Ashley Reed - final statement on Friday 27 March
Series of Events
1.
On the 21st June 2024 from the
moment I was suddenly taken off the road by supervisors at Bournemouth Square whilst
midway through my morning shift, and asked to take a public bus back to the
Poole depot (as a passenger) to report to Damien Robson – only to find myself
suspended from duty – it was hard not to feel singled out in some way, after
receiving such a disproportionate and over the top reaction from the depot’s
management; despite Alanah Hughes, the Assistant Operations Manager, initially
saying the day before that she just wanted me to “pop in for a chat” when it
was convenient and that I had “nothing to worry about.”[1]
2.
On the 1st July, accompanied by my
representative, Martin Conder, I was denied the legal right to see what had
been written against me in the form of a grievance for an investigation
conducted by Alanah Hughes. Nevertheless, I answered all the questions posed to
me throughout the investigation, without objection.[2] Unfortunately, what
followed was another lingering period of silence for the rest of the week from
what was in essence a meeting that had concluded constructively. Both Martin
and I expected that I would be returning to duty in more or less immediate
terms after what was a positive hearing; however, towards the close of business
on Friday 5th July I was informed through Alanah to attend a second
investigatory hearing on Monday 8th July.[3] At this stage, having
answered all the questions put to me in categorical terms, there was really
nothing else I could add. I contacted Alanah and she agreed to hold an off the
record conversation on Saturday 6th July when she called me in the
evening. I was then informed that Martin would not be allowed to attend the
second hearing on Monday because she claimed there was a “conflict of interests.”[4] I was left to guess as to
how and why the picture was starting to get more complicated and at very short
notice Jo Pilley agreed to represent me.
3.
On 8th July I was informed that
following the first investigation, two more grievances that had not been
previously mentioned had been submitted by Branch Officials under Mark Gale’s
RMT Poole Branch Committee, namely Jason Gosling (who had replaced Mark Gale as
Branch Secretary) and Donna Jones (newly elected Chair).[5] Throughout the hearing I
was only able to answer questions posed to me from Alanah Hughes who was
consulting the statements. At the end of the meeting, despite extensive
exchanges between Alanah Hughes and Jo Pilley, I was informed that the whole
process was now moving from a grievance to a disciplinary hearing that was
scheduled to take place only two days later.[6] Without negatively
foreshadowing what was starting to feel like a witch-hunt, it felt as if by
failing to resolve what was no more than a verbal disagreement, that I had
already been “found guilty” by the company. I had also been informed that Martin
Conder could no longer represent me through the disciplinary process and that
this was due to a potential grievance that could be submitted against him. What
it meant in the immediate sense was that my chosen representative from the
first investigation had been moved sideways by the depot’s management. Jo
Pilley kindly agreed under pressured circumstances to represent me through the Disciplinary
Hearing.
4.
On the 10th July 2024 I was summarily
dismissed from post by the Operations Manager, Andy Shaw. I felt a gross sense
of injustice by such an unconscionable decision from the Operations Manager to enforce
the worst possible sanction? On what grounds?
It felt so disproportionately prejudicial, that the framing of the
entire case by the depot’s management centred around three Branch Officials,
was clearly an act of discrimination: I had been forced to provide emails
during the disciplinary hearing itself – that had been exchanged within the
bounds of the union – to prove that I had not “harassed” a Branch Official (his
grievance was then discounted in the second half of the hearing)[7] provided clear evidence that
I was being targeted for my own trade union beliefs, principles and philosophy.[8]
5.
It also has to be considered that the
allegations that were made followed months of acrimony amongst the membership
of RMT after a disputed Branch election and an intense lead up to the pay talks
ballot;[9] not at any stage had
complaints within the jurisdiction of the RMT’s codes of conduct been made
against me. There were no valid grounds or justification for dismissal, or indeed,
any evidence of wrongdoing; throughout the entire hearing Andy Shaw had
rejected everything I said in reply to statements I still hadn’t seen. The
entire process leading up to the dismissal had inexorably foreshadowed what
felt like a predetermined outcome.[10]
6.
