West Somerset Railway General Discussion

I think the petition is an appeal for common sense to prevail, definitely not a demand.

 

Does the WSRA still support the Joint & Position Statement regarding Somerset & Dorset Railway Trust. 1st May 2020
https://www.west-somerset-railway.c...ement-regarding-somerset-dorset-railway-trust

You, as a signatory to the Joint Statement, must have seen the 'Position Statement: WSR PLC and Somerset and Dorset Railway Trust', or at least what was going into it.
The Joint Statement even says so;
The WSRA and the WSRST were invited by the PLC to understand how the dispute had arisen, and they said they wished to provide any assistance they could to find an amicable solution to the dispute.
The WSR PLC was keen to explain the reasons for their decision to terminate the S & D Trust’s lease of the Washford site,....
The PLC’s reasons are set out in the attached statement.


I note that the WSRA didn't publish the Position Statement on their website, whereas the WSSRT did.
Why didn't it, when it's given the reasons for the action being taken? Surely those are of interest to your members?


(I'm asking here, publicly, as 1. the WSRA are asking the public for money, & 2. they are a registered charity which wishes to access public funds (Gift Aid etc))

 

Presumably the present 500 signatories also see it that way.

 

Andy, please re read my posting. The 'nonsense' I am referring to is that as of the posting by 'MellishR'.
ie double guessing intent etc. and similar obtuse conclusions drawn by others,

Of course there are ( and have been) concerns over the 'Railway' for many years. I am not usually given
to the 'I told you so' school of self aggrandisement but it is a decade or so past ( the last Plc AGM held
at the Regal in Minehead ) that I questioned the recurrent trend whereby increases in overheads
exceeded the pro rata increase in revenue.

The views of the local MP ( not an MP without many critics within his own constituency ) , the
local Schools ( I was until recently a Governor of a local School and also sat on the Exmoor
Federation and was not aware the WSR was ever an issue ) etc. are of course important. As
you have apparently adopted the role of advisor to these various bodies can I please ask if
you can stop, what appears to be another 'nonsense' ie promulgating a petition which is
largely a quest for "motherhood and apple pie" , at a time when the whole WSR needs
support. It hardly helps wrt your mantra "needs all the money it can get" if the local
newspaper tells me as a local resident that there is an anti Plc petition ongoing, why
would I want to support the Plc.

Post 'Covid', when we again have a functioning Railway may be the time to seek change.
As I have posted before " I would like to see an overarching charity ".

But now is not the time.

Please read what I actually write if you are going to tell me of. Thank you.

Michael Rowe

 

1) Unless the Railway (in this case the plc as the issuer of work permits etc) has a Social Media Policy it cannot take any view or action over what anyone posts on social media.
That Policy also needs to be in place prior to any postings which the plc wants to use it against, & it must be made available to everyone it applies to.

If there is such a Policy, then produce it, & explain how any postings have been in breach of it.


2) If someone, or a group, are unhappy with a colleague, then there will be a HR process for them to go through.
That process MUST be followed, as a good process will either lead to the situation being resolved, or if it does lead to a volunteer/employee being removed from post, it will be done in such a way that it protects the organisation against legal action.

"so unpopular with his work colleagues that a delegation demanded that he was excluded"
What if that person was a woman, or black, or gay? What if they were unpopular because their colleagues are simply discriminating against them?
We are a long way from the 1950's & 60s, & no organisation can afford the financial & reputational damage that comes with active discrimination.

 

Just to clarify your last point, the HR policies are in place and the documents are available., so perhaps it is not helpful to repeat incorrect assertions made by others without checking?

Steve

 

What a thoroughly unlpleasant insinuation....

 

That's some interesting comments thank you.

1. Its not my Petition, as has been said previously it is the Petition of a number of concerned people. People can agree with it and sign it or not as they see fit.

2. Its interesting you say that volunteers can only come back if they keep quiet, that is indeed what I have been told directly a number of times as a condition of my return. However that is not what the PLC HR Policies say in the Social Media Policy which allows freedom of speech, and I don't believe 'gagging orders' are good for volunteer engagement.

3. Seeing you are making a direct claim as to how a volunteer was dealt with by the WSR and putting it into the public domain could you please give details of any 'delegation' by others against any volunteer, when, how, who dealt with it and how was it placed into the HR Policies. Its the first I have heard of it and I would be interested in following that through.

4. I have however had a number of other reasons for ID Cards being recently removed, none of which align with the HR Policies and none of which when questioned produced any details. Perhaps seeing you seem to know a lot you could provide the details I have asked for previously. These include a claim the ORR told the PLC to remove one volunteers ID Card because he posted on social media, perhaps we can start with that one, I'm sure the ORR would comment if asked.

