I think the main reason that the tribunal decided he shouldn't have been
sacked was more to do with the poor way that LU handled the whole
disciplinary affair than anything else. Running with a tripcock cut out
and no second person in the cab could have serious safety consequences in
the same way that an aggravated SPAD could.

Often the outcome of an aggravated SPAD is the sack, although an appeal
may mean that the driver is taken back by the company, but reduced in
grade (usually to station assistant) with the pay for that lower grade.
The ex driver may then be able to apply for a driver's job after one or
two years (depending on the ruling). Again, depending on the ruling, the
driver may have to actually "join the queue" of new applicants for a
driver's job rather than automatically go back to his driving position.

From what was in the paper, LU have said they're taking him back, but not
as a driver. The MT has said that it won't affect his standard of living,
so it can only be assumed that he has gone to a different grade, but is
retaining his driver's rate of pay.

Roger


*From:* Paul Terry
*Date:* Wed, 11 May 2011 19:20:10 +0100

In message , Roland Perry
writes

You must have missed this posting a couple of days ago:

"Basically, the driver deliberately ran the train with a
safety
device (the tripcock) cut out without a second person in
the
cab. The tripcock is part of the safety system that stops
the
train if it goes past a red signal. A driver must ALWAYS
have a
second person in the cab if the Tripcock is defective."

Full report (see para 37 onwards):

Nevertheless, the tribunal (and now TfL, by reinstating the
employee) seem to have decided that this was not after all a
sackable offence, especially given the precedent that another
driver had done the same but with a train in public service, and he
merely received a warning.
--
Paul Terry