Sacked Lymington stationmaster Ian Faletto will continue to fight for his job

[ralphchadkirk]

Mumrar
1. Intelligent people would know that 'facts' and 'train operating companies' are two words which often should be taken with a pinch of salt.

"Our trains are cancelled due to leaf fall"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3974527.stm
"Oh sorry, we actually have no drivers. Whoopsy."

From 2004. Hardly a representative picture of what happens today.

Incidentally, why do you work for one if you evidently hate them so much?

 

[DarloRich]

Mumrar
1. Intelligent people would know that 'facts' and 'train operating companies' are two words which often should be taken with a pinch of salt.

"Our trains are cancelled due to leaf fall"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3974527.stm
"Oh sorry, we actually have no drivers. Whoopsy."

That is from 2004! FFS!

Simple question for the supporters of this chap - Why is your hero NOT prepapred to go to a tribunal?

If it were me and i had been unfairly dismissed i would have been straight to the lawyers and had the case in front of a tribunal as quickly as i could.

To me, and i have some experiance here from a past life here, it seems that he is NOT keen on following the tribunal route.Why? That speaks voulmes to me.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

SWT are quite willing to go to a tribunal. Ian Falletto is now. Now, what does that indicate to an intelligent person?

 

[185]

With train companies using very expensive lawyers who use loophole after loophole, it's no surprise people are reluctant to go to tribunal which is often manipulated by these cheats.
http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/826..._dismissal_case_against_Transpennine_Express/

 

[DarloRich]

With train companies using very expensive lawyers who use loophole after loophole, it's no surprise people are reluctant to go to tribunal which is often manipulated by these cheats.
http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/826..._dismissal_case_against_Transpennine_Express/

No win no fee - get yourself access to the best solicitors and barristers for no up front cash. Or your union will help if you have a case.

I also fail to understand the significance of your link?

 

[185]

A case in which perhaps one of the most respected long-serving drivers at TPE was hung out to dry by a train company which had been after him for years, for raising (genuine) health and safety concerns.

The relevance is clear - train companies are very good at painting awful pictures of even their best staff. Fifteen years of working for franchised train operating companies, could help you understand this better.

 

[Maxfly]

People must sit up and realise that Stagecoach and most of the rest of the vultures operating train franchises in this country are very media savvy and great at both painting poop gold and equally painting gold brown.

It is very easy for someone with a 25 year long career history on the job to have it all compressed to make them look utterly terrible, FirstGroup did this with several drivers and painted disgustingly innacurate pictures of some of the best drivers the railway ever had, including one that fought them on health and safety.

Speaking of FirstGroup and Stagecoach, one current manager at FirstGroup was dismissed from a previous job at Stagecoach for lying at a driver's employment tribunal, Stagecoach then tried to distance themself from him, even though his plot to lie at court was hatched with directors - this backfired after a more honest rail company intervened and offered evidence to the police which blew the case apart.

Intelligent people should look beyond the nice shiny polished exterior of train operating companies and ask how much taxpayers money is being thrown away behind the scenes on spin.

Ah, so what you are saying, is because it is 'david v Goliath', then of course the train company is in the wrong here??

It is also very easy with a 25yr plus employment history to have gotten away with all sorts over those years, christ some of the long time servers I know really shouldn't be let near a hornby train far less a real one

 

[Oracle]

BBC Radio Solent mentioned that the local MP had been refused access to SWT HQ to present an 8,000-signature petition. He mentioned on the radio that some of those present had paid their rail fares to London in order to present the petition. As a consequence the petition was being presented to Parliament instead. MP said that SWT were being very rude and in effect ignoring all those signatories.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

BBC Radio Solent mentioned that the local MP had been refused access to SWT HQ to present an 8,000-signature petition. He mentioned on the radio that some of those present had paid their rail fares to London in order to present the petition. As a consequence the petition was being presented to Parliament instead. MP said that SWT were being very rude and in effect ignoring all those signatories.

And if we look at the other side of the story, SWT say they had an agreement with one of them that one of the people would be allowed in to present it, but the group did not stick to it and all wanted to be allowed in.

 

[SS4]

BBC Radio Solent mentioned that the local MP had been refused access to SWT HQ to present an 8,000-signature petition. He mentioned on the radio that some of those present had paid their rail fares to London in order to present the petition. As a consequence the petition was being presented to Parliament instead. MP said that SWT were being very rude and in effect ignoring all those signatories.

Yet the article above said a private meeting was arranged which the petition gatherers decided against. IMO this is perfectly reasonable by SWT - why should members of the public be allowed admittance to a building which the public cannot enter simply for carrying a petition?

