Tube driver wins claim for unfair dismissal - strikes off?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13879563
---quote--- London Tube strike driver unfairly dismissed, tribunal rules A London Underground driver at the centre of a series of Tube strikes has won his claim for unfair dismissal, his union has revealed. LU said Arwyn Thomas was sacked for unacceptable behaviour towards colleagues. But the Rail Maritime and Transport Union (RMT) claimed he was dismissed because of his union role. A series of walkouts has been staged this year. It is unclear if the remaining strikes will go ahead. [...continues...] ---/quote--- This comes after driver Eamonn Lynch also winning his claim for unfair dismissal in early May: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13306339 Obviously the RMT have a wider anti-cuts agenda, but LU management don't seem to be coming out of this particularly well - so long for the days of relative harmony at LU under Tim O'Toole. (Of course it was a bit of a different world back then - for a start, the kitty still jangled when shaken.) |
Tube driver wins claim for unfair dismissal - strikes off?
The tribunal results have proved that what the rmt was talking about his
sacking over his union activities was a load of rubbish. That was the only real way that they could try and persuade their members to vote for strike action (those that did bother to vote at all). They know they wouldn't have got the support otherwise. After repeated mentioning of being sacked because of his union activities on virtually every communication the rmt have made, they have now conveniently omitted this from their latest communication http://www.rmtlondoncalling.org.uk/node/2256 and now just insist that he was unfairly sacked. It's all politics, and the passengers and union members are the pawns The tribunal basically said that LU were right to find him guilty of abusive behaviour and that the sacking was nothing to do with his union activities. What they have don is suggested that the sentence for his abusive behaviour may have been too harsh. So, nothing there to say "give him his job back" I suppose it will depend whether the rmt agree that his behaviour was abusive, given that the tribunal have more or less confirmed that it was. If they do agree that, then the rmt cannot expect for him to get his job back unpunished, as it were. If LU decide that his punishment is to be taken off the trains and sent to the stations at reduced pay, will that satisfy the rmt, or will they still demand he gets his original job back full stop? If so, I can't see that that will happen, although you never know. I shouldn't count the strikes as being off yet! Roger *From:* "Mizter T" *Date:* Wed, 22 Jun 2011 17:43:11 +0100 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13879563 ---quote--- London Tube strike driver unfairly dismissed, tribunal rules A London Underground driver at the centre of a series of Tube strikes has won his claim for unfair dismissal, his union has revealed. LU said Arwyn Thomas was sacked for unacceptable behaviour towards colleagues. But the Rail Maritime and Transport Union (RMT) claimed he was dismissed because of his union role. A series of walkouts has been staged this year. It is unclear if the remaining strikes will go ahead. [...continues...] ---/quote--- This comes after driver Eamonn Lynch also winning his claim for unfair dismissal in early May: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13306339 Obviously the RMT have a wider anti-cuts agenda, but LU management don't seem to be coming out of this particularly well - so long for the days of relative harmony at LU under Tim O'Toole. (Of course it was a bit of a different world back then - for a start, the kitty still jangled when shaken.) |
Tube driver wins claim for unfair dismissal - strikes off?
wrote in message ... The tribunal results have proved that what the rmt was talking about his sacking over his union activities was a load of rubbish. That was the only real way that they could try and persuade their members to vote for strike action (those that did bother to vote at all). They know they wouldn't have got the support otherwise. After repeated mentioning of being sacked because of his union activities on virtually every communication the rmt have made, they have now conveniently omitted this from their latest communication http://www.rmtlondoncalling.org.uk/node/2256 and now just insist that he was unfairly sacked. It's all politics, and the passengers and union members are the pawns The tribunal basically said that LU were right to find him guilty of abusive behaviour and that the sacking was nothing to do with his union activities. I don't see that the tribunal has the evidence to assess that. If TfL sacked the guy wrongly on the basis of a trivial offence it is quite likely that they had an ulterior reason for doing so. There isn't likely to be any obvious evidence what that reason was, is there? tim |
Tube driver wins claim for unfair dismissal - strikes off?
*From:* "tim...."
*Date:* Wed, 22 Jun 2011 21:51:32 +0100 wrote in message ... The tribunal results have proved that what the rmt was talking about his sacking over his union activities was a load of rubbish. That was the only real way that they could try and persuade their members to vote for strike action (those that did bother to vote at all). They know they wouldn't have got the support otherwise. After repeated mentioning of being sacked because of his union activities on virtually every communication the rmt have made, they have now conveniently omitted this from their latest communication http://www.rmtlondoncalling.org.uk/node/2256 and now just insist that he was unfairly sacked. It's all politics, and the passengers and union members are the pawns The tribunal basically said that LU were right to find him guilty of abusive behaviour and that the sacking was nothing to do with his union activities. I don't see that the tribunal has the evidence to assess that. If TfL sacked the guy wrongly on the basis of a trivial offence it is quite likely that they had an ulterior reason for doing so. There isn't likely to be any obvious evidence what that reason was, is there? tim Being abusive to other members of staff (or the public for that matter) isn't trivial and is something that LU is very hot on, whoever they are. I assume that the tribunal went over everything with a fine tooth comb before making that decision. He was stupid doing what he did, although he probably meant no harm - he is not one of the aggressive types you sometimes see on picket lines, and I think sacking is too harsh and I wouldn't like to see him sacked. However, like all other members of staff, you can't just do what you want these days, it's so easy to drop yourself in the **** and risk losing your job or getting demoted. Like everything in this PC world we live in today, you have to do everything by the book - no more, no less. Roger |
Tube driver wins claim for unfair dismissal - strikes off?