No other alternative means to resolve Mark
Gale’s initial grievance had been considered, either in terms of mediation or a
verbal or a written letter of concern? Furthermore, despite Mr Shaw confirming
I had been nominated previously for employee of the month, he seemed determined
to contrive a narrative based on unfounded allegations that portrayed me in a
poor light and no matter what reassurance or explanation I gave to the contrary,
he was intransigent, and wasn’t prepared to listen without rancour or judgement.[11]
7.
Andy Shaw inauspiciously delivered his
summing up and despite having acknowledged my exemplary employment record, callously
dismissed me. In doing so, he completely contradicted any justification he had
set out in his introductions when he reassuringly asserted that he was
overseeing a “fair and just” hearing. His constant reiteration in an accusatory
way referring to my intensity, ‘especially when out of the building’[12] exemplified in stark
terms how his egregious decision to dismiss was so discriminatory, after
considering no evidence that had been central to my trade union beliefs,
principles, and philosophy; and critically, the animosity and resentment
directed maliciously at me from the three individuals who I had held accountable
in writing had all, collectively, submitted grievances.[13] On the 25th
July, after receiving no official notification in the post, I eventually had
confirmation of my appeal from Katie Way that was scheduled for the 29th
July 2024.[14]
8.
On Monday 29th July Richard
Tyldsley from the very beginning of the Appeal Hearing centred his opening
statements around the company’s nebulous conduct and performance policy and who,
in a similarly inflexible manner to Andy Shaw, appeared to be sticking to a
prearranged script. Nothing I presented to him from my perspective was going to
make any difference to his decision to uphold the dismissal.[15]
9.
After the interval when my representative,
Martin Conder and I had returned for the decision, we were forced to stand in a
locker room before we were turned away again. To my dismay, on four consecutive
hearings I had been denied a copy of the statements that from the start of the
investigation to the appeal were utilised to dismiss. How can Mr Tyldsley
justify saying ‘there was nothing unusual’ – (after all the evidence that has
been presented to the Tribunal) – and then casually quoted the ‘Equity,
Diversity, Inclusion & Dignity at Work’ policy to support Andy Shaw’s
decision? According to Mr Tyldsley this ‘was fair and reasonable under the
circumstances’ when there was no evidence of harassment or intimidation and I
had supplied emails from outside the workplace to substantiate my defence? What
do the company policies stand for in concern to protecting my wellbeing in the
workplace under circumstances such as this? Where is the company’s duty of
care? Mr Tyldesale’s summing up disregarded all of the facts from my
perspective as he was singularly determined to uphold the decision. If his
contradictory statement ‘that CCTV was not crucial to the decision’ when it had
shown no evidence of anything untoward in my demeanour (but it had not been included
throughout the entire process) and then concluded in his summing up by saying ‘therefore
I do not feel it in any way means that the award was not fair and reasonable,’
begs the question: how can More Bus deny discrimination?[16] Critically, the CCTV
footage had been dropped for the disciplinary hearing because it showed no
evidence of any wrongdoing compounded by Mr Tyldsley also dismissing out of
hand the breach of procedure that was specifically raised concerning the
grievance process, by stating that ‘this had not impacted the award [to
dismiss] being fair and reasonable’?[17] If the CCTV footage
supports my case then it certainly wasn’t “fair and reasonable.” In fact, all
three criteria that we had cited during the course of the appeal – dispute of
evidence, breach of procedure and the severity of award – weren’t remotely considered
by Mr Tyldsley because inexplicably, ignoring everything that was presented to
him, he obstinately stated without showing any apparent concern for what was
clearly an injustice: ‘Overall, I found no evidence that the award to dismiss
you was not fair and reasonable.’[18]
Historical
Context – Trade Union Beliefs, Principles, Philosophy
10. When
I started my employment at Go South Coast in December 2023, I was starting in a
new workplace that was facing Branch Elections within the RMT. As an
experienced Shop Steward for Unite the Union having previously served as a
committee member with Martin Conder at Yellow Buses, I was well aware, as a
committed trade unionist, of how important it was to navigate the probation
period successfully and without incident. I was cautious. I had never met Mark
Gale the serving Branch Secretary with RMT in person at this point but I had
first met, Jason Gosling, who served as his Assistant Secretary, when I was
completing the recruitment process during my induction period. He addressed a
classroom of new drivers so that he could introduce the trade union and I was
the only driver present who signed the RMT membership forms there and then and
he welcomed me to the Poole Branch of the union in December 2023.