I expected better off the BBC

 

[185]

Any company that fails to accept correspondence off the taxpayers that fund them

IMO

should be taken outside and flogged.

 

[pendolino]

Any company that fails to accept correspondence off the taxpayers that fund them

IMO

should be taken outside and flogged.

I can't tell if you're being serious or not.

 

[Oracle]

Actually it was the MP that was making the comments, not the BBC. However, SWT have evidently come out of this badly no matter what the initial agreement was.

With due respect to SWT I can understand that if you have a (in the words of Thomas The Tank Engine) 'deputation' (to the Fat Controller: remember it?) then you want the members of the depuation to be able to present the petition. I can also understand the logistics from the SWT side.

 

[mumrar]

Any group of people who agree to a private meeting with a company to hand over a potention, and then move the goalposts

IMO

Should p*** off

 

[swt_passenger]

SWT wouldn't be able to fit that number of people in the room where they'd be putting the petition.

As well as the normal bins there's all those recycling bins people have to use nowadays...

 

[DarloRich]

A case in which perhaps one of the most respected long-serving drivers at TPE was hung out to dry by a train company which had been after him for years, for raising (genuine) health and safety concerns.

The relevance is clear - train companies are very good at painting awful pictures of even their best staff. Fifteen years of working for franchised train operating companies, could help you understand this better.

And while i think i might be feeding the troll The report suggestes that the Judge disagreed!

I still dont see the relevance - sorry

 

[Greenback]

I expected better off the BBC

I didn't!!!

Any company that fails to accept correspondence off the taxpayers that fund them

IMO

should be taken outside and flogged.

I can't tell if you're being serious or not.

I hope not, but I can't really tell either! If thye are, then it is ridiculous! SWT have not refused to accept it, they have refused to allow a horde of people into their offices!

In any case, even accepting it doesn;t mean they ahve to take any notice of it, or even read it!

And while i think i might be feeding the troll The report suggestes that the Judge disagreed!

I still dont see the relevance - sorry

Nor me!

 

[Clip]

Im actually amazed at the media - especially the BBC being like this over this story. Probably worse for the local MP too.
If and probably when the full disclosure happens they are going to be left with a lot of egg on their faces if it transpires that this fella has a history of not doing what he should be doing and doing things of his own accord and actually put his own life at risk for something so minimal.

 

[Flamingo]

SWT wouldn't be able to fit that number of people in the room where they'd be putting the petition.

As well as the normal bins there's all those recycling bins people have to use nowadays...

Best post I've read on the subject

 

[SS4]

Im actually amazed at the media - especially the BBC being like this over this story. Probably worse for the local MP too.
If and probably when the full disclosure happens they are going to be left with a lot of egg on their faces if it transpires that this fella has a history of not doing what he should be doing and doing things of his own accord and actually put his own life at risk for something so minimal.

Unlikely, they'll have moved on to some other lop-sided story. If they mention it at all then it will end up being a very small footnote buried in the middle of the paper.

I'd like to see a law stating that a retraction of a story must take equal or more precedence than the original story. In other words if the headline says "LOCAL HERO SACKED" then the retraction must be a headline.

 

[NightatLaira]

Ok guys. Now look here...

Whatever your side on this story, we can all agree 4 things:

1. Whether they were 'right' or 'wrong' to sack said person - this has been a PR disaster for SWT! - they should be sacking their PR manager first of all!

2. Whether said person was 'right' or 'wrong' for picking up the shopping trolley - sacking them in this way, just sends out all the wrong signals - maybe the 1-dimensional minds amongst this forum cannot see beyond simple rules and regulations - but you're ignoring the human element in all of this, and public opinion - these two things have a huge and serious bearing on 'unfair dismissal' hearings (even if in you perfect utopian worlds they shouldn't do).

3. Past actions of being a 'trouble maker' may logically make someone more deserving of a sacking in your opinions, but this is not the way the courts will view it: they will look at the incident alone, and any extraneous stuff that is referred to will be ignored. They're not interested in what this bloke did before the shopping trolley incident - they're only interested in what happened that day. I can quite easily see a judge concluding here that the employer (SWT) was negligent here for not putting in place a clear emergency plan for 'what to do' in the case of an obstacle falling onto the track, and thereby placing an employee in a unclear situation of dilemma. A barrister could quite easily build a case to support this around the 1898 case where no wrong doing was found on the part of the employees, and instead changes had to be made to the design of railway platforms.

