• This could easily happen to you
• Vote for Industrial Action to protect yourself and your colleagues

LUL has dismissed Mr. Gyles Henry (SAMF and RMT trade union rep, London Bridge Group) on the following charge:

“Gross Misconduct in that:

On the 5th May 2007 whilst working in the ‘A’ ticket office at London Bridge, you had an altercation with a female customer, after which you reported you had been verbally assaulted and threatened and you left your place of safety, in the ticket office, seeking to locate the alleged assailant, in the ticket hall area. This action put you at further risk of assault and potentially compromised the safety of other staff in the ticket hall area, contrary to LUL Code of Conduct 3.1.1, 3.2.2 and 3.3.1”

This charge resulted solely from a customer complaint which provided no proof to support the charge at all.

If this nonsense had not resulted in a member of staff being sacked it would be laughable. LUL could subject any member of staff to this nonsense and sack you.

Only industrial action to re-instate Gyles Henry will make it clear to management that they must use their disciplinary powers reasonably and have evidence - or staff will withdraw our labour. Otherwise, none of us have any job security at all if management without evidence, reason or sense can dismiss us on the basis of what some person - any person - can write in and say what they think we might have done.

Even the customer complaint asked only that Mr. Henry be censured. Instead LUL summarily dismissed him. Mr. Henry had no case to answer.

Vote for industrial action and start protecting yourself from LUL management’s abuse of disciplinary actions against staff.

=====

All the customer said was:
[with RMT’s comments in italics]

The row between your employee and the [female] customer grew more agitated with your ticketing officer getting increasingly abusive and angry. [the customer did not know what the female customer was saying]

This culminated in him closing the window and coming through onto the station concourse – presumably to continue the argument in person without the barrier of the window. [‘Presumably’? On this customer’s unsupported presumption LUL sacks Mr. Henry!]

Thankfully the young lady saw fit to leave, [Mr. Henry had left the ticket office to clear his head – clearly the female customer was nowhere to be seen and Mr. Henry did not want to speak to her further]

otherwise I believe that physical violence may have resulted. [This customer accuses Mr. Henry that he would have physically attacked a female (but did not) – although the female customer was nowhere to be seen and no such actions took place. LUL will sack a member of staff purely on the basis of what a customer says could have happened – but in reality never did.]

I asked the ticketing officer why he had reacted like this and why he was making all the other customers wait whilst he continued a fruitless argument with a customer. He turned on me and began shouting that “he didn’t have to take s**t like this from anybody” [So, even though Mr. Henry is clearly upset he does not react with physical violence towards this customer – but this customer thinks he can say that Mr. Henry would have been physically violent to the female customer.]