11. On
the 30th January I asked Jason Gosling via WhatsApp about why there
had been no communication from Branch officials to inform members prior to such
an important ballot scheduled for the first week in February? I stated that ‘there has been
very little communication about the voting process, through posters and
leaflets etc - that there will be a ballot box at the depot for all members to
register their votes and of course a way of electronically voting.’[19]
I also inquired about whether there would be provisions for members who were on
holiday or off sick? He did reply asking me to reach out to one of his
colleagues, Phil Coakley (Mark Gale’s number 2). Later on that day an
announcement appeared on the union board in the depot at Poole. Many of our
comrades at the Bournemouth and Poole depots were left disappointed by Branch Officials
who were reluctant to engage and appeared content to hide behind a wall of
silence. As members we were expecting some kind of enthusiasm, yet it was
self-evidently clear that we would not have the latest and most reliable form
of electronic voting available to us for such an important ballot and we were
left dismayed at the complete lack of information available to members with
very little to no communication from elected Branch Officials leading up to the
vote.[20]
12. On Sunday 11th
February 2024 at the Parkstone Labour and Trade Union Club, it was confirmed that
both Jason Gosling and Donna Jones were elected to serve as Branch Secretary
and Chairperson. What I had ultimately witnessed at the count after a shambolically
conducted election symbolised what many members described as a “shoo-in”. It
had never occurred to me from this point on that I would be sacked for my
desire to see a functional union representing its members, by holding our
Branch Officials to account. Both the elected candidates and the retiring ex
Secretary at the Parkstone count were central to targeting my removal from the
workplace by making false allegations and exaggerating claims pertaining to
internal emails that not once contravened the RMT rule book. Can the same be
said for Branch Officials breaching data and confidentiality and disseminating
false allegations?[21]
It has subsequently been revealed through the release of the statements that
Geoff Kite, the Regional Organiser, despite his denial, was well aware of them
from the initial investigation when Donna Jones submitted her statement.[22]
13. As a committed trade unionist, I
was asked to assist an increasingly pressured and frustrated membership, to
step beyond our local Branch Officials under the jurisdiction of our Regional
Organiser, Geoff Kite, and instead on the 13th February 2024 I wrote
directly to Mick Lynch, General Secretary of RMT, to report our concerns (which
as a member I am perfectly entitled to do).
14. During the course of the election,
it was clear that our branch was not going to be prepared appropriately for the
looming pay talks without the intervention of the General Secretary. What was a
formal complaint though internal RMT procedures encapsulated a number of
collective concerns – including terms and conditions that had been eroded post
Covid19 – that as members we were keen to address through the pay talks.
15. In the opening introduction, my
own beliefs and principles as a trade unionist are clear, encapsulating what I
wanted to ensure our union embraced in a more democratic spirit of
accountability on behalf of its members, beyond just collecting subscriptions
with little to no input into the process of how we were going to organise: ‘With
our members facing an increasingly uncertain future, when it comes to pay,
terms and conditions, and addressing the company's attitude towards scheduling
- cutting back on walking time and extending our duties - it is imperative that
our trade union is seen to address these issues head on, and provide the means
to support our members through the forthcoming pay talks with Go Ahead, with
the kind of dedication and commitment our members are expecting during the
coming months. We simply can't afford to approach the talks with such a growing
sense of disunity, shedding members as a result, following an election that
many of our comrades feel has been corrupted. The extraordinary circumstances
we are faced with now without a suitably agreed resolution, has left me no
other option but to appeal to you, our General Secretary.’[23]
16. On the 22nd February,
whilst waiting to receive a response from the General Secretary’s office, I wrote
directly to Geoff Kite the Regional Organiser, with further evidence to submit
for the investigation and to inform him of a development that took on a
momentum of its own with the launch of a petition that had exceeded over 130
signatures (and rising) in a period of just four days. To say that the petition
had been well received was an understatement. At no point had the request to
rerun the election become personalised in any way with the naming of
individuals or any form of intimidation, harassment or bullying. The petition
put to the driving community as a whole stated:[24]
17. RMT Poole and District bus branch
– Petition ‘Following the 2024 AGM held on Sunday 11th February and the
results in regards to the branch secretary and the branch chair, we demand a
re-run of the ballot. By signing this document, as a member, we demand a fair
and equal field for all nominees under proper voting conditions. As a non member,
I can confirm I would join the union if its branch became transparent and
honest, putting its heart into its members.’ It was disappointing that Geoff
Kite, the Regional Organiser had dismissively discounted the petition because
it included signatories that had also left the union in protest. I was also
bemused because he had discounted non-members who had refused to join (until
there was greater accountability and transparency within the Branch), and furthermore,
showed no concern for a large proportion of existing members and the pressure we
were all beginning to experience in the workplace.
