Home> Holden verses Connex South Eastern> Witness Statements> L Holden> Paragraphs 1-52: Health and Safety Issues; Cases of Negligence
Witness Statement of Laurance Holden
I am Laurance Holden of [address withheld] Tonbridge Kent [ ] and will say as follows:
1. I was born on 4 November 1952 in Colliers Wood and educated in the Orpington area leaving school in 1968 with 4 O Levels. I then spent 2 years in College before going to work in the print industry for a further 2 years.
2. In June 1974 I started work for the British Railways Board Eastern Region as a Second Man which was the equivalent of a Fireman or Driver's Assistant. I served what was effectively a 2 year apprenticeship before applying for a position as a Driver. I carried out Driver Training and became a Train Driver in 1977 remaining in that position ever since.
3. I have seen considerable changes in the railway industry and worked for various companies throughout this time starting off with British Rail, then Network Southeast, then the South Eastern Train Operating Company and then Connex in about 1996.
4. I have been a member of the Trade Union ASLEF throughout my career but in 1992 became a Staff Representative at Charing Cross. This meant that I sat on the Local Departmental Committee. That year, the structure of staff representation changed which meant that there was a separate position for Health & Safety Representatives. As Staff Representative, I had been responsible for health and safety issues and when that became a distinct position from the beginning of 1993, I gave up being Staff Representative in order to be a formal Health & Safety Representative.
5. The role of the Health & Safety Representative is to represent the health and safety, training and welfare interests of those that appoint me. At Charing Cross, most of the time we had 88 drivers, at one point 96, whom I represented, although depot establishment decreased to 40 in 1999. I would not be limited by the geographical boundaries of the Charing Cross area because my responsibility was for the drivers themselves and naturally drivers would be travelling to many different parts of the region.
6. The role of Health & Safety Representatives came about as a result of the Health & Safety Act 1974. I was provided with a small brown booklet from the Health & Safety Commission upon appointment and that booklet summarises the functions, responsibility and rights of Health & Safety Representatives.
7. Following my appointment, I went on a 10 day training course run by the TUC over a 10 week period. This course was not specific to the railway industry.
8. I did a Stage II Course the following year and I believe I went on a 5 day course in 1996 run by Connex for Health & Safety Representatives and Management involved in Health & Safety issues. This course was entitled The Safety Foundation Course.
9. The Safety Representatives Regulation 1977 were amended by the Management of Health & Safety at Work Regulations 1992. Regulation 4a imposes an obligation upon the employer to consult and to provide such facilities and assistance as Representatives may reasonably require.
10. Regulation 4.2.a of the 1997 Regulations provide that a Representative must given time off with pay during working hours in order to perform his functions.
11. The Regulations provide that the functions include:
(i) Representing Members and pursuing issues that arise
(ii) Following up incidents and writing Reports
(iii) Consulting with Members and Management
(iv) Dealing with the Railways Inspectorate
12. It is my view that safety on the railways for both customers and staff is of paramount importance. This is a view that I believe is not shared by Connex who time and again have put profits before safety. I took my role and responsibility as a Health & Safety Representative very seriously and constantly reminded Connex of their frequent breaches of the Health & Safety legislation. I found that the representations that both myself and my colleagues made to Connex were usually ignored and it would be necessary for me to send reminders to them when they had failed to deal with issues that I raised. It was my perception that Connex viewed me as something of a 'thorn in their side' and I believe this was the prime motivation for the instigation of numerous disciplinary proceedings against me. In essence they were trying to silence me.
13. In order to illustrate my dedication to my role and the failure of Connex to act in any way upon my representations I will set out some of the various issues that were raised.
Dartford Up Sidings
14. When a train goes out of service the train goes into the siding and the driver has to dismount and walk along a walkway back to the station. The walkway is usually constructed of either tarmac, cement or melton dust and it runs immediately between the tracks. Usually there would be a track either side of the walkway and it is a regular occurrence that trains often come into the siding as a driver from another train is walking out along the walkway.
15. There had been a long standing problem with the condition of the walkways at the Dartford Up Sidings which to my knowledge still exist to date. The problem is made worse during rainy periods. The walkways are muddy and when it has been raining becomes slippery under foot and puddles form on their surface. The problem is increased by inadequate lighting in the sidings which is almost non existent when one has to walk between two stationary trains in the sidings because they block out the light completely.
16. On 5 November 1997, I was walking along one of these walkways when I slipped. Fortunately, I was able to grab hold of the side of a train. Had the train not been in situ, I could quite easily have fallen onto the live third rail which would have been fatal.
17. This danger had been raised a number of times by other drivers and Health & Safety Representatives, with Connex. No action had been taken and the local drivers were consulting ASLEF about the possibility of refusing to use the sidings.
18. In order to try and bring some resolution to the problem, I asked for my train for the rest of that week to be routed into siding number 4 or into Dartford Down Sidings. The conditions in those sidings were much better than in numbers 1, 2 and 3. This may have made life somewhat awkward for Connex Management but at that time, they chose not to consult with me. No action was taken by them to remedy the problem which would have been a far more simple solution.