In message , at 21:51:32 on Wed, 22 Jun
2011, tim.... remarked: The tribunal basically said that LU were right to find him guilty of abusive behaviour and that the sacking was nothing to do with his union activities. I don't see that the tribunal has the evidence to assess that. They probably had more evidence than we do. If TfL sacked the guy wrongly on the basis of a trivial offence it is quite likely that they had an ulterior reason for doing so. There isn't likely to be any obvious evidence what that reason was, is there? Tribunals weren't born yesterday. -- Roland Perry |
Tube driver wins claim for unfair dismissal - strikes off?
On Jun 22, 7:12*pm, wrote:
It's all politics, and the passengers and union members are the pawns Mixed metaphors are almost always funny! |
Tube driver wins claim for unfair dismissal - strikes off?
|
Tube driver wins claim for unfair dismissal - strikes off?
wrote: On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 16:21:30 -0500 wrote: He was stupid doing what he did, although he probably meant no harm - he is not one of the aggressive types you sometimes see on picket lines, and The RMT bruisers couldn't handle the general public. After getting a serious amount of abuse (I witnesses it and provided some of my own) outside Arnos Grove station a number of years back - what the hell did they expect? Love and kisses from people 2 hours late to work? Morons - they now skulk around down Palmers road out of harms way outside the entrance to Ash House instead every time theres a protest. What is bloody stupid but can nonetheless be seen on strike days is the public berating the staff *who are actually at work* - I provided my own earful to one such moron during a strike last year. |
Tube driver wins claim for unfair dismissal - strikes off?
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 21:51:32 on Wed, 22 Jun 2011, tim.... remarked: The tribunal basically said that LU were right to find him guilty of abusive behaviour and that the sacking was nothing to do with his union activities. I don't see that the tribunal has the evidence to assess that. They probably had more evidence than we do. Yes, but still not enough. If TfL sacked the guy wrongly on the basis of a trivial offence it is quite likely that they had an ulterior reason for doing so. There isn't likely to be any obvious evidence what that reason was, is there? Tribunals weren't born yesterday. But did they actually listen to any evidence on that point and actually come to that conclusion. or did they say absolutely nothing and leave TfL to infer something that wasn't there. tim |
Tube driver wins claim for unfair dismissal - strikes off?
In message , at 12:17:50 on Thu, 23 Jun
2011, tim.... remarked: The tribunal basically said that LU were right to find him guilty of abusive behaviour and that the sacking was nothing to do with his union activities. I don't see that the tribunal has the evidence to assess that. They probably had more evidence than we do. Yes, but still not enough. Were you there? If TfL sacked the guy wrongly on the basis of a trivial offence it is quite likely that they had an ulterior reason for doing so. There isn't likely to be any obvious evidence what that reason was, is there? Tribunals weren't born yesterday. But did they actually listen to any evidence on that point and actually come to that conclusion. or did they say absolutely nothing and leave TfL to infer something that wasn't there. I'll give the BBC the benefit of the doubt that they checked this quote: "The employment tribunal has ruled today that Mr Thomas should have been disciplined for his actions and that his dismissal was in no way due to his activities as a union member." -- Roland Perry |
Tube driver wins claim for unfair dismissal - strikes off?
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 12:17:50 on Thu, 23 Jun 2011, tim.... remarked: The tribunal basically said that LU were right to find him guilty of abusive behaviour and that the sacking was nothing to do with his union activities. I don't see that the tribunal has the evidence to assess that. They probably had more evidence than we do. Yes, but still not enough. Were you there? If TfL sacked the guy wrongly on the basis of a trivial offence it is quite likely that they had an ulterior reason for doing so. There isn't likely to be any obvious evidence what that reason was, is there? Tribunals weren't born yesterday. But did they actually listen to any evidence on that point and actually come to that conclusion. or did they say absolutely nothing and leave TfL to infer something that wasn't there. I'll give the BBC the benefit of the doubt that they checked this quote: "The employment tribunal has ruled today that Mr Thomas should have been disciplined for his actions and that his dismissal was in no way due to his activities as a union member." But that was a quote of what LU said. I still contest that they could have easily (wrongly) inferred the second half out of things that the tribunal did not say, rather than what they did tim |
Tube driver wins claim for unfair dismissal - strikes off?
