UK rail minister got engineer sacked for raising safety concerns

[Horizon22]

This is going to have a very technical HR response really regarding what you should/shouldn't say as an employee with a contractor. It's going to be very fine lines on whether it's valid or not and how the supplier-customer relationship works. Whether its "right" or "wrong" isn't really going to matter in the outcome here, although of course the PR story is a different matter! Obviously the two don't like each other and there's been some power play.

As alluded to from the link in post #3, this falls under "Reputational Risk" or "Third Party Pressure". This isn't unheard of - TOCs asking agencies not to send a staff member back to a location due to poor performance as one example.

It's for Systra to then defend whether their decision was fair.

• Reputational risk. This occurs in situations where continuing to employ the member of staff risks your business and its reputation. This scenario is very fact sensitive, but if you are in an industry that requires a high level of safeguarding or confidence, it is more likely that if an employee’s behaviour goes against the confidence and trust required, their dismissal will be viewed as fair.
• There is pressure from a third party. This could happen if a client refused to work with a business unless the employee is dismissed. This situation is probably the most commonplace within a small business and commonly arises in industries where the employer provides employees to work on customer or client’s sites, such as maintenance personnel, contract cleaners or security guards, for example. In these circumstances, if the customer says they do not want the employee to work on their site any longer and there is no other location for them to work, then it is likely that SOSR dismissal will be deemed fair.

 

[TreacleMiller]

The minister name the employee, as opposed to keeping it specific to the facts of the article suggests a level of intervention.

Raising an issue with the article and allowing the company to deal with it is wrong thing.

That email is "an or else" email.

 

[MPW]

Maybe someone at Siemens or Dft didn't like Gareth's objections to investment in battery traction instead of OLE. It wouldn't help PR to have a vocal industry insider arguing against something which could soon be announced as a new national strategy. "Conjecture your honour!" Yes it is, but I agree that the true rationale could be unrelated to the euston comment, and could even relate to something that hasn't been made public knowledge yet.

That obviously doesn't warrant losing your job, or someone so high-up specifically attacking a non-executive employee of another company.

 

[Wolfie]

It’ll be interesting to see if this plays out through an Employment Tribunal. Hendy’s new position adds spice.

Absolutely... Any smart lawyer will want Hendy ordered to appear as a witness.

I suspect that his position as a government minister will rightly come into question. This seems like textbook abuse of power.

I don't know how that works in the UK, but wouldn't that fall right into retaliation against a whistleblower? It does seem like it could stand in a whistleblower protection case

A very good point particularly given pontifications from the new government on that subject.

I suspect it's something that would be stuck in the supplier-customer relationship. NR (the supplier's only customer) says they will not contract that individual, they're therefore effectively redundant.

This is pretty disgraceful, though, given that Euston (a) demonstrably is unsafe, and (b) hasn't been fixed, indeed in some ways has been made worse. And I don't even like Dennis! I could understand if he was a LNER employee slagging off the fare increase trial, for instance, but nobody should ever be disciplined for highlighting safety issues, and safety issues certainly still exist at Euston.

Could this be Hendy's undoing? To be honest I think if he has had someone sacked to cover up a safety issue then he has no credibility in the industry at all in my view and should himself be sacked.

Your last para is the core of the issue and is correct in my view.

 

[Rail Quest]

I'm struggling to understand what Hendy's big issue was. So someone makes a comment to a journalist that is backed up by what the regulator had already publicly said, and so the most senior member of Network Rail blackmails their employer? Am I missing something?This feels like something someone far under Hendy's position at NR should have had to deal with. The letter he sent to the employer comes across as quite emotive to me.

 

[Bluejays]

I wonder if Hendy was too stupid too have actually realised that this information was already in the public knowledge and had already effectively been said by rail regulators.

This Dennis was essentially commenting quite lightly and briefly on information that was already out in the open. Hendy is treating this almost as if Dennis is the one from whom the accusations are originating.

Hendy has shown himself to either be a bully or incompetent, potentially both.

 

[HSTEd]

I must admit I am not surprised at all.

Given recent scandals in other parts of the public sector, this sort of behaviour no longer shocks me.

 

[quantinghome]

Now picked up by the Guardian. I think they have included more details on internal communication from Hendy.