19. On 2 December 1997, a local driver complained again about the danger of jumping over puddles and trying to maintain balance so as not to fall on the live rail. The following day I wrote to the Grove Park Train Crew Manager in my capacity as Health & Safety Representative. I did not receive a reply to this Report.
20. I believe that towards the end of December some melton dust was put down on the walkway but this did not resolve the underlying problem which was drainage related and within only a few days other drivers were complaining to me that the situation was as dangerous as before. I should point out that Connex had been aware of this danger for several years and had taken no action to remedy it. As my report of 3 December was sent in my formal capacity as Health & Safety Representative, I was entitled to a reply, which never came. Therefore, on 6 January 1998 I submitted a further Report to the London Bridge Drivers Standards Manager referring to the two previous Reports, the first of which was by then two months old.
21. The day before I had been due to work out of the Dartford Up Sidings and there had been a period of heavy rainfall. I rang the Service Delivery Centre to check whether the work had been carried out but no-one there knew the answer and suggested that I go and find out for myself before hanging up on the phone.
22. Very shortly after my Report, Mr Stephens the London Bridge DSM [Drivers' Standard Manager] summoned me to his office. He was quite clearly cross that I had raised these issues but nonetheless assured me that the problems would be remedied and gave me the impression that there was a sense of urgency about the situation. In order to be bloody minded, he asked me to put all three of my Reports that I had typed up and sent in onto three separate Accident/Incident Report Forms SESM5.1. I pointed out that this was unnecessary and time consuming but he was insistent. He would not even allow me to cut out and paste my typed Reports onto the Accident Report Form. At one stage during the conversation he threatened to take my Licence away.
23. I am afraid this was only too typical of the attitude of Management within Connex when it came to health and safety matters and their treatment of the Representatives. By 28 April 1998, still no work had been done on the up sidings and I submitted a further Incident Report Form when again I was nearly electrocuted on the live rail trying to jump over puddles on the walkway.
24. To my knowledge, the problem of the slippery walkways on the up sidings still remains.
Slade Green Signal Step Down Board
25. On 19 March 1997, I wrote a Report to the Train Crew Manager at Grove Park about a potentially hazardous situation. A track side telephone was situated half way up a signal post at the far end of a platform at Slade Green. This telephone was frequently used because there is a large depot at Slade Green and movements into and out of the depot would sometimes be queried and confirmed with the signal box by use of this telephone. At the end of the platform there is a down slope which leads to the signal post. Many of these down slopes have non-slip surfaces but this one did not. The gradient of the slope was quite severe and it would often get wet with rain. This caused moss to grow over its surface and as such was extremely slippery. The work involved in putting an anti-slip coating upon it would have been minimal.
26. I received no answer to my Report of 19 March. This was fairly typical of Connex. I requested meetings with the Manager but these were never organised. In December of the same year three drivers were injured on three separate occasions when they slipped on that platform slope. One driver had five days off work as a result of his injuries.
27. At the end of the year, I finally had a meeting with the Production Director and Chief Safety Standards Manager when I was able to point out the problem.
Chairs At Charing Cross Staff Accommodation
28. On 17 March 1997, I raised a complaint in writing with the Train Crew Manager at Grove Park about the dangerous conditions of the chairs located in the Charing Cross Staff Accommodation. I subsequently became aware that the same problem existed at Grove Park itself and Victoria. Connex had purchased cheap metal chairs, the legs of which had been welded together. The legs would bend and the uprights subsequently snap. It was self-evidently dangerous and if the chairs did give way in that way, the person sitting on them could be seriously injured. It was obvious to all of the staff and to Management which chairs were bending and close to giving way.
29. After my Report, two conductors both sat on chairs that gave way. One recorded an injury to his back in the Accident Book. I sent in two or three Reports about these chairs, the first of which was before the first injury and the second before the second injury. Both Reports were ignored.
30. Eventually all of the chairs that looked to be on their way out were collected by me and put under the stairs near the entrance hall of the station in a Staff Only area. The first contact that I had from Management about this situation was when the Manager that I had been writing to telephoned me to ask me who had moved the chairs under the stairs and to express his annoyance about what I had done.
31. Because I had moved the chairs there was a shortage in the Staff Accommodation and it led to their eventual replacement.
Damage To The Sevenoaks Tunnel
32. There is a long tunnel between Hildenborough and Sevenoaks. In 1996 I was approached by a driver who asked me if Connex could guarantee his safety when he drove through the tunnel as there was a large amount of water pouring through the roof and that it had been present for quite a few months. He was genuinely worried about the safety of the tunnel. I pursued the point as Health & Safety Representative with the Area Train Crew Manager at a meeting that I arranged with him. In summary, his response was that it wasn't for him to pursue the point as the tunnel was the responsibility of Railtrack who would have had their own procedures in place to check it. He wasn't even prepared to raise it with Railtrack let alone take any action himself.
33. His Secretary typed up the Minutes of the meeting but any reference to the tunnel at Sevenoaks was completely expunged from those Minutes. I was deeply troubled by this and I typed up my own Minutes of this conversation, in my own time and submitted them in order to make the point. I also put my Minutes of the meeting in the Notice Case in the Train Crew Mess Room at Charing Cross in order to highlight to other drivers the potential problem.
