

 

[Carlisle]

So striking due to a colleague pulling a 'prank' which could have had killed the supervisor (depending on the chemical make up of the liquid soap)

Got to love the RMT...

I certainly noticed during my time on the railway that many pranks which 25 years ago were considered little more than harmless fun, did result in people's dismissal in more recent years

 

[northwichcat]

I certainly noticed during my time on the railway that pranks which 25 years ago were considered little more than harmless fun , did result in people's dismissal in more recent years

25 years ago I imagine it would have been plain soap which would have made someone a bit sick if consumed. Now it's hand gel promising to kill 99.9% of bacteria which might require a hospital admission if consumed.

 

[Robertj21a]

I certainly noticed during my time on the railway that many pranks which 25 years ago were considered little more than harmless fun, did result in people's dismissal in more recent years

Quite right too.

It should also be noted that it is the very same operators and unions that, for good safety reasons, emphasise that everybody must do things 'by the book'. Management should never accept such stupid actions - and the RMT should keep out of it.

 

[Carlisle]

25 years ago I imagine it would have been plain soap which would have made someone a bit sick if consumed. Now it's hand gel promising to kill 99.9% of bacteria which might require a hospital admission if consumed.

Ok your obviously far more knowledgeable than myself on these matters ,back in 1986 the standard initiation ceremony for new starters at the factory I worked was to be dipped head first in a large bucket of Swarfega hand gel

 

[northwichcat]

Ok your obviously far more knowledgeable than myself on these matters ,back in 1986 the standard initiation ceremony for new starters at the factory I worked was to be dipped head first in a large bucket of Swarfega hand gel

So when did you put it in your supervisor's drink without them having any knowledge of it?

You did say "that pranks which 25 years ago were considered little more than harmless fun , did result in people's dismissal in more recent years" and my response started "25 years ago I imagine"

 

[tony6499]

Or has someone made it up and someone has been sacked as there is no evidence to support the wrong doing ? Hence the strike

 

[Carlisle]

So when did you put it in your supervisor's drink without them having any knowledge of it?

You did say "that pranks which 25 years ago were considered little more than harmless fun , did result in people's dismissal in more recent years" and my response started "25 years ago I imagine"

I was merely commenting on the composure of hang gels now v 25 years ago and saying the changes weren't something I could comment on with any knowledge

 

[crehld]

Or has someone made it up and someone has been sacked as there is no evidence to support the wrong doing ? Hence the strike

This would be unlawful dismissal. Which leads to the following question: why isn't the union supporting its member by providing resources and representation to them at an employment tribunal, which would (if a case of unlawful dismissal were proved) be much more successful at reinstating the employee and sanctioning the employer.

If this were the case, no competent union would pass up an opportunity with such a high probability success and the opportunity of legal sanction against the employer ... unless of course the dismissal was based on evidence and completely lawful.

 

[tony6499]

This would be unlawful dismissal. Which leads to the following question: why isn't the union supporting its member by providing resources and representation to them at an employment tribunal, which would (if a case of unlawful dismissal were proved) be much more successful at reinstating the employee and sanctioning the employer.

If this were the case, no competent union would pass up an opportunity with such a high probability success and the opportunity of legal sanction against the employer ... unless of course the dismissal was based on evidence and completely lawful.

I'd imagine if he is not reinstated then it will be a tribunal, probably ending in a settlement on the steps as they all seem to do

 

[crehld]

I'd imagine if he is not reinstated then it will be a tribunal, probably ending in a settlement on the steps as they all seem to do

Then why bother with a strike? It makes no sense whatsoever. Why is the union not directing its resources at getting this employee reinstated and/or seeking a legal settlement for him/her? Put more bluntly, why is the union not fighting for its member's interest?

If a member approaches our union for assistance when they believe they have suffered unlawful dismissal the case is referred to the personal cases officer who will assess the evidence, mediate between the employee and management, and if unsuccessful seek redress through an employment tribunal (supported by union resources). Strike action is never an option for individual disputes simply because it cannot achieve a meaningful outcome for the member concerned. Nor does it really have the same impact on the employer as a legal judgement and sanction imposed by an employment tribunal.

The only possible explanation I can think of is that actually this dismissal is lawful, based on appropriate evidence and just, and so a tribunal would achieve nothing. Given the legal route is closed, striking is a (rather extreme) way the union can express its dissatisfaction about the whole issue. Assuming this to be the case, and assuming the evidence is there and all the appropriate dismissal procedures have been followed leads me to another question: why is the union prepared to strike for and invest its resources in a colleague who quite clearly takes an unprofessional and immature attitude towards others, and who threatens to bring the profession into disrepute?

A third possibility could simply be that this is a case of unlawful dismissal, but the local RMT branch has no clue what they're doing or how to handle member disputes appropriately.

