Home> Holden verses Connex South Eastern> Witness Statements> L Holden> Paragraphs 94-117: Disciplinary Procedures
Instigation of Discipline Procedures Against Me
94. I would conclude that by the beginning of 1999, Management at Connex had simply had enough of me and that they were either seeking to bully or intimidate me into silence. They sought to do this through the use of the disciplinary procedure, in order I believe to either force my resignation or to be able to sack me.
95. Prior to 1999, I hadn't been subject to the disciplinary procedures at all for 10 years. Many employees go through their whole career in the industry without any Form 1 Disciplinary Forms being served upon them. It is almost unknown to have four in a single year.
96. At a meeting of Health and Safety Representatives in late 1998, the increase in SPADs and safety related incidents since June 1997 (the date of drivers restructuring) was raised by me. I had the support of the other Representatives on this issue. It was decided that we would try to analyse as best as we could the information we had. We would get a list of SPADs from the Loss Control Reports, which were contained in the Health and Safety Library at Blackfriars. They would contain a general description of the incident and the name and depot of the driver concerned. If I didn't know the driver personally I would send them a standard letter. I believe I sent out ten such letters. These letters were designed to reassure the drivers as to why we wanted the information. It was made clear in my letter that the results of the survey would be sent to the Railways Inspectorate, if relevant.
97. I received one written response from a Mr Attard and very many verbal responses to my questions. On 22 February 1999 I was interviewed by the Area Operations Manager, John Thompson, in the presence of a Driver Standards Manager Ivan Reid. I was given no warning of this meeting. He told me that a complaint had been made by a driver, who had found my letter intrusive. I found this very hard to understand. I told him all about the positive responses I had received from many other drivers involved in SPADs, and that they had thanked me for the letter. He said that people view things differently and that my letter could constitute harassment. He told me someone had been dismissed before under the harassment procedures and when I pressed him on this it became clear he was talking about a case of sexual harassment.
98. On 20 January 1999, I was served with a Disciplinary Form 1 concerning two incidents that had occurred earlier in that month. On 7 January 1999, I had been waylaid by other drivers wanting to ask me questions about the changes to be brought into their shift patterns by Restructuring Mark 2. As I was not given any time off to be able to consult at any other time, I had to answer their questions as best and as quickly as I could. There was real and genuine concern in the work force about this issue. As a consequence I was 3 minutes late getting to my train.
99. On 11 January 1999, I was again waylaid by two drivers at the Grove Park depot who also wanted to ask questions about various health and safety matters. I was 8 minutes late starting my train which was empty given that it was something like 4.08 am. I managed to make all of the time up when I got to the first station to collect the first passengers. Delays like this can cause a problem at peak times but this was very early in the morning and a leeway is always given to the drivers in any event. The Hearing took place on 21 February 1999, I received a severe reprimand notwithstanding the fact that my Representative at the Hearing put across forcefully all of the points that I had raised about not having enough time off. On 4 March I lodged a Notice of Appeal and the Appeal was heard by John Thompson, Operations Manager of Metro North on 19 April 1999. Although my Appeal was upheld by Mr Thompson, the letter notifying me of the outcome seemed to me to be at best equivocal. The ASLEF Representative made it clear at the Hearing that Health & Safety Representatives simply had to be released from duty to deal with these issues.
100. On 14 January 1999 I submitted a four sided Report to Stuart Johnson, Her Majesty's Inspecting Officer of Railways. This Report raised genuine and important health and safety concerns which I believed to be in the overwhelming public interest. The main purpose of the Report was to highlight my concern over drivers restructuring and the link to incidents of signals passed at danger and other safety related incidents. Virtually all of that Report dealt with that subject.
101. I received a reply from Stuart Johnson which dealt with very many of the points that I raised in a positive and constructive fashion and at one point he stated 'HMRI recognises the concern that you feel and will continue to monitor the situation closely'. It seemed to me that it was a perfectly legitimate Report to write which highlighted the concerns of very many of the people that I represent and was welcomed by the Health & Safety Executive. Nevertheless in March 1999, Mr Thompson met with me and informed me that he was under a lot of pressure from Friar Bridge Court to deal with me for submitting that Report. He considered that I had harmed company business and subsequently I received a letter which concluded as follows 'by this letter I am warning you that future incidences of conduct that damages the business will be dealt with formerly. As I stated, without prejudging the outcome of that action, the consequences are likely to be serious'. That letter was dated 16 March 1999.
102. In August 1999, I was again disciplined and a formal Hearing was held on 6 August. On this occasion it was an allegation that I was absent from duty on 18 June 1999. What had in fact happened was that on that day my car broke down. The car was spilling fuel all over the road and when I tried to inspect what was wrong with the vehicle, I got my clothes covered in diesel. I telephoned the SDM at Charing Cross immediately. Apparently, the fuel pipe had split without any notice or warning. Normally my car is very well maintained. Due to the tour of duty that I was due to cover, I would have needed my vehicle to get myself home again. In any event, my clothes were soiled due to the repairs and I would not have been able to book on duty in that state any way. I kept the Manager fully informed and stated that I would be available for duty the following day. The repairs to the car itself cost me in excess of £900. I was able to establish at the Hearing that the vehicle had been booked in to be repaired the following Wednesday. It was mentioned by my Representative at the Hearing that I had in any event had a Move Application for 3 years now which had still not been processed by the company. The normal procedure for any other employee in these circumstances would be that he would be permitted to take a days annual leave. I had many days leave owing to me and can only speculate as to the reasons why I was treated differently.