18. The Regional Organiser had seemed
more concerned about members organising before the scheduled pay talks, than
actually resolving the internal issues that were potentially self-defeating and
irrevocably damaging the trade union, prior to a critically important stage
preparing for talks. Furthermore, he was blatantly looking for an excuse to
disparage any challenge to the status quo by attempting to deflect with obfuscation
a ‘them and us’ style stand off as something beyond his control; this did not
distract from the fact a petition demanding a rerun of what was clearly a
corrupted election was not all down to members who had worked at Yellow Buses following
its collapse in July 2022 with Go South Coast subsequently establishing an
outright monopoly in Bournemouth and Poole. Geoff Kite, certainly refused to
recognise that there were colleagues from Yellows who had joined RMT and the
failure surrounding the question of apathy from within was not an excuse to
cast blame towards us. It was my belief that the Regional Organiser should have
been more motivated to grow the union from within and seeking dialogue with the
membership, that could resolve what had become an impasse in relations to
prevent a full-blown internal dispute from developing. I brought experience
within the industry as a committed trade unionist and reiterated to him in
writing that the petition could not be ignored: ‘to suggest that over 160
signatures (and rising) are not members just isn't true. In fact, we also have
elected representatives, company officials, and supervisors, who have all
signed the petition and are of course, members of RMT.’[25]
19.
Also submitted for Geoff Kite and Mick Lynch (cc’d) was a letter from
Sue Levell. She gave a succinct account documenting her concerns after
observing the ballot count: she questioned how the boxes were emptied and then
counted without being cross referenced back to the particular depot concerned
where ‘there was no paperwork of totals of corresponding voters, no checking
that the amount of votes inside each box tallied with the amounts of votes cast
for that particular depot.’[26]
After an election to elect Branch Officials is conducted so haphazardly where
members feel duped by a lack of a transparency, it is hardly surprising that
there was an organised reaction to expose the systemic failings of a local Branch
that had never previously been held accountable. It should not have surprised
Geoff Kite that a number of issues in our workplace had caused so much
consternation and undermined the validity of the result. Sue Levell, makes a
strong case for the ballot result to have been annulled; the most disgraceful
example of administrative negligence was that past RMT members who were
deceased were still named on the register to vote. Miss Levell also witnessed
that some votes were left blank and other discrepancies that should have
resulted in votes being cast as ‘voids/spoils and removed from the totals.’ What
concerned fellow members who were left angered, disincentivised and were
understandably vitriolic in their condemnation towards newly elected Branch Officials
when leaving the count was that during the whole process there was no official
overseer during the count itself and most alarmingly ‘the ballot boxes were
transported to the count in a candidate’s vehicle.’[27]
20.
Also included for Geoff Kite’s investigation was a screenshot evidencing
a conversation between two members who had reported that the RMT representative
at the Pimperne depot had instructed members to vote for Jason Gosling and
Donna Jones. Absolutely no information had been made available about Pimperne
because their pay talks were being held in May before our negotiations in Poole
and Bournemouth and if their votes comprised a critically important part of the
count then why wasn’t this made clear by RMT Branch Officials? No stand down
time had been available to Martin Conder and other candidates and this had
caused a lot of anger. As the screenshot from the Pimperne depot demonstrates after
Jason Gosling and Donna Jones, two key campaigners standing for important
positions who were both given time off work whilst the other candidates were denied
the opportunity, the election had been steeped in cloak and dagger secrecy and
a culture of gerrymandering, and as the petition stated: ‘By signing this
document, as a member, we demand a fair and equal field.’[28]
21.