 

[WatcherZero]

It was an incident reported to the Police, though they decided not to take any action.

 

[Mag_seven]

It was an incident reported to the Police, though they decided not to take any action.

Even so Northern believe there was enough evidence to support a dismissal. I'm surprised the RMT have taken strike action in advance of any Industrial Tribunal.

 

[HH]

Trotskyist doctrine is to create conflict wherever possible. Every conflict brings the revolution closer.

 

[313103]

Wow i never knew that so many people in this rail enthusiast group are Lawyers, takes all sorts i suppose. In future rather then asking my union i will post a question on here and take it from there.

 

[Robertj21a]

Wow i never knew that so many people in this rail enthusiast group are Lawyers, takes all sorts i suppose. In future rather then asking my union i will post a question on here and take it from there.

Actually, it might not be such a bad idea. Unions have an understandable habit of being a bit biased, whereas most people are looking for independent advice.

 

[northwichcat]

Even so Northern believe there was enough evidence to support a dismissal. I'm surprised the RMT have taken strike action in advance of any Industrial Tribunal.

If someone refused to do their job and verbally abused their manager then they deserve to be sacked regardless of whether the Police think a criminal offence has been committed, why should other incidents depend on whether a criminal offence has been committed?

 

[313103]

Actually, it might not be such a bad idea. Unions have an understandable habit of being a bit biased, whereas most people are looking for independent advice.

Sadly looking on here for advice will give the same biased opinion, just from a different political perspective.

 

[Mag_seven]

Wow i never knew that so many people in this rail enthusiast group are Lawyers

You don't have to be a "lawyer" to express an opinion. No one here is claiming that they are.

 

[crehld]

For the record I expressed my opinion as someone who is not only a union member (albeit in an education union) but also plays an active role as a representative on my local branch committee.

 

[Robertj21a]

Sadly looking on here for advice will give the same biased opinion, just from a different political perspective.

Yes, fully accept that point - but you will at least get a number of views from across the spectrum rather than just one from a union that *may* hold a biased view.

 

[Chrism20]

The Blackpool Gazette ran an article last week stating that there was to be action, however they did not print what he had been sacked for.

Difficult to call without knowing everything that has happened/been said and done.

I work in HR and based on no CCTV and no forensic evidence after being investigated by the police this would probably be NFA based on that. Of course other things may have also been said/done etc and there may be a witness. Obviously Northern won't divulge any of that.

 

[Jonny]

So striking due to a colleague pulling a 'prank' which could have had killed the supervisor (depending on the chemical make up of the liquid soap)

Or got the supervisor into trouble for drinking (excess) alcohol (as alcohol is often the main active ingredient in hand sanitiser).
http://chemistry.about.com/od/toxicchemicals/a/Can-You-Drink-Hand-Sanitizer.htm

Never mind the other ingredients...

 

[FordFocus]

Read 2 pages so far of the majority of posters on here supporting Northern.

Surely their are two sides to a story here? Even as far as depot solidarity goes, it must mean there is something else in this that a LDC has made a case to build for industrial action to a separate committee and that other union members are prepared to loose a days wages to support the dismissed member.........

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

What would have been the position of the union if a supervisor had done exactly the same action to one of the train crew staff?

 

[crehld]

Read 2 pages so far of the majority of posters on here supporting Northern.

Surely their are two sides to a story here? Even as far as depot solidarity goes, it must mean there is something else in this that a LDC has mande a case to build for industrial action to a separate committee and that other union members are prepared to loose a days wages to support the dismissed member.........

Its entirely possible. But if so why are the RMT saying they're striking over the dismissal when they're actually striking over something else? It makes no sense at all.

As for Northern's actions there are two possibilities (I shall list them both for the purpose of balance):

1. The employee was unlawfully dismissed.

2. The employee was not unlawfully dismissed.

This leads us to the RMT response, which raises questions in both scenarios.

If option 1 above is the case, then why is the union pursuing strike action and not seeking the reinstatement of and/or legal redress for the employee through an employment tribunal, which would be in the member's best interest?

If option 2 is the case, then why are members rallying around a colleague who behaves in such an immature and unprofessional way? If there is something more to this dispute why isn't the RMT communicating this? In fact withholding this crucial information only serves to weaken the RMT's negotiation position and fails to mobilise important public support in their favour (as this thread perhaps demonstrates).

As alluded to above, a third option is simply that the local committee don't really know how to handle these situations appropriately and the union membership is simply going along with the flow.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What would have been the position of the union if a supervisor had done exactly the same action to one of the train crew staff?

Interesting question. I wonder if the supervisor was a member (I don't know how the RMT works, but middle management are well represented in my Union)?