103. The Hearing Officer returned after all of these points were made by stating that I had a responsibility to get to work and had failed to comply with that responsibility. Consequently, I was reprimanded and received a Final Warning. I did file an Appeal which was dismissed. My ASLEF Representative at that Hearing was astonished by the finding and concluded that I had been a thorn in the company's side for so long now that they had decided that they would use any excuse to take action against me. The finding against me was upheld at an Appeal Hearing on 28 September 1999. It seems to me utterly incredible that a hardworking and respected employee of 25 years service can be given a reprimand and a Final Warning because his car breaks down on the way to work.
104. Despite the intimidation and threats made by Connex I felt that I couldn't conscientiously represent the other drivers unless I was free to correspond with the Health & Safety Executive. I began preparing a further Report to the Health & Safety Executive at the beginning of October 1999. After I had started work on the Report, the Ladbroke Grove accident occurred on 5 October 1999. This meant that there was a heightened public interest into the issue of rail safety, yet I reiterate that the Report that I had started to prepare and which I eventually submitted on 10 October 1999 was not I any way connected with the Ladbroke Grove collision nor the consequent publicity. Although the enquiry into that disaster has not yet completed its deliberations, there is a resonance in the issues that I was raising with the Health & Safety Executive and those to be considered by the enquiry. Again the main issue that I raised in the Report was the incidents of signals passed at danger and the link with fatigue and excessive hours work. I also raised a concern about a 44% reduction in practical training of new recruits given the obvious public interest in the issues that I had been raising for a number of years I considered it proper to copy my Report to the Railways Inspectorate to the Deputy Prime Minister in his capacity as Secretary of State for Transport and to Lord Cullen as Chairman of the Public Enquiry into the Ladbroke Grove crash.
105. In response to my report I received a reply from Vic Coleman, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Railways dated 13 October 1999. He thanked me for bringing my concerns to his attention and was kind enough to enclose a copy of the first interim Report on the Ladbroke Grove accident. My Report had been somewhat critical of the Railways Inspectorate policy of 'wait and see' in relation to the issue of SPADs. My criticisms were utterly vindicated because in that letter Mr Coleman confirmed that having kept the situation under review, they came to the conclusion that more action was indeed necessary which is why they issued a critical Report in September. I consider the penultimate paragraph of his letter both resonant and ironic in the context of the steps that I had taken to highlight these issues previously.
106. On 30 November 1999, Stuart Johnson gave a more detailed reply to my Report. He confirmed that HMRI was concerned about the points that I raised about driver training and indeed it will be seen from the second HSE Interim Report into the Ladbroke Grove accident that driver training may be an issue for that enquiry too. Similarly, I was fully backed up in my criticisms of the lack of fire training for train crews. He confirmed that it was unfortunate that the drivers in the SPAD group were not appointed Safety Representatives. He said that he was disappointed that it had taken Connex almost a year to finalise an action plan for the recommendations made in the Report by Halcrow Transmark and he confirmed that there is scope for improvement in the number and quality of safety briefing days and he was not prepared to accept indefinitely that these were being missed because of staff shortages and he was going to take up the point with Connex Management. In short my Report was of the utmost assistance in raising the awareness of HMRI to these issues. I was also thanked on 12 January 2000 on behalf to he Deputy Prime Minister.
107. Unfortunately, Connex did not share their gratitude and viewed my Report somewhat differently. On 22 October 1999, I was called without any warning into a meeting with Mr Edmunds the Driver Standards Manager at London Bridge. I was told that it was to be an investigatory interview in relation to the Report that I had submitted. I had no opportunity to be represented by the Union of which I was a Sponsored Representative and because I had no notice of the interview I was not able to bring any papers to the meeting which I would otherwise have wanted to refer to. I was constantly asked if I had any evidence to back up matters raised in my Report and had I been given notice of the meeting, I could have produced the evidence. Mr Edmunds himself was completely biased against me. I would have thought that Connex would have been able to find an independently minded investigator. As will be seen from the interview that was conducted with me and particularly some of the comments made by Mr Edmunds, he had formed a view on the matters that I raised long before he ever conducted the interview. It occurs to me that that interview as little more than going through the motions as a pre-cursor to pre-ordained disciplinary proceedings.
108. On 4 November 1999, I was charged under the disciplinary procedure with writing and distributing a Report that contained emotive, inaccurate, inciteful personal opinions and statements that are damaging to the company.
