£55,000 damages for unfairly dismissed safety rep

pdf version (what's that?)

In what lawyers are saying is a landmark case, Connex South Eastern were ordered by Croydon Employment Tribunal to pay £55,000 damages to Laurie Holden, an ASLEF safety representative. The Tribunal found that Connex was more interested in their public image and cost saving than the safety of the public and its workers.

Laurie, a train driver with over 20 years experience and a safety rep for seven years, resigned after he was bullied out of his job for raising concerns about rail and worker safety. The Chair of the Tribunal said: "Such conduct was found by the Tribunal to have constituted a sustained campaign against Mr Holden." Laurie's health has suffered under the stress of his working environment and subsequently the Tribunal.

Laurie's main concern was the relationship between reduced driver training, long hours culture and the increase in Signals Passed at Danger (SPADs). New driver training had been slashed from a minimum of 390 to 225 hours. He had reports of drivers falling asleep at the wheel on the busiest rail network in Europe and of them working 11 hour shifts without adequate rest breaks. He questioned the superficial and secretive investigations into SPADs and argued the link between fatigue and SPADs was being covered up by the company both internally and externally.

In addition he dealt with mundane, although no less important, safety rep issues such as unsafe walkways, unsuitable seating, smoking policy. And his duties covered potentially disastrous issues including concerns for a potential roof collapse in the Sevenoaks Tunnel. Eventually after Laurie's warnings were ignored by Connex, this happened: a train was severely damaged and major repairs needed to the tunnel.

Paying lip service

Connex continually refused to recognise, or paid lip-service, to Laurie's rights as a safety representative under law. He continually requested a copy of Connex's risk assessment on the changes to driver shift patterns before they were introduced in 1997. Risk assessments are required under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992 and safety reps should be consulted in good time before changes are made. This is a requirement of the Safety Representatives and Safety Committee Regulations 1977 which also give safety representatives the right to have copies of relevant documents.

Connex withheld the risk assessment for years, only disclosing it shortly before the Tribunal hearing in November 2001.

Laurie surveyed his members about their safety concerns and published the results along with his evidence about the rise in SPADs. He gave copies of the report to Connex as well as giving them to his members and the railway safety inspectorate. Connex management were unhappy with this and threatened disciplinary action.

The Tribunal heard that these safety concerns were ignored by Connex who did nothing to investigate them. A disciplinary hearing was ruled a kangaroo court with no proper investigations or findings and was designed to shut Laurie up. Connex SE misused their Managing For Attendance (sickness) Procedures in that Mr Holden was kept on an extended Final Warning. Connex gave Mr Holden disciplinary charges for minor incidents which reached the 'ridiculous' stage of having 6 to 7 final warnings outstanding against him. The company put pressure on Mr Holden to leave and their conduct was such that Mr Holden was entitled to treat his contract of employment as fundamentally broken.

The damning summing up of Laurie's barrister says it all: 'It is submitted that this case involves victimisation on a scandalous level forcing resignation of an extremely long-serving employee who held the best interests of railway users at his heart. Ultimately, it was his dedication and commitment to railway safety that brought about the victimisation.'

The award to Laurie included £18,000 for aggravated damages and injury to feelings. Laurie's solicitor, Paul Maynard, said this was the first time this had ever been given in an unfair dismissal case. The claims against Connex were made under the whistleblower legislation, the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1999 as well as the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Connex are reported to have indicated they will not appeal against the ruling.

Laurie says: "I hope this will act as a warning to all those companies that ignore basic health and safety principles. Even if you are not interested your staff and customers your shareholders may start asking awkward questions."

More detail of the case can be found at csenews.net

See Daily Hazard 66 April 2000 for a similar case with South West Trains.

top of page

Resources page