In message
,
John B writes
There seem to be no facts available at all about LU's reason for
sacking the member of staff, and no description of any assault by the
member of staff.
[...]
The assumption seems to be "there is absolutely no information about
this case, but anyone supported by the RMT must automatically be
assumed to be a criminal".

No: if I thought the chap in question was necessarily a criminal, I'd
suggest that he should be taken to court.

LU has the kind of rigorous and fair staff discipline process that
you'd expect in a heavily unionised, public sector industry, with
strong staff representation at all stages. It's not as if this case had
taken place last week and the CSA had been booted out on the spot -
rather, there has been a lengthy and detailed investigation since the
incident took place in Jannuary, with union representation at all stages.

This procedure concluded that the actions of the staff member in
question were sufficiently in breach of LU's policy to warrant
dismissal for gross misconduct. To me, that puts the balance of proof
that the staff member did not commit gross misconduct *strongly* in the
court of the people who believe otherwise...

My experience is that, that can frequently mean diddly.

I've seen enough instances of staff being dismissed only for LU to
finally agree that they were wrong to not necessarily believe what's
printed.

I'll try and get some information tomorrow and let you know the proper
story.
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)