4. The fact that this is now going the distance with parliament, MPs, the press, petitions, etc. should tell you something: whether you think SWT were essentially 'right' or 'wrong' in their actions is kind of irrelevant now - this has now got serious! And so dismissing it like it is some sort of localised joke is trivialising something that is already far bigger than you realise. This story is not going to go away - and I think that until this guy is exonerated - you will get a strengthening of his public support - SWT have turned him into a martyr through their mishandling of the situation. And whether he was in the 'right' or the 'wrong' in the first instance is now kind of irrelevant...

 

[Asian Demon]

Ok guys. Now look here...

Whatever your side on this story, we can all agree 4 things:

1. Whether they were 'right' or 'wrong' to sack said person - this has been a PR disaster for SWT! - they should be sacking their PR manager first of all!

2. Whether said person was 'right' or 'wrong' for picking up the shopping trolley - sacking them in this way, just sends out all the wrong signals - maybe the 1-dimensional minds amongst this forum cannot see beyond simple rules and regulations - but you're ignoring the human element in all of this, and public opinion - these two things have a huge and serious bearing on 'unfair dismissal' hearings (even if in you perfect utopian worlds they shouldn't do).

3. Past actions of being a 'trouble maker' may logically make someone more deserving of a sacking in your opinions, but this is not the way the courts will view it: they will look at the incident alone, and any extraneous stuff that is referred to will be ignored. They're not interested in what this bloke did before the shopping trolley incident - they're only interested in what happened that day. I can quite easily see a judge concluding here that the employer (SWT) was negligent here for not putting in place a clear emergency plan for 'what to do' in the case of an obstacle falling onto the track, and thereby placing an employee in a unclear situation of dilemma. A barrister could quite easily build a case to support this around the 1898 case where no wrong doing was found on the part of the employees, and instead changes had to be made to the design of railway platforms.

4. The fact that this is now going the distance with parliament, MPs, the press, petitions, etc. should tell you something: whether you think SWT were essentially 'right' or 'wrong' in their actions is kind of irrelevant now - this has now got serious! And so dismissing it like it is some sort of localised joke is trivialising something that is already far bigger than you realise. This story is not going to go away - and I think that until this guy is exonerated - you will get a strengthening of his public support - SWT have turned him into a martyr through their mishandling of the situation. And whether he was in the 'right' or the 'wrong' in the first instance is now kind of irrelevant...

Everything you are saying is all fine and good except for one small issue. Why has this not gone through the proper channels to a tribunal. Why go to the media and make it a circus. I doubt SWT would even want such a person back (especially if it does come to light that Mr Faletto has not been totally honest).

I also have to state that with his many years of experience he should have known what he could and could not do. The fact of whether it's right or wrong is irrelevant. The rules are there and that is that. It is nothing to do with a utopian world/society/system. If every person decided that they were above the rules and went and did their own thing whenever they chose, it would be a train wreck waiting to happen (mind the pun).

It also has to be made clear that SWT may not see this as a PR disaster since one of two things are going to come of all of this. Either this goes to tribunal and it all comes out in the open (for better or worse) or Mr Faletto will still be sitting at home still without his job because I doubt SWT would want him back. Either way people will still travel with SWT and it's nothing more than a blip.

My next comment is probably going to cause some controversy but I doubt SWT cares about the Daily Mail, News of the World & Echo reading public, since they'll go onto their next big thing in a week or two, such as some crap about katie price's 1000th shag or whatever. What the SWT cares about are the joe public who will still use their service because they need to and their business clientèle. This one individual will not stop those regular and any new commuters from travelling.

 

[33056]

.....I can quite easily see a judge concluding here that the employer (SWT) was negligent here for not putting in place a clear emergency plan for 'what to do' in the case of an obstacle falling onto the track, and thereby placing an employee in a unclear situation of dilemma. ........

The Rule Book covers this and is issued to all employees who should be fully conversant with the sections that concern them (in the case of the section dealing with obstructions on the line, this is everybody).

