West Somerset Railway General Discussion

2.3. Members should have policies in place to provide for adequate safeguarding of children, young persons and vulnerable adults, and to guard against harassment, bullying and unfair discrimination or treatment...........................

2.5. Members should not act in a manner which is likely to bring discredit to the heritage railway sector and should seek to ensure that their members and their staff (whether paid or unpaid) act accordingly.

My emphasis.

If the allegations about pressure being put on people to join the WSSRT & how to vote are correct it could potentially raise some interesting Data Protection issues were the alleged threats to be followed through

 

Ian

I didn’t see you jumping to my defence when I was called ‘mentally unstable’, ‘unhinged’ and a ‘trouble maker who needs to be removed from the WSR’ by the PLC Board. Or the S&DRT when they were called ‘Cuckoo’s in the nest’ or other long standing WSR Volunteers & WSSRT Members being called ‘Trojan Horses’ or indeed the same people who your Board (so by default you) called ‘unwelcome distractions staging a hostile take-over bid’ (paraphrase).

And those were just the things said in public, in private people have been called, far, far worse.

Sorry Ian you need the moral high ground before you can tell people what language to use.

The problem with the people in positions of power setting the tone in behaviour and language is they set the example for others to follow, so they must expect people to consider the tone they set as the acceptable norm and except it will be used back toward them.

Emotions are running high currently so perhaps all should just accept that people are going to be less guarded with the words they use and all need to understand more the impact people especially those in senior positions have when they use disparaging language toward fellow volunteers.

One of the many side effects of not having HR Policies in place (interesting to see above in a post linked to HRA Policies that the HRA could have done something about that but choose not to!) is volunteers can insult each other and act as they wish without being accountable for what they do, because there are no ‘rules’, and that of course works both ways.

Could I respectfully suggest that if you feel strongly that people should speak nicely to each other and treat each other with respect (as I also think they should) you start taking your own Board to task, and then the PLC Board and use your influence to get the HR Policies put back so there can be some structure again which drives back toward a positive culture and respectful behaviour by all toward all.

 

Among all the sparring one worthwhile piece of today's news is that the WSSRT has received a donation of £30,000 (+ gift aid).
http://www.wsr.org.uk/news.htm#2191

 

Excellent news

 

Perhaps @Lineisclear might have some comment on how the above requirements are being met by the WSR Board

 

There is brief reference to this subject in the PDG pdf. page 3
http://www.wsr.org.uk/pdgminutes23sep2020.pdf

 

Must be brief, I can't spot it

 

I just hope that the WSR survives to benefit from it

 

"......The training opportunities were being reviewed as were the Volunteer Policy and Grievance and Discipline Policies. A new handbook for volunteers was being produced....."

But...IMHO it is not very clear as to whether these relate to a specific WSR organisation, and if so which one, or to be a generic thing for all the railway.

 

Ah... Thank 'ee.

Urm... How can you review something that is not there? (unless they mean the policies that might have been there but have currently been removed for review???)

 

Probably because the PDG was discussing the possible shape of the future WSR set up.

 

With all the argument and counter argument, its becoming very hard to tell who is being truthful, and who isn't but one thing we do know , beyond doubt is that some directors of the PLC do have a reputation for being a bully, Pretending the problem does not exist does not make the problem go away, if anything, if people do not stand up to a bully, then if anything it will make them believe they can get away with it time and time again.

 

I’ve never been asked. I’m WSSRT member No. 16.

Nor have the other WSSRT ‘core’ members.

Robin

 

There is also the wider issue of trust and whistleblowing.

Let us say someone senior threatens someone else. To whom exactly are they going to report it? In a normal company there are whistleblower procedures, the person whistleblowing can be assured of confidentiality and without fear of repercussions.

Now, given the environment on the WSR, who would feel confident in sticking their head above the parapet and saying that someone more senior had been bullying them? Moreover, I am unclear about what exactly anyone at the WSSRT could or would be able to do to stop it or to stop retributive action against the whistleblower.

Can someone remind me what the WSR HR policies have to say on the matter?

 

They were withdrawn before my recent involvement but from what I understand one reason was that they failed to distinquish adequately between paid employees and volunteers. It's a natural tendency to follow the line that everyone is encompassed by the term "staff" and that the only difference is that one lot are paid and the others lot aren't. Contrary to popular belief the distinction between unpaid volunteers and employees is not clear cut. It depends on a range of factors, not just on whether people are paid or not and regardless of how they are described or intend the relationship to be. There are various indicators or employed status and one is a common disciplinary policy. There is no right to volunteer and volunteers do not enjoy the same protection as employees such being able to bring a case to an employment tribunal. There was a landmark case recently where an athelete tried to claim she was employed by the sports governing body so she could bring a case under the Equality Act ( prohibiting various types of discrimination) as the Act does not apply to volunteers.
The key identifies of employment status is if there is a "mutuality of obligations". It's particularly easy for heritage railways to fall into the trap of creating that situation if HR policies confer rights on volunteers (which are corresponding obligations for the railway operator) whilst at the same time the railways rule book contains statements that volunteers "must" or "must not" do certain things. The essence of being a volunteer is you are free to walk away at any time....a somewhat difficult concept if you happen to be on duty on the footplate or in charge of a signal box! HRA guidance on this is likely to change with the recommendation that volunteers are "expected" or "not expected" to behave in particular ways. What is also important is that disciplinary policies distinquish between terms , processes and sanctions that are appropriate for employees and those that are applicable to volunteers. So for instance suspension might be appropriate for an employee but is a form of punishment for a volunteer regardless of the outcome of an investigation. Similarly it would be inappropriate to provide that dismissal is a potential sanction but rather that the opportunity to volunteer in future may be withdrawn.
Yes, heritage railways should have HR policies that deal with employees and volunteers but they should be different and appropriate to the very different nature of the relationship. At the end of the day the best protection volunteers have is that if the railway doesn't look after them properly it will soon loose the vital resource it depends on. What it must avoid is written policies that allow that good intent to translate into enforceable rights such as entitlement to the minimum wage that could all too easily make it unviable.
If one of the reasons for withdrawal was to ensure that a common policy can be replaced by appropriate ones distinquishing between employees and volunteers then it would have been a prudent decision.

 

That doesn't @gwilialan's question:

So to ask again - how is the WSR Board meeting 2.3 and 2.5?

 

What I do think is that there is a lack of confidence in the judgement of the WSR management & its ability to react appropriately, hence much of he current controversy.

I do not think that this situation would occur in any of the other major heritage lines

 

I would have thought it self evident that if a policy has been withdrawn because it was ill advised and risky then , until replaced, the expectations set out in the code are not being met by a published document. If there was no intent to remedy that as soon as practicable then there would be cause for concern . As I know from experience they are not easy documents to get right and need consultation with a number of people, not least those directly affected by them. That would be challenging enough at the best of times but in the current situation it's hardly surprising if there is a gap.
It's interesting that `a reasonable interpretation of the second part of 2.5 could be seen as obliging the PLC to take disciplinary in respect if some of the more ill advised comments on this Forum have originated from members or staff.

 

The policies have been missing for a long time now (circa 12 months?). It can't be that difficult to consult with other railways and implement best practice? Lockdown in some ways would have helped as people would have had more time to draw up new policies.

But how could the plc take disciplinary action against anyone, when no disciplinary procedure exists???

Keith