109. I contested the charge and on 9 December 1999, a Disciplinary Hearing took place. The Hearing lasted no more than 15 minutes and the charge against me was found proven. It was an odd sort of procedure because there was no-one on the other side. No evidence against me was presented and all I was expected to do was to justify my behaviour. The problem that I had was that I had no idea of the case I was required to meet. I don't know what evidence Mr Skilton took into account but he has been presented with some evidence which I was not privy to in order to reach the conclusion that for example, matters contained in my Report were inaccurate. Had the evidence been produced I would have contested it. Again, the punishment imposed was a severe reprimand and final warning. I wanted to appeal against this punishment but on checking the text of the disciplinary procedure I noted that there is no procedure of appeal against the finding of guilt, merely against the form of punishment imposed. This meant that at no time did I ever have the opportunity of challenging the facts.
110. The punishment itself was formally administered by Mr Edmunds on 22 December 1999. At that meeting, Mr Edmunds re-affirmed the outcome of my Appeal which took place on 28 September 1999 involving the one day's absence when my car broke down. He made it clear to me that any absenteeism would lead to a Form 1 Disciplinary Procedure and that the outcome would in all probability be dismissal. I pointed out to him the unfairness of this and asked for clarification. For example, when yet again there were circumstances beyond my control would this still be the case, if I had to rush someone into hospital, if I had a burst water pipe or my house had been broken into would I still be disciplined? It was explained that although each case would be looked at on its merits the likely outcome would be a Disciplinary Hearing. This caused me considerable concern and added stress. We then moved on to the outcome of the Disciplinary Hearing on 9 December. It was again made clear that any reoccurrence would lead to a Form 1 Disciplinary Procedure and again the outcome would be likely to be dismissal. I wanted to clarify whether Connex would discipline me for carrying out anyone of the various matters outlined in the Charge or whether all of them needed to be present. It was again made clear that I would be disciplined if I carried out any of the matters mentioned in the Charge including writing and distributing a Report to the Railway Inspectorate or writing a Report to them that was in any way inaccurate or contained personal opinions. This made my position as a Health & Safety Representative completely untenable. I simply could not operate on that basis.
111. The meeting then went onto discuss my Managing for Attendance Procedure. It was made clear that I had been on a Final Warning since October 1998 and even though there had been a considerable improvement with 1½ sickness since that time, I was still to remain on a Final Warning until June 2000.
112. Finally, as if the foregoing was not enough, I was handed an envelope containing a further Form 1 Disciplinary Form. This form contained a Charge that I caused unnecessary delay to a train from Grove Park to Charing Cross on 23 November 1999. The Charge stated that I caused the delay 'on my own admission'. The admission that they presumably refer to was my Report of that date when I made it clear that the Stock Placement Sheets weren't finalised and published until after 3.30 which meant that after preparing two trains I wasn't able to begin preparing the third one until later. In short, it simply wasn't my fault so I do not understand how they can rely upon this comment as an admission.
113. This interview occurred some 3 days before Christmas. It became clear to me that all the company were trying to do was to force me out. I really felt that if I wasn't able to communicate at all with the Health & Safety Executive there was no point at all in having me as a Health & Safety Representative. It was after all one of my statutory functions. The final disciplinary procedure on which I had 3 days to reply was the last straw. I decided to tender my resignation by letter on 27 December 1999. A decision that I reached with a heavy heart after having devoted the best part of my life to the railway industry.
114. My resignation was accepted by Mr Edmunds on 4 January 2000 and in his letter and with a heavy dose of irony he stated in light of your seniority and the voluntary work that you have undertaken whilst in our employ, I do not require you to work your period of notice.
115. Two days later I wrote to him to confirm the outcome of the meeting that took place on 22 December and I have never received a reply to that letter. So I assume that my interpretation of the facts is correct.
116. As if all of that was not enough, I received a letter from Mr Edmunds on 29 February 2000 stating that I had recently appeared on television wearing items of Connex uniform. The letter finished with a direct threat stating that if I did not respond consequences could include placing a lien on my pension. This seem to me an extremely heavy handed and misguided threat. I made it clear to Mr Edmunds that the uniform that I had been wearing during the interview was 2-3 years old and I had already checked with him that the only uniform that he wanted to be returned was the current issue. I pointed out that I objected to the unnecessary really hostile and threatening tone of his letter. He replied asking for all property to be returned and stated that he did not consider his letter threatening and that the purpose of informing about my pension was to give me information and that I should not have interpreted it differently! Since leaving the employment of Connex my health has improved considerably. Initially my Doctor signed me off work with stress and depression. The stress of the last few months of my employment had been overwhelming and had not only affected me mentally but also physically. I had suffered badly with asthma and had developed psoriasis which I understand to be stress related. My Doctor eventually certified that I was fit for work and I was able to stop the counselling sessions because the stress had just lifted.
117. [This section dealing with Remedy was not read out. To be dealt with at the hearing dated 15 February 2002.]
Laurance Holden
Dated: 5 March 2001
Paragraphs 94-117: Disciplinary Procedures> L Holden> Witness Statements>
Holden verses Connex South Eastern > Home