As as been mentioned elsewhere, there is an awful lot more to this case than the incident with the shopping trolley and the only people who know the whole story are probably SWT and Mr Faletto (and the RMT, if he is a member and represented by them?). Mentioning the RMT, there is nothing on their website about this case, unlike the two Tube Drivers , despite mention of Bob Crow being involved - I am sure he would have had something to say on the matter by now if the saga was as cut and dried as the newspapers are reporting.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

3. Past actions of being a 'trouble maker' may logically make someone more deserving of a sacking in your opinions, but this is not the way the courts will view it: they will look at the incident alone, and any extraneous stuff that is referred to will be ignored. They're not interested in what this bloke did before the shopping trolley incident - they're only interested in what happened that day. I can quite easily see a judge concluding here that the employer (SWT) was negligent here for not putting in place a clear emergency plan for 'what to do' in the case of an obstacle falling onto the track, and thereby placing an employee in a unclear situation of dilemma. A barrister could quite easily build a case to support this around the 1898 case where no wrong doing was found on the part of the employees, and instead changes had to be made to the design of railway platforms.

Utterly, utterly wrong.

Firstly, this will not go to court. This will go to an employment tribunal which exists for these cases.
Secondly, an employee's past record is very relevant to a case where he has been sacked because of it! If a tribunal refused to allow it, it would be a miscarriage of justice, and held per incuriam.
Thirdly, SWT do have adequate emergency plans for removing obstacles. That is to report it to the signalbox and get the trains stopped. Network Rail will then send someone to remove it. Employees are specifically told they should NOT go on the track to remove it.

To imply that past incidents will not be heard in the tribunal is wrong. To imply that SWT are negligent is not only wrong, but ridiculous!

 

[33011]

Ok guys. Now look here...

Whatever your side on this story, we can all agree 4 things:

1. Whether they were 'right' or 'wrong' to sack said person - this has been a PR disaster for SWT! - they should be sacking their PR manager first of all!

2. Whether said person was 'right' or 'wrong' for picking up the shopping trolley - sacking them in this way, just sends out all the wrong signals - maybe the 1-dimensional minds amongst this forum cannot see beyond simple rules and regulations - but you're ignoring the human element in all of this, and public opinion - these two things have a huge and serious bearing on 'unfair dismissal' hearings (even if in you perfect utopian worlds they shouldn't do).

3. Past actions of being a 'trouble maker' may logically make someone more deserving of a sacking in your opinions, but this is not the way the courts will view it: they will look at the incident alone, and any extraneous stuff that is referred to will be ignored. They're not interested in what this bloke did before the shopping trolley incident - they're only interested in what happened that day. I can quite easily see a judge concluding here that the employer (SWT) was negligent here for not putting in place a clear emergency plan for 'what to do' in the case of an obstacle falling onto the track, and thereby placing an employee in a unclear situation of dilemma. A barrister could quite easily build a case to support this around the 1898 case where no wrong doing was found on the part of the employees, and instead changes had to be made to the design of railway platforms.

4. The fact that this is now going the distance with parliament, MPs, the press, petitions, etc. should tell you something: whether you think SWT were essentially 'right' or 'wrong' in their actions is kind of irrelevant now - this has now got serious! And so dismissing it like it is some sort of localised joke is trivialising something that is already far bigger than you realise. This story is not going to go away - and I think that until this guy is exonerated - you will get a strengthening of his public support - SWT have turned him into a martyr through their mishandling of the situation. And whether he was in the 'right' or the 'wrong' in the first instance is now kind of irrelevant...

In answer to your questions

!) Lets see if he goe's to tribunal before deciding if it is a PR disaster or not. Also why are you saying that the PR manager should be sacked and the one who broke the rules shouldn't be? Seems a bit daft to me

2) Try as i might i can't see where you are coming from on this. If SWT are sending out the wrong signals by sacking someone for breaking the rules where does it end. It would send out the signal to everyone to break the rules if they did it your way. We might not like the rules but they are there for a reason end of. What would your response be if Mr Falletto had juiced himself i wonder?

3) Insructions of what to do are in rule books and on health and safety notice boards.

4) All acting on hear say so whats your point?

So that's 4 things we disagree on

 

[O L Leigh]

Ok guys. Now look here...

*Snipped for brevity*

Sorry chap, but I don't think we can agree on ANY of the points you've raised. If you honestly believe any of this then I'm afraid that you either a) do not understand Mr Faletto's role and responsibilities, b) have been convinced by the entirely one-sided media coverage, or c) haven't got the faintest idea about performance management issues and staff discipline.

I've said before that I do not consider this to be a PR disaster for SWT. The only reason why this has turned into such a media feeding-frenzy is because it is Mr Faletto himself, or people acting for him, that have actively gone out to seek this attention. Likewise the existence or otherwise of a petition and the involvement of an MP are simply functions of this well-meaning, but ultimately ill-advised, campaign. No matter how much the media bay for it, no matter how many signatures are added to a petition, no matter what does or doesn't happen at Westminster, no matter what action the Unions may decide to take, if SWT can be shown to have acted fairly and followed procedure the sacking will be upheld. SWT are right to keep their silence pending an employment tribunal, but the FACTS of the matter will be made plain at the appropriate time. If anything, SWT's dignified silence pending the tribunal should be praised, especially when compared to the tub-thumping of the pro-Faletto campaign.