On the 15th April I received a reply from Mick Lynch, the
General Secretary acknowledging our complaint. Although Brother Lynch states
that ‘I am satisfied that the processes you have referred to have been carried
out satisfactorily and in line with our rules’ he could only have made such a
conclusion on the basis of ‘the information supplied to me on this matter, including
a report from the Regional Organiser Geoff Kite,’ and he differentiates between
‘processes,’ and how he had noted that our complaint specifically questioned
how the election had been ‘conducted:’ ‘However, I do note that the
thrust of your complaint indicates you are dissatisfied with a decision of the
Branch and the way the election was conducted. As such, it would be necessary
for you to appeal the decision of the Branch to the Union’s National Executive
Committee under the provisions of Rule 10 (Branches & Branch Officials),
Clause 36 (Dissatisfied Member).’[29]
22.
What this process involved was another layer
of procedural bureaucracy and although this appeared to complicate how we could
take our concerns forward, it ultimately provided dissatisfied members the green
light so we could pursue our complaints through the Poole Branch itself and
negotiate an appropriate resolution. Ultimately, Brother Lynch had supplied an
email address for our Poole District Branch so members could have a proper
means of communication directly with our elected Branch Officials.
23.
Ultimately, from this point on all
correspondence went through Mark Gale, Jason Gosling, Donna Jones and Geoff
Kite: we were then left submitting our complaints as individual members through
the Branch Officials who were central to our concerns. On the 18th
April, in reply to Brother Lynch, I
expressed on behalf of members who felt a growing sense of frustration within
the Branch that: ‘For Geoff Kite to suggest that this was simply a factional
issue grossly misrepresents RMT members at our depots; this indicates to me
that the scope of his investigation was in fact quite limited, and therefore
his findings were subjectively based on compiling his report from statements
provided to him by Branch Officials.’ I also asked why members who had supplied
evidence sent directly to Geoff Kite ‘have not yet been questioned by the
investigatory team? Further to our concerns detailed above, we can
categorically supply evidence for our appeal, that includes non-members,
expired members, and two deceased members, who were also still on the voting
list.’[30]
I also submitted the ‘Formal Appeal of Complaint’ to the Poole Branch as I had
been instructed to do in accordance with internal RMT procedures.[31]
24.
On the 1st May I informed Jason Gosling as per RMT procedure.
My worst fear was realised when having followed the instructions from the
General Secretary I was now in a potentially confrontational exchange of
correspondence with one of the officials at the heart of our complaint. After
receiving a short reply from Jason Gosling I had to ask him once more to
forward my letter: ‘as I've requested, in procedural terms, all you have to do
is forward my appeal to the NEC; you can do so by emailing it directly to
Fraser Scott at necregion12@rmt.org.uk this evening. The
complaint reference number is: Ref O/12/5.’ I had no written confirmation
that my appeal had been submitted.[32]
With no response forthcoming within our Branch I replied to Geoff Kite to try
and enable a meeting. My expressed belief was that as a Branch preparing for
pay talks, we fell a long way short of the standards required to collectively
stand in unity as a ‘strike ready’ trade union; which as a point of principle was
where we needed to be preparing for pay talks, as had been clearly demonstrated
on the Rail side of RMT. Disappointingly, it was impossible to do so when there
is no communication to organise, discuss, exchange ideas, and build the kind of
solidarity in the workplace we needed to prepare, for the first round of pay
talks in five years. There was no collective understanding or a philosophy of
togetherness towards building trust between serving members of the union, and
our remote, detached representatives, when there is absolutely ‘no indication
from Branch Officials as to what they are proposing on behalf of the members,
and neither have we been consulted yet? Why is this?’ Nothing had been
addressed since the meeting on 14th April at the Labour and Trades
Union Club in Parkstone. JDB also highlighted on social media that Branch
Officials had failed to supply the agreements (detailing break bonuses for
split shifts)[33]
and other questions raised by JDB on the drivers’ board.[34]
25.