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...air-threatened-firm-engineer-euston-criticism

The new rail minister threatened in a previous role to withhold public contracts from one of the UK’s largest engineering groups until it disciplined a senior engineer for raising concerns about safety at one of London’s busiest train stations.

In his former role as chair of Network Rail, Peter Hendy threatened Systra UK, which counts Network Rail among its main clients, with losing business not only from the public body but also its supply chain.

He told Network Rail officials to “deal with” the engineer, Gareth Dennis, and said the Systra CEO should be sent a “stop and desist” letter with a request for disciplinary action against Dennis.

 

[TUC]

I express opinions about many things online, but am always careful to avoid comments relating to my employer's area of business, even if it is not a part in which I am directly involved. That's just common sense.

 

[Horizon22]

Apart from the bit where he implies the employee should be fired for simply restating what the regulator has said. Hendy is a complete idiot for documenting this.

`
In no way does it say that. This letter is worded very carefully with words like 'reflect', 'likelihood' and 'confirmation that...'. It's obviously firmly worded, but Systra could have gone about managing this in a number of ways (formal written / verbal warning, restrictions on media output etc.) rather than dismissal.

There may well be more to it, and Hendy may have been angling for such an outcome - and it says nothing of the PR issues - but the letter itself is a formal statement.

How Systra decided to deal with is listed in the Guardian article and wasn't the best. Especially for someone with media savvy.

Further emails show that on 24 May Dennis was offered a financial settlement to leave Systra on the condition that he sign an agreement with a confidentiality clause. He did not sign it, and on 8 July he was dismissed with four weeks’ notice after a disciplinary hearing.

 

[KNN]

It's the consequences of wanting to be an "influencer" at the same time as your normal job, he will almost certainly have signed something saying he won't criticise his employer or any associated companies. He did, they sacked him.

As others have mentioned, most people on here know to be cautious about what they say about their company if they could be identified and this isn't a national newspaper.

 

[Stephen42]

I wonder if Hendy was too stupid too have actually realised that this information was already in the public knowledge and had already effectively been said by rail regulators.

This Dennis was essentially commenting quite lightly and briefly on information that was already out in the open. Hendy is treating this almost as if Dennis is the one from whom the accusations are originating.

Hendy has shown himself to either be a bully or incompetent, potentially both.

His quote was selected to the be the online headline of the article, alleging the station as unsafe without any qualification. A serious allegation of that nature undermines a companies reputation and it's not stated what his judgement that it remained unsafe was based on. The rail regulator improvement notice was complied with to their satisfaction several months before. The quote was raising it prominently again in the media, going beyond what the regulator had said so he was the origin of those comments.

Any consultant needs to be mindful of who ultimately is paying their bills, publicly causing clients issues is never going to down well. While I wouldn't advocate for Hendy's approach, most organisations would want strong assurances they won't need to deal with a repeat or will exercise their rights to take their business elsewhere. It would be a different matter if it was raised through appropriate channels or using contacts between the companies rather than in the press.

 

[Bluejays]

Now picked up by the Guardian. I think they have included more details on internal communication from Hendy.

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...air-threatened-firm-engineer-euston-criticism

Interesting read. I'd never heard about the prostitute story before . What a grubby little man he is!

 

[Starmill]

There are serious questions for Systra here also. Not only do they look like they've allowed themselves to be pressured by unethical behaviour, they have also been caught trying to cover up their collusion with Hendy's dishonest conduct. Hopefully they'll be facing a Tribunal over this because it's unacceptable for a large public sector supplier to have let Hendy pressure them unethically.

 

[deltic]

This story further explodes the myth that consultants provide independent advice to their clients without fear or favour

 

[Bluejays]

His quote was selected to the be the online headline of the article, alleging the station as unsafe without any qualification. A serious allegation of that nature undermines a companies reputation and it's not stated what his judgement that it remained unsafe was based on. The rail regulator improvement notice was complied with to their satisfaction several months before. The quote was raising it prominently again in the media, going beyond what the regulator had said so he was the origin of those comments.