In addition, you're factually incorrect. There is an emergency plan in place. It's called the Rules, which Mr Faletto would be expected to follow. Unfortunately he didn't. Combing the various discussions it would seem that the alleged event didn't even happen at the station where he worked (Lymington Town), but at the Pier station. Indeed, there has even been some suggestion that there was no trolley at all and that he just made up some cock-and-bull story about it to cover his arse when he got found out wandering trackside at a station he doesn't work at, hours before he even booked-on, just to have a litter-pick. Besides, as has been said over and over, even assuming that his story is 100% correct, there was NO emergency. However, his story is developing more holes than my Gran's colander, as apparently he claimed in a TV interview to have taken a T3 possession, which would have required a handsignaller and detonator protection.

Whatever you think, there IS a right and a wrong to this. The "human element" is just so much hot air. As a rail employee he has a job to do and is expected to discharge it within the rules. If he has shown himself incapable of doing so and had warning after warning, then regrettably he's dicing with his own livelihood. I appreciate that you want to see the best in this situation, but I'm afraid that the points you've constructed to support your view are based on the flimsiest of conjecture that has almost no relationship to reality.

O L Leigh

 

[DarloRich]

O L Leigh - i agree entirley. As a railway employee you are expected to live by the rule book. It might seem like "HSE GONE MAD!" to some in the real world, but it is there to make sure that people go home at the end of the day .

As an example, I work in an office above the railway line. If i saw an obstruction i wouldnt dream of setting foot on the line. Why? becuase i dont know what I am doing there! I am a danger to myself and to others in that setting, me being there puts me and others at risk.

There is a procedure, you follow, it and someone who DOES know what they are doing comes and sorts it out. It is designed to keep everyone safe.

It might seem sill to those who dont work in the railways but rail companies cant be seen to short cut HSE procedures. We have been caught out once to often with terrible results. Saftey HAS to be and IS the number one priority for the rail industry.

 

[Greenback]

NightatLaira, I am sorry to have to tell you that your post is fileld with untruths.

Its is no more a PR disaster for SWT than using trains without toilets, or increasing fares.

Employment Tribunals take no notice at all of public opinion.

Employment Tribunals do take note of the employees record, and previous incidents they have been invovled in, as well as the incident that led directly to dismissal.

The fairness of the situation is exactly what would occupy the minds of any tribunal in an unfair dismissal action. They will seek to establish whether the actions of SWT fell within the band of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer. Given that, it is entirely correct that they should make a judgment on whether the employee was right or wrong in their actions according to the laws of the land, and the policies and procedures of the employer. They will also judge whether the employer was right or wrong i.e. whether dismissal was a reasonable course of action in the circumstances. They will take absolutely no notice of petitions, or letters to the Bournemouth Echo, which is exactly how it should be.

Having said that, there is no suggestion that a tribunal is on the way, let alone a court case. It is entirely up to Ian Falettow hether he wishes to take advanatge of a tribunal, and so far he is strangely reluctant to do so.

 

[1V53]

Agree wholeheartedly with last few posts.

Also yes an employees disciplinary record is totally relevant at a tribunal! If it was a minor transgression you've been disciplined several times for and were on a final written warning three months ago (which you didn't even appeal against) you'd have far less clout than someone who had never had a warning and found themselves dismissed.

The above is not Mr Faletto's circumstance but just to illustrate why previous history is totally relevant.

 

[The Snap]

O L Leigh - i agree entirley. As a railway employee you are expected to live by the rule book. It might seem like "HSE GONE MAD!" to some in the real world, but it is there to make sure that people go home at the end of the day .

As an example, I work in an office above the railway line. If i saw an obstruction i wouldnt dream of setting foot on the line. Why? becuase i dont know what I am doing there! I am a danger to myself and to others in that setting, me being there puts me and others at risk.

There is a procedure, you follow, it and someone who DOES know what they are doing comes and sorts it out. It is designed to keep everyone safe.

It might seem sill to those who dont work in the railways but rail companies cant be seen to short cut HSE procedures. We have been caught out once to often with terrible results. Saftey HAS to be and IS the number one priority for the rail industry.

Completely agree! The rules are there for a reason and must be adhered to, whether you agree with them or not.