On the 7th May Geoff Kite’s reply did not appear to be coming
from a position of integrity and I believe he brought his position as a
Regional Organiser into disrepute, sarcastically replying with completely
unrealistic figures: ‘I can assure you that within pay talks that an increase
in wages is needed but why ask for £19.28 surely, we should be aiming for over
£20 per hour which is only a 60% increase. Let’s hope all the members stand
together on the picket line when the company only offer 7% or less.’ As an employee
of RMT Geoff Kite’s diabolically condescending response to a paying member
trying to organise and prepare for pay talks is disgraceful.[35]
26.
During both investigations and through the disciplinary hearing with
Andy Shaw I was mystified by the nature of some of the questions deriving from
statements that I had been denied from reading. Despite the ongoing
investigation with the Appeal to the NEC having been submitted, I wrote the one
single email that I’d addressed to Donna Jones directly after we had talked
together within a concerned group of other RMT members, bewildered at the
complete lack of direction with no communication from Branch Officials, in what
was a general discussion in the canteen. She seemed perturbed by my stating “all
we can do is stand together and work at ensuring we're strike ready” but it was
an easy enough conversation after months of tension which was a positive
development. It went without saying that emails sent to Poole District Branch internally
sat within the bounds of RMT – this has nothing to do with workplace policy to
those in elected positions who have a duty of care towards serving RMT members:
‘In the interests of transparency, building trust and faith, I forwarded all
the correspondence below believing you would be receiving these communications
as Branch Chair.[36]
27.
On the 6th June I wrote to Jason Gosling again having raised
the question concerning E-voting at the AGM but nothing had progressed since
then: ‘Please could you confirm at the earliest opportunity that electronic
voting will be utilised during the forthcoming pay talks? We have recently had
confirmed by our Regional Office that 99% of all referenda conducted by the NEC
are now run via 'choice voting' who had also implemented e-referendum for the
Damory pay offer, so there is no reason at all why we shouldn't.’[37]
28.
On the 11th June, through RMT procedures I submitted a formal
complaint to the Poole Branch under Rule 10, Clause 36, regarding disrespectful
and insulting comments made on social media by Branch Chair, Donna Jones, that
brought her position as Chair into disrepute.[38]
It was outrageous behaviour from an elected Branch Official to have been casting
aspersions like this: "we have a disruptive element unfortunately, who
enjoy sharing half truths and winding everyone up." Within the workplace
this statement was incendiary and caused resentment and distress to fellow union
members. From this point on I avoided the canteen whenever possible.[39]
29.
On the 21st June, JK, writing on
social media the day after the pay deal was announced after only one round of
negotiations, reflected a mood of anger within the workplace when he stated on
the GSC drivers board: ‘I’ve heard a lot of interest today from people wanting
to leave the union’ and added ‘numerous drivers didn’t receive E ballots for
this vote, (my email was up to date and still had to call and request an email
from them) so it makes you think what the outcome would have been had they been
properly prepared for the vote. I don’t want to personally pay for a union
membership where the union aren’t properly providing for its members.’[40]
30.
The 21st of June 2024 was a
significant day that is etched into my memory for very different reasons
following the pay ballot announcement: it was the day that Mark Gale submitted
his grievance and I was suspended from service.
The Statements – Grounds for Dismissal?
31.
On the 11th September 2024 I submitted a Subject Access
Request to Nicola Friend of Human Resources at More Bus so I could access my ‘staff
file, all my personal data, emails and all correspondence associated with my
case’.[41]
At the close of business on deadline day, 10th October, I was still
denied the opportunity of reading three statements that were utilised to
dismiss me.[42] I also
submitted a DSAR with the RMT on the 27th September and later informed
the ICO on the 27th November of my intention to pursue ‘a formal
complaint against the RMT, as they have also failed to comply with my request.’[43]
32.
After liaising with the Independent Commissioner’s Office on the 12th
November having followed their guidance by writing further to Paul Staiano of
Go Ahead, I had been ‘provided dates that clearly illustrate the time lapse
between the original grievance and the supporting statements and the nature of
the false allegations, he is still refusing to supply the statements in their
entirety (minus relevant redactions)’ but it took until 1st September
of 2025, a year later, after the Preliminary Hearing in May for More Bus to
finally produce the statements.[44]
33.