Any consultant needs to be mindful of who ultimately is paying their bills, publicly causing clients issues is never going to down well. While I wouldn't advocate for Hendy's approach, most organisations would want strong assurances they won't need to deal with a repeat or will exercise their rights to take their business elsewhere. It would be a different matter if it was raised through appropriate channels or using contacts between the companies rather than in the press.

Some interesting points. But I do think it's worth mentioning that the main reason he appeared to give for the crowding was the sheer amount of services (he mentions 6 times more services than when it was built). It didn't seem an overly critical set of quotes on the whole.

Maybe being a bit conspiracy minded here: but I wondered if it was his suggestion that getting rid of retail units might help the situation that really riled the network rail chiefs. He had an idea that threatened the bottom line so they've thrown the kitchen sink at him!



Edited: spelling mistake

 

[Starmill]

His quote was selected to the be the online headline of the article, alleging the station as unsafe without any qualification.

That's not what it said though. Anyone having read the article would agree.

 

[Bluejays]

There are serious questions for Systra here also. Not only do they look like they've allowed themselves to be pressured by unethical behaviour, they have also been caught trying to cover up their collusion with Hendy's dishonest conduct. Hopefully they'll be facing a Tribunal over this because it's unacceptable for a large public sector supplier to have let Hendy pressure them unethically.

If I was in their position I'd also be hiring some lawyers to look over any contracts they've lost/not won recently. The threat made in the letter re future contracts could be quite interesting.

 

[deltic]

Maybe being a bit conspiracy minded here: but I wondered if it was his suggestion that getting rid of retail units might help the situation that really riled the network rail chiefs. He had an idea that threatened the bottom line so they've thrown the kitchen sink at him!

No the greater concern is that Directors and senior managers have a legal responsibility to ensure the health and safety of employees and the public who may be affected by their organization's activities. This is a key part of risk management and board members have both individual and collective responsibility for it. If directors fail to meet their health and safety responsibilities, they can be held personally liable

 

[Starmill]

The quote was raising it prominently again in the media, going beyond what the regulator had said so he was the origin of those comments.

Can you give us a bit more detail about why you say it goes beyond what was originally said? It's substantially the same accusation, there's no meaningful difference.

The only point of difference appears to be that Network Rail claimed improvements were made and Dennis didn't accept that. Have Network Rail published anything to support that?

 

[Horizon22]

The only point of difference appears to be that Network Rail claimed improvements were made and Dennis didn't accept that. Have Network Rail published anything to support that?

The main question is whether Dennis was in a position to say he "didn't accept that". What qualifications did he have to state that? Why did he decide he needed to say that? Did he have extra information to suggest otherwise? Was it in line with his company's media policies to say it? The Network Rail information may be privileged and not everything has to be "published" as long as the regulatory body has accepted what has been done.

He might well be correct (and many may agree), but as anyone with authority and in a position to say things knows - just look at people who have lost their jobs over social media comments after the recent riots as an example - you are a representative of a company and it may be out-of-line to 'snipe' at Network Rail like that. If he was an independent media commentator then sure, but that's not the conversation.

 

[markle]

This story further explodes the myth that consultants provide independent advice to their clients without fear or favour

It really doesn't. What you choose to say publicly (if anything) can be very different to what is said privately to clients.

Publicly criticising a client in the national press seems quite naive.

 

[Starmill]

The main question is whether Dennis was in a position to say he "didn't accept that". What qualifications did he have to state that? Why did he decide he needed to say that? Did he have extra information to suggest otherwise? Was it in line with his company's media policies to say it? The Network Rail information may be privileged.

He might well be correct (and many may agree), but as anyone with authority and in a position to say things knows - just look at people who have lost their jobs over social media comments after the recent riots as an example - you are a representative of a company and it may be out-of-line to 'snipe' at Network Rail like that. If he was an independent media commentator then sure, but that's not the conversation.

I don't accept the argument that anyone is a representative of their employer just by the fact of having been employed. That's clearly nonsense when there's no public-facing link between the employee and employer as there wasn't in this case.

The people you're referring to were dismissed because they were convicted. Dennis hasn't even been accused of a crime.

It really doesn't. What you choose to say publicly (if anything) can be very different to what is said privately to clients.

Publicly criticising a client in the national press seems quite naive.

