Home > Holden verses Connex South Eastern > Witness Statements >

I, GRAHAM KEITH WALKER, WILL SAY AS FOLLOWS -

I am employed by Connex South Eastern Limited ("Connex") as a Train Driver and I have been employed on the railway for 26 years. While I am employed as a Train Driver, I have not actually carried out any driving duties for about 6 years because I have been released from my driving duties for the whole of that time, to undertake duties as a local union representative. My union duties involve negotiations with management, representation of employees at disciplinary hearings, safety consultations, and sitting on various committees such as the Company Council (I am the Drivers' Company Council Secretary), the Joint Safety Council and I am also acting Branch Secretary for Gillingham Depot and the acting Health and Safety Representative for Gillingham Depot. I have been a member of ASLEF since 1974, and I have been a union activist since about 1982 which is also the date that I first became a Health and Safety Representative. I have kept up to date with health and safety issues since that time by a combination of attending courses, reading briefings and so on. I am one of three Company Council union representatives who between us represent all the Train Drivers employed by Connex South Eastern Limited, who number around 800. Within the union hierarchy, I would go to the Divisional Organiser who is now Graham Morris and formerly was Len Warboys, with any concerns.

Within Connex South Eastern Limited there are two local union representatives at each of the 12 depots plus a further health and safety representative at each depot. Safety is at the top of any ASLEF agenda and has for many years been the union's top priority. From my own dealings with Connex, I have no reason to believe that Connex views safety any differently.

There is a well-established machinery agreed between company management and the rail industry unions, including ASLEF, for addressing health and safety issues. Local union members are appointed as health and safety representatives to oversee specific locations and they undertake health and safety inspections together with management once every 13 weeks, which is the statutory minimum. It is the responsibility of the local representatives to bring any other health and safety concerns to local management's attention and in the event that they are not satisfied that an issue has been properly dealt with locally, the local representatives can refer the matter on to me and I can raise it before the company's Joint Safety Council which is chaired by the Managing Director of the company and is attended by all the company directors together with the industry unions' Divisional Organisers and Company Council representatives. To be eligible to sit on this council, it is necessary to have undergone formal training on health and safety.

4.	The Joint Safety Council meets at least once every 3 months. An agenda is set which includes consideration of any unresolved local problems. There is then a round-the-table discussion at the meeting and a course of action agreed. Formal minutes are taken and circulated subsequently.

In addition to the Joint Safety Council, there are sub-committees set up from time to time to consider specific issues, for example there is an Assaults Committee set up to consider the problem of employees being assaulted by members of the public, there is the SPAD Group which was set up to consider the issue of signals passed at danger, the Driver Only Operation Users Group which was set up to discuss issues arising from that proposed method of work and those sub-committees would discuss in detail specific issues arising from those various situations. All in all, I believe there is ample scope for any health and safety issues to be raised, given a fair hearing and addressed and progressed as necessary within the scope of the machinery agreed between the company and the industry trade unions. Ultimately if an issue has been raised that has not been resolved to the union's satisfaction, it would be referred on to the union General Secretary or it all else fails, HM Railways Inspectorate but I personally have never known that to happen as issues tend to be resolved internally.

In my view, it was Mr Holden's prerogative, as a local health and safety representative, to take any health and safety concerns outside the machinery if he chose to do so but if all local representatives behaved in that way, it would undermine for everyone the benefit of the formal machinery and ultimately the union would lose the considerable impact that can be brought to bear by involving the General Secretary as a spokesman for the workforce. To my mind, it sends the wrong message to the union's members for local representatives to air their concerns outside the established machinery: it obviously sends the message that there is no confidence in the machinery to get things done.

I believe that Mr Holden genuinely was concerned about health and safety issues, but he preferred to follow an aggressive, confrontational approach rather than accept that the company has a common interest in promoting health and safety. He always gave me the impression that he was looking to lay blame on people for specific things rather than address the issue of how things can be improved. I believe my first dealing with Mr Holden came in 1994, which is when he was appointed as a local health and safety representative for Charing Cross, and I have had regular dealings with him since that time.

In 1996 or thereabouts, ASLEF agreed with Connex to deal with pay and conditions for train drivers employed by Connex at local level rather than at national level, that being the level at which all previous negotiations had been conducted. This approach recognised the impact of privatisation and the fact that Connex was now a separate company from the other train operators. ASLEF and Connex carried out a full review of the working practices of train drivers, and their terms and conditions of employment. A sub-committee was set up for this purpose and we considered in detail the whole career path of drivers from recruitment and training onwards. The process was widely advertised so that anyone who wished to comment, could comment.

The investigation process took about 6 months and after that, reports were prepared and discussed, a restructuring package was put together and the whole package was put to the union membership for a vote. This whole process took over 12 months in all. Before the vote, the restructuring deal and working practices included in that were subject to a safety validation which was referred to the highest levels of company management and union headquarters and external consultants were also involved in carrying out, for instance, sleep studies to consider the potential impact on individuals of the new working arrangements. In short, ASLEF were fully involved in this process, fully considered the safety implications arising and having done that, recommended acceptance to its members who were then free to vote either in favour of or against restructuring, in accordance with their own views. The majority of drivers voted to accept the new package and so it was implemented.

10.

After the new structure was in place, I received a number of reports from people concerned about one particular roster that had them working a night turn and then working through the morning rush hour. Because a number of people were raising this issue, the issue was taken forward to company management for consideration and the restructuring agreement was amended to limit the length of night turns to 9 hours, ensuring that the end of a night turn did not involve working the morning rush hour.

11.

Mr Holden expressed his unhappiness to me about the restructured package. He was the only person who was unhappy about the entire scheme although other people would from time to time agree with specific criticisms he put forward. He criticised the company council for agreeing to longer turns of duty (in exchange for more time off work) on the basis that he felt it was unsafe. The safety of these working arrangements was something that had been fully considered by the union before recommending acceptance to its members. One of Mr Holden's recurring themes was fatigue caused by the longer turns of duty. To the best of my knowledge, this is not a concern that has been shared by other driver at least that has come to my attention.

12.

My experience of the company's approach towards time off and the provision of facilities to union and health and safety representatives to carry out their duties, is that it always acts reasonably. If any local representative is concerned that he is given inadequate time off or facilities to properly go about his duties, he can take that matter up with me and I will take it forward. However, I have never personally been refused time off or facilities to go about my duties nor have any other local union representatives or health and safety representatives complained to me about lack of time off or facilities, including Mr Holden.

13.

I was Mr Holden's representative at the disciplinary hearing conducted by Ken Skilton on 9th December 1999. I have read the note of that hearing and it accords with my recollection of what took place. I would not wish to discuss any aspect of my private discussions with Mr Holden by way of my preparation for that hearing.

14.

Mr Skilton made it clear during the disciplinary hearing that his main concern about Mr Holden's report of 10th October 1999, was that it had been sent to the press. Mr Skilton made it clear that Mr Holden had gone outside the confines of the industry with a series of remarks that Mr Skilton considered to be based on assumptions and not facts. The timing of the press article was, very bad for the railway industry generally and Connex in particular in that it followed soon after the Ladbroke Grove crash.

15.

While I argued the case as best I could on behalf of Mr Holden, and Mr Holden said he had not sent the article to the press, I could not argue a case that the content of Mr Holden's report of 10th October 1999 was substantially true. For example Mr Holden's assertion that "SPADs were still being caused by fatigue" is false: to the best of my knowledge and belief there have been no SPADs since restructuring that are referable to driver restructuring, which was the substance of Mr Holden's allegation on this point.

The contents of this Statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Signed

Witness Statements > Holden verses Connex South Eastern > Home