My first visceral reaction to reading Mark Gale’s statement was
realising why the company had refused to supply them and of course the CCTV
footage that the company dropped because it didn’t evidence anything untoward. He
stepped on to my bus as I was in the driver’s chair and packing away and I was
keen to leave – this was hours before the pay deal announcement – and Mark Gale
certainly wasn’t short of an opinion himself; I certainly didn’t conduct myself
in a way that he is implying. This was discussed in detail during the first
investigation. How did he feel ‘trapped and intimidated’ after I’d left the bus?
It just doesn’t make sense. Neither does the account of the second conversation
which isn’t just a fabricated exaggeration, because it deflects from the fact
that he was busy trying to create a scene (which myself and the other drivers
weren’t interested in) so he could leave work (something he is known for
amongst the driving community).[45]
I consider what he has written as a malicious act in itself, because it attacks
my character vindictively and with intent to cause harm. Worst of all as the
outgoing Branch Secretary (he has vast experience and has utilised the
grievance process) he brazenly provides the pointers for the company towards
the two Branch Officials facing formal complaints under ‘Rule 10 Clause 36’. What
exactly does he mean when he states: ‘Whether those intentions are aimed solely
at me or include Jason and Donna. I will make them aware of the threat so they
can make their own considerations.’[46]
Both subsequently submitted grievances through the company. Why am I accused of
posing a ‘threat’? What is he talking about? A threat to their positions within
the RMT? No wonder the statements were withheld because in all reality there
are no grounds to initiate a disciplinary, never mind a dismissal. Unsurprisingly,
the two named individuals in Mark Gale’s statement step forward to oblige. Donna
Jones discusses emails with the management that sit outside the workplace that
have been sent within the bounds of the RMT, that I had written as a dedicated
trade unionist focused on improving our working pay, terms and conditions; and
by holding Branch Officials accountable, strengthening our union: Donna Jones confuses this with harassment and
being intimidated? I’ve never emailed or had a conversation with her that
personalises anything but Donna Jones certainly has in her statement towards me
and when she cast aspersions on social media. Not once did she complain or did
the union or company question me about any of these conversations. A lot of interaction
takes place in the workplace and I am always respectful; there had never been
any previous complaints made about me at all.[47]
34.
Jo Pilley, my representative in the 2nd investigation and
through the disciplinary hearing states that, ‘it
was clear that her grievance was a fabrication and that Mr Reed neither
harassed or intimidated her’ and I think the evidence I’ve provided clearly
illustrates in my correspondence directly addressed to her through RMT, that I
am polite and respectful. Jo Pilley was part of an RMT representatives WhatsApp
group at the time and recalls that ‘Donna Jones commented to the WhatsApp group
that she had seen and spoken to Ashley Reed on certain days and that she had
dealt with him and his questions and that he was no problem.’[48]
35.
Although Jason Gosling’s statement was dismissed
from the disciplinary hearing by Andy Shaw, the damage had been done. JG’s
statement is mendacious and violates all the principles concerning honesty and
integrity that a Branch Official should be upholding on behalf of their members
and he, too, brings his role within the RMT into disrepute.[49]
To claim that he was frightened to come into the workplace is nothing but pure
fiction. He only works three days a week, and two days of the three are spent
away from the depot. On the day that he does come into the depot there is a
pool of over 300 staff, so the chances of me being a threat to him (which I’m
not anyway), when I’ve hardly seen him in the workplace are extremely remote. When
I have seen Jason Gosling, I’ve been no threat to him whatsoever: these
allegations are baseless and completely unsubstantiated which is presumably why
his statement was thrown out of consideration by Andy Shaw.[50]
36. One
final thought regarding the three Branch Officials and the Regional Organiser:
I was never once questioned, spoken to informally or warned formally by RMT Officials
regarding harassment, intimidation or bullying; and the reason that I wasn’t is
because I have never harassed, intimidated, or bullied anyone, let alone Branch
Officials either in person or through email correspondence at any given time.[51]
37. Yet, Andy
Shaw still tried to justify in the disciplinary hearing that the ‘most sinister
people don’t have negative body language on CCTV – it doesn’t prove anything’ that
clearly illustrates that whether he was either knowingly, or unconsciously
painting a negative picture he was nevertheless discriminating against me;[52]
especially when the company had made the independent decision not to provide
the CCTV footage and three statements – they supplied nothing, in terms of
evidence, at all, and yet Andy Shaw refused