I don't disagree with that, but also, I do think the real story here isn't Dennis. It's Hendy and his fitness for state office. To a lesser extent, it's also Salt and Systra.

 

[HSTEd]

Ultimately, this means that essentially all railway professionals must be considered to be mouthpieces of the leadership of Network Rail at all times.
Nothing said by a rail professional in the UK railway industry can ever been assumed to be anything other than a position approved (explicitly or implicitly) by Network Rail.

This has important implications for any future policy discussions. If Hendy is not dealt with swiftly and severely there is little room for meaningful policy discussion in the UK on rail issues.

This is hardly likely to improve the railway industry's position. Despite what many people in the public sector may think, control of the narrative is not the only thing that matters - sooner or later people will notice when rhetoric and reality are not aligned.

 

[markle]

Ultimately, this means that essentially all railway professionals must be considered to be mouthpieces of the leadership of Network Rail at all times.
Nothing said by a rail professional in the UK railway industry can ever been assumed to be anything other than a position approved (explicitly or implicitly) by Network Rail.

This has important implications for any future policy discussions. If Hendy is not dealt with swiftly and severely there is little room for meaningful policy discussion in the UK on rail issues.

This is hardly likely to improve the railway industry's position. Despite what many people in the public sector may think, control of the narrative is not the only thing that matters - sooner or later people will notice when rhetoric and reality are not aligned.

You need to differentiate between private conversation and statements made to national media, especially where you are positioned as an expert.

In most industries if you criticise your employer in the national press or criticise your clients in the national press you can expect that to negatively affect your employment.

 

[Grumpy Git]

I would say that Dennis has been spectacularly naive.

Hendy comes across as having a particular axe to grind and why he has become involved personally in this case is very strange and shows a level of naivety in itself.

 

[HSTEd]

You need to differentiate between private conversation and statements made to national media, especially where you are positioned as an expert.

Private conversation is not sufficient for meaningful policy discussion.
Without discussion across society, including in the press, social media and the like, it cannot occur.

To do otherwise results in the railway industry, which expends £20bn a year in public money, being de-facto controlled by whoever the chair of Network RAil is with no real oversight because noone will ever publically disagree with him.

What this man says or does not say in social media or elsewhere has no impact on the quality of his work.
If Network Rail believes that he is wrong then they (or Hendy) should have initiated an action for libel/slander (not sure which applies to social media).

The reason they do not is because they know they will not win.

 

[Energy]

I don't disagree with that, but also, I do think the real story here isn't Dennis. It's Hendy and his fitness for state office.

Indeed, Hendy has taken the concerns over Euston station and made them concerns about him.

He isn’t free from controversy:

• In 2013 giving 4 x £10 Oyster cards to a prostitute he had a 9 month affair with while being Commissioner of TfL.
• In 2014 spending over £1200 of taxpayer money on food and drink, including alcohol.
• In 2015 attending a men-only dinner held by the Transport Golfing Society as a guest of bus manufacturer Alexander Dennis. He later made a personal donation to the Fawcett Society who were the ones who noticed and criticised him.

 

[Horizon22]

I don't accept the argument that anyone is a representative of their employer just by the fact of having been employed. That's clearly nonsense when there's no public-facing link between the employee and employer as there wasn't in this case.

Well that's very much the default position of most employers - especially when posting in social / traditional media settings. So you may not "accept the argument" but I think HR will! Plenty of people across all industries have got into similar bother (of varying scales) for these types of actions.

And also there's clearly a link between his role and his commentary. To be fair I didn't know he was an employee of Systra from his previous social media and it is always a fine line. Arguing privately as part of business for changes and concerns is quite different to raising them publicly in a project you are not directly involved with. That's how employee relationships work in the UK.

In most industries if you criticise your employer in the national press or criticise your clients in the national press you can expect that to negatively affect your employment.

Exactly. Pretty much all companies have standard communications/media policies to prevent issues like this. If Dennis had raised his circumstances and his media profile with the employer previously then that depends on what specifics were mentioned & agreed, something we will not be privy too.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Except of course that Gareth has been publically commenting on the industry for ages. Systra themselves not only knew about that but encouraged and celebrated it on their website. So they can't then surely have it both ways when something like this happens?