In message , at 17:57:25 on Thu, 23 Jun
2011, tim.... remarked: I'll give the BBC the benefit of the doubt that they checked this quote: "The employment tribunal has ruled today that Mr Thomas should have been disciplined for his actions and that his dismissal was in no way due to his activities as a union member." But that was a quote of what LU said. I still contest that they could have easily (wrongly) inferred the second half out of things that the tribunal did not say, rather than what they did Why don't you look it up and see? I'm content that the BBC's lawyers wouldn't allow a massive misstatement (even from a 3rd party) and also point at an apparent lack of challenge or retraction. LUL would be ill advised to misquote the tribunal to that extent as well. Anyway, the driver is reinstated, and the strikes called off. -- Roland Perry |
Tube driver wins claim for unfair dismissal - strikes off?
"tim...." wrote in message
... "Roland Perry" wrote in message "The employment tribunal has ruled today that Mr Thomas should have been disciplined for his actions and that his dismissal was in no way due to his activities as a union member." But that was a quote of what LU said. I still contest that they could have easily (wrongly) inferred the second half out of things that the tribunal did not say, rather than what they did BBC now reporting strikes are called off (for now?)... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13896546 Paul S |
Tube driver wins claim for unfair dismissal - strikes off?
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 17:57:25 on Thu, 23 Jun 2011, tim.... remarked: I'll give the BBC the benefit of the doubt that they checked this quote: "The employment tribunal has ruled today that Mr Thomas should have been disciplined for his actions and that his dismissal was in no way due to his activities as a union member." But that was a quote of what LU said. I still contest that they could have easily (wrongly) inferred the second half out of things that the tribunal did not say, rather than what they did Why don't you look it up and see? I'm content that the BBC's lawyers wouldn't allow a massive misstatement (even from a 3rd party) and also point at an apparent lack of challenge or retraction. You're joking of course :-( LUL would be ill advised to misquote the tribunal to that extent as well. Where did they say that they were quoting the tribunal. They were putting their own spin on it as all PR agents do. Anyway, the driver is reinstated, and the strikes called off. So I see tim |
Tube driver wins claim for unfair dismissal - strikes off?
In message , at 18:51:36 on Thu, 23 Jun
2011, tim.... remarked: Why don't you look it up and see? I'm content that the BBC's lawyers wouldn't allow a massive misstatement (even from a 3rd party) and also point at an apparent lack of challenge or retraction. You're joking of course :-( Of course not. Especially when you've got the union on hand to jump in and say the quote was wrong. Another really easy stick to beat LU with, but they haven't. LUL would be ill advised to misquote the tribunal to that extent as well. Where did they say that they were quoting the tribunal. Haven't you read the news reports *at all*? BBC, yesterday: Mike Brown, the managing director of LU, said .... "The employment tribunal has ruled today that Mr Thomas should have been disciplined for his actions and that his dismissal was in no way due to his activities as a union member." They were putting their own spin on it as all PR agents do. Making up such a quote is way beyond spin. It would be a direct and easily verifiable lie. -- Roland Perry |
Tube driver wins claim for unfair dismissal - strikes off?
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 18:51:36 on Thu, 23 Jun 2011, tim.... remarked: Why don't you look it up and see? I'm content that the BBC's lawyers wouldn't allow a massive misstatement (even from a 3rd party) and also point at an apparent lack of challenge or retraction. You're joking of course :-( Of course not. Especially when you've got the union on hand to jump in and say the quote was wrong. Another really easy stick to beat LU with, but they haven't. LUL would be ill advised to misquote the tribunal to that extent as well. Where did they say that they were quoting the tribunal. Haven't you read the news reports *at all*? BBC, yesterday: Mike Brown, the managing director of LU, said .... "The employment tribunal has ruled today that Mr Thomas should have been disciplined for his actions and that his dismissal was in no way due to his activities as a union member." They were putting their own spin on it as all PR agents do. Making up such a quote is way beyond spin. It would be a direct and easily verifiable lie. It's still what they do. tim |
Tube driver wins claim for unfair dismissal - strikes off?
In message , at 21:01:03 on Thu, 23 Jun
2011, tim.... remarked: They were putting their own spin on it as all PR agents do. Making up such a quote is way beyond spin. It would be a direct and easily verifiable lie. It's still what they do. Look at it from the other point of view (assuming the quote is true): The RMT would be spinning the result, if they failed to mention that the tribunal had said the dismissal was nothing to do with union activities. But they'd be lying if they said the tribunal had found that the dismissal *was* a result of the union activities. -- Roland Perry |
Tube driver wins claim for unfair dismissal - strikes off?
*From:* "Paul Scott" *Date:* Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:15:47 +0100 "tim...." wrote in message ... "Roland Perry" wrote in message "The employment tribunal has ruled today that Mr Thomas should have been disciplined for his actions and that his dismissal was in no way due to his activities as a union member." But that was a quote of what LU said. I still contest that they could have easily (wrongly) inferred the second half out of things that the tribunal did not say, rather than what they did BBC now reporting strikes are called off (for now?)... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13896546 Paul S TfL's response: http://tinyurl.com/5wournk rmt's response: http://www.rmtlondoncalling.org.uk/ Roger |
All times are GMT. The time now is 12:04 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk