East Lancs Railway

Wrong, I’m afraid. NOT Legally OK. If you open to the public, in comes the Equality Act.

 

There are far too many people in positions of responsibility who have no real understanding of what that means.

 

34072 has arrived on loan and is in passenger service this weekend .
Lucie also in service this Saturday ( three trips to Ramsbottom).

 

I know this is for licensed premises, so would this mean that what the current chairman has done isn’t quite legal?

 

If you complain about discrimination, that’s called a ‘protected act’.

If you suffer detriment because of a protected act, that’s victimisation.

That’s unlawful.

Robin

 

If the ELR management's actions against Joanne have broken the law, what happens next?

 

And the bit of the picture that’s missing right now is the chain that links those two causally. A protected act has taken place, and detriment has been suffered. On what’s publicly visible, I hesitate to draw the causal link between the two, especially given the wider storm this has generated.

It is nonetheless an appalling act, as is the underhanded way in which it appears to have been communicated.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

It provides Joanne with the right to make a civil law claim against the ELR.

Only she can decide if she can be bothered.

My reaction to the Railway is ‘yuk yuk yuk’

Robin

 

I’m going to respectfully disagree, Joanne’s ‘troubles’ appear to me from a distance without having spoken to either side to have started when she raised a discrimination issue with ELR. This appears to have led to her being stopped from Volunteering (a legal grey area and not as clear cut as the HRA would have us believe). And now at the end of the chain she seems to have been banned from the premises.

Up to the point of her raising her complaint it seems she was welcomed at the ELR and was raising through the Footplate ranks with no issues, then suddenly she is not allowed on the premises. So most likely a link can be drawn which started with as Robin says a ‘Protected Disclosure’ and ends with her being removed.

In law things are never clear cut its why Solicitors and Barristers make a living giving their clients side of the story and we have busy Courts and Judges who decide on two people having opposing views who can’t sit in a room and sort out their issues.

My personal mantra viewing things from a purely legal viewpoint has always been that if I have to explain myself in one paragraph to a Judge who knows nothing about me or my business in a years’ time, can I justify my actions? In this case forget the delicate twists and turns of who said what, they won’t matter in Court it’s just “ Joanne was a volunteer here for many years until she complained of being discriminated against and after that instead of protecting her and keeping her volunteering in a safe environment we found an excuse to get rid of her because she was a trouble maker and we didn’t have the time to do it correctly”.

Maybe that’s a black and white view but personally as a business owner, director and ex- Charity Trustee over the last 20 years I would not want to be walking into a court as the ELR on this. Once you walk through the court doors you aren’t in control of the outcome and if you lose the knock-on effect on the ELR will be very large, bad PR and fines will be the least of the worries. Removal of senior players and a re-birth of the business would be the only likely outcome (just ask the CBI !).

My opinion is it would be very positive in the longer run for the Heritage Railway Industry for this to happen, as the Industry headed up by the HRA is clearly in my view so far out of touch in its treatment of people, current thinking and the legal responsibilities it’s going to end badly at some point and it needs a big shock for people to wake up and drag themselves into this century. Just look at the WSR as another current example and the HRA’s support of such behaviour and I know there are others.

That’s just a legal view, morally this is totally indefensible on any level and would have already cost the ELR dearly and it will only get worse.

I was asked to visit the ELR and give some advice on Fundraising a while ago now, which I willingly did (as a volunteer for no charge) so I’ve met and talked to the people at the ELR in the centre of this. There was talk about me being asked to go back and help a bit further. Needless to say I won’t now being doing that under any circumstances for two reasons: 1, I won’t support bad behavior (it’s what got me removed from the WSR and I’m willing to loss my Volunteer Card instead of going with the flow). And 2, I wouldn’t want my name associated with such an organisation, this isn’t a situation where ‘fence sitting’ (another WSR trait!) is an option, it’s too important, its just plain wrong and it’s too visible when it blows up into the public view.

I’m sure the ELR won’t miss my involvement, but there will be others who also feel the same and just quietly slip away so the impact of such bad PR is always far worse than can be measured. I’m also sure @Joanne Crompton has more support than she knows, she has mine and she has no idea I exist as we have never met.

 

I draw similar conclusions to you. But, based on what is in the public domain, I can't take the step from correlation to causality, even if I suspect it exists.

I do however judge ELR on its handling of this case. Whatever the facts of what has happened, and led to the complaints processes that have taken place, the reality is that ELR have taken a very tough approach on one individual who has had both of her complaints upheld. This would be a pretty strong line to take on a volunteer found to have broken the rules of the organisation, let alone one who's made complaints that have been upheld. Recognising that confidentiality applies here, I note that there is no suggestion that any individual(s) complained about have been subject to similar action; if correct, this suggests a fundamental injustice.

I also note the approach taken by ELR, at the time and since. Press statements have taken a "we're being hard done by" tone, the chairman has drawn attention to matters by his use of Twitter, and this banning appears to have been communicated only when Joanne sought to make arrangements with the railway. These are not ordinary behaviours, and they do not speak well of the people or organisations that practice them.

At the mildest possible level, this is extremely poor behaviour. It causes me to doubt the competence, fairness and skill with which the ELR is run. And I also do not wish to support organisations that I know behave in this way.

 

Yes I agree with your and Andy's comments.
Yet in a way even this latest event does not surprise me. There was an article on the BBC News this week about the way whistle blowers are treated in the NHS. Now there is probably more legislation around protection of whistle blowers and yet it appears even senior surgeons are having their career impacted by raising concerns. I am 10 years out of date now, and although at a corporate level we fully supported whistle blowers I know that at a departmental level back them the "how do we get rid of this annoyance" discussion was rife.
So very sadly little of what has happened to Joanne or Robin surprises me when similar activity seems to happen at far larger organisations.

 

It's now transpiring that Joanne has in fact not been banned from the ELR. That it sounds like it starts with the Chair (again), it as ever is proof ELRs people problem lies not on the ground but in the offices.

I'll also put a crisp tenner in the STD4 group bucket if it turns out that she was banned and the kick up caused a U Turn.

 

Well, that’s good news. I look forward to Mr Kelly’s explanation for saying what he did (and a lot else besides).

He would appear to be ideally suited for one of the many Directorships advertised in the past day or two on the WSR. He should fit right in with the culture.

 

On a different (and less important note), I’ve been told that the main reason for the ELR hiring in 34072 for summer is because they’ve managed to break most of their serviceable locos and are way behind in maintenance/repairs. Anyone able to confirm or put that one to bed?

 

I get the feeling that someone’s email account has been hacked this time.

 

Is that the modern / adult equivalent of ‘the dog ate my homework’?

 

Well, 752 and 32 has had prolonged mechanical work recently in addition to the extended retube for 80097. The latter due back in the Autumn supposedly. 34092 went out of ticket in January and is undergoing overhaul ready for this autumn as well

 

Seem strange, the ELR was once host to an enviable fleet but seems to have struggled in recent times.

I read elsewhere that 34092 was expected to be a quick turnaround.

Has anyone heard any recent news on the crab or 47324?

Regards

Chris

 

I've always known it to struggle with its own fleet. Sure hosting mainline locos is great till theyre called up for Jacobite et al.

 

As you clearly know nothing regarding the ELR locos, not surprising that you know not much else about other matters (you're not the only one, though)