34. In the late Summer and Autumn of 1997 parts of the roof panelling in the tunnel collapsed and some of it fell onto a passing train causing a large amount of damage. The tunnel had to be closed for repairs causing significant delays to trains from the south coast into London and the Euro Star. To my knowledge, my initial concerns were never acted upon and the two events do seem very co-incidental.
Lack of any Smoking Policy in the Work Place
35. I should start off by saying that I do not only raise this issue in my capacity as Health & Safety Representative but also because it affected me personally. I do not smoke and am usually adversely affected by other people's cigarette smoke. I am particularly susceptible to illness when I inhale other people's cigarette smoke becoming bunged up with blocked sinuses leading to headaches and migraines which I suffer from.
36. I have raised the issue of the failure of Connex to have any sort of smoking policy on numerous occasions. The history is fully set out in my 9 page Report dated 4 April 1996.
37. In that Report I highlight the principle concern that has been raised by a number of members of staff, namely there were a large number of places throughout the area system which did not have any rooms where the absence of cigarette smoke could be guaranteed. Staff had to come into work and have their food in rooms fall of other people's cigarette smoke. Even where there were no smoking areas in some places, these were situated directly next to smoking areas without any division.
38. My Report highlighted breaches by Connex of Regulation 25 of the Work Place (Health, Safety & Welfare) Regulations 1992.
39. In July 1997, Connex told me that their policy was that rest rooms were deemed to be non-smoking areas unless it is possible to provide separate smoking and non-smoking accommodation and all their Train Crew Managers were aware of the necessity to maintain smoke free environments for people taking their rest periods. However, in December 1997, I had a meeting with Connex Production Director, Mr Goff, who told me that as far as he was concerned, Connex did not have any smoking policy.
40. The real problem is whether or not there is a policy, there are no steps taken by Management to enforce any such policy. It is one thing to put no smoking signs up but quite another to check and ensure that they are complied with. Some platform staff were forced to have their breaks sitting outside on a platform bench because the stench of cigarette smoke in the mess rooms was intolerable. I conducted my own survey amongst drivers to see if they knew what the smoking policy was and no-one was able to explain it to me.
41. Another driver complained to the Manager at Grove Park about the situation and his response was 'theres nothing I can do about it?' On some occasions it is the Mangers themselves that are responsible for smoking in the rest rooms, in contravention of the 'policy'.
42. On another occasion, I was scheduled to have my rest break at Sevenoaks. Two of my colleagues had complained to me prior to that that they could not tolerate their break at Sevenoaks due to the smell of cigarette smoke in the rest room. I telephoned the Foreman to see if he could suggest a way around the problem and he was unable to guarantee me a smoke free room at Orpington and said that the nearest room that could be guaranteed to be smoke free would be either Cannon Street or Charing Cross.
43. There are problems in the cab as well. Drivers often smoke cigarettes in the cab making life very unpleasant for the driver that takes over from him. Often the previous driver may have been smoking continuously in the cab throughout the whole of his shift. The cabs are not cleaned prior to change over and the ashtrays are then overflowing. If one tries to open the window to clear the smell this merely blows the ash all of the insider of the cab.
44. The situation within Connex is better than when first I started raising my complaints about these matters in 1996 although there is still a lot of improvement required.
Air Conditioning In Driver's Cabs
45. There had been an ongoing problem with the temperature in driver's cabs. The problem was worse on the networker cabs because to increase visibility the size of the glass windows was increased considerably. This created a greenhouse like effect in the drivers cab.
46. Part of the problem was that when networker cabs were being designed and built the Management refused to consult with the drivers' Health & Safety Representatives who were after all the ones that were expected to drive the trains. I stated in my Report to Connex on 10 August 1997 that temperatures up to 43° had been recorded in networker cabs.
47. On that day my own cab temperatures were recorded as 35° and 36°. It was my view that this created a dangerous working environment for both myself and my passengers where my levels of concentration would have been put at risk.
48. The problem could have been resolved if during the consultation process, the units were designed and built with air conditioning. Some of the train operating companies did do this, but Connex chose not to.
49. Due to the huge number of complaints raised by other drivers, I decided to report the problem to Her Majesty's Railways Inspectorate where I dealt with Amanda Rudd. Miss Rudd was very helpful and said that she wanted to arrange a meeting and I believe that she then threatened Connex with a Health & Safety Improvement Notice. Due to the fact that I instigated this, I suspect I became very unpopular with Connex Management.
50. Although the response by Connex was very slow a full air conditioning system was to be put in place by the Summer of 2000 whereby if the air conditioning unit in any cab was no working, the train would be taken out of service.
51. Exacerbated by the then failure of Connex to react to any issue that I ever raised on healthy and safety grounds, I found that an approach to Her Majesty's Railways Inspectorate would usually illicit a productive response and from late 1997 onwards, I raised many of my health and safety concerns with the Railways Inspectorate as well as Connex Management.
52. The burden upon me in doing so however, was very great both in terms of time and resources.