5. Here we still are trying to undermine anybody who speaks out on a personal level and a deflection from the issues at hand.

Again the same point: Why are people still trying to alienate people who could help ? Lets start with the local MP he has offered a cross disciplinary team of external agencies to help to save the WSR, yet he is being excluded and lambasted by WSR press statements and a WSRA Trustee on here a few weeks back. Why ?

 

IIRC - without wading back thru' all the posts - it was intimated previously that the WSRA had not seen the Position Statement prior to co-signing the Joint Statement. There were also 'rumours on the grapevine' that at least some Trustees expressed the view that the Joint Statement did not actually mean what it appeared to mean in terms of implying that the WSRA supported the Plc's stance on the S&DRT.

But who really knows what is going on at MD these days?

 

Delighted to be corrected on that point Steve, I follow this thread fairly closely but it is the first I have seen of this welcome news. I trust that the folder on HOPS which I understood to be "locked" to normal volunteers is now open to all and sundry then, and the policies themselves haven't had any suspicious edits in. Forgive my cynicism in that last bit but, well, it's hardly unreasonable given the circumstances.

I'm sure you'll also agree that a group of volunteers ganging up on one other with the aim of kicking them off the railway is extremely troubling, and perfectly illustrates the need for proper HR processes to be in place.

 

Hi Steve

We did of course exchanged PM's over this, and the last point is an update for you.

1. The HR Policies are still (or were 2 weeks ago) not available to view on HOPS.
2. About three weeks ago you emailed asking for a policy and were sent it the same day.
3. On the same day another volunteer (not me) did the same. He didn't get a reply for 2 weeks and then was sent an email saying he could not have it as his ID Card was not valid (he thought it was ?).

I'm not sure what this means, does it mean the Policies apply to all, or randomly, or is there a list of who it does and who it doesn't?

 

I suspect it means that Steve runs an extremely good website publicising the WSR, which does a magnificent job of presenting the WSR at its best, and the other volunteer does not...

 

Well, out of curiosity, I have just logged in to HOPS and find that the HR folder is still marked as 'locked', although my ID seems to be still OK (best keep my head down then ???)

Going back to previous discussions on SMS, the SMS folder info says "This folder contains the WSR Safety Management System and all policy documents referenced with in it..." Well, the HR Grievance Policy is referenced in the SMS document, but appears not to be in that folder....

 

Thank you to all those who have helped us reach 500 signatures in one week. As a group of active volunteers on the WSR we wanted to raise awareness and it appears we are succeeding in this endeavour. The petition remains live.

For those of you who are WSRA members I would like to draw attention to the interesting Acting Chairman’s letter in the latest Journal released today. There are two areas of immediate interest:

1) The Acting Chairman states that on reflection he has come to the conclusion that NOW is the time to review the organisational structure of the West Somerset Railway with a view to putting a Charity at its core. This is a most welcome development and a good sign that at least one of the main groups of the West Somerset Railway recognises that. What interests me more than anything is if this was the contents of the WSRA paper referred to in the latest WSSRT minutes.

2) At the time of writing, the PLC had not yet paid the settlement amount for the transfer of BL shop and Williton. (N.b. The £300K cash in bank mentioned plc statement says £100k of this was held over from the transfer) Offers we’re made to transfer assets to the protection of the WSRA to enable the PLC to keep the money and spend on its requirements whilst keeping within the remit of how the WSRA can spend its money (as a charity). An alternative was to reverse The transaction and Williton and BL shop become part of the wsra again. Both are confirmed by the chairman as not being agreed to and at time of writing the money had not been transferred. I hope this transaction has now taken place, if not given it is now nearly 6 months since the transaction that the charities commission have been informed of a serious charitable incident.

As a bit of light relief on a Friday, Q) when is a Hall a Manor? A) in the wsra journal. (And no I’m not making a dig at the excellent editorial efforts, it just made me chuckle)

 

Oh dear.

 

At 1800 on 12/06/2020 the HR Polices on HOPS were still marked as Locked

 

Which raises an issue;

If the WSRA had not seen the 'reasons', then why did they sign a statement stating that they had?
Even the copy of the Statement published on the WSRA website states "The PLC’s reasons are set out in the attached statement." Yet there is no attached statement.
https://www.wsra.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/20.05.01-Joint-statement-on-SD.pdf


There are 7 WSRA Trustees.
Surely one of them read the Statement before agreeing to sign it?

 

They're not covered by Official Secrets Act 1989, so if they are so readily available, why not post them here?

 

Because they are also private documents belonging to WSR plc? What is of public interest is that they appear not to be available to those entitled to access them; the precise content of them is I suggest a matter that is rightly private within the WSR.

 

Agreed, I have no desire to see them personally, merely that they are satisfactory and available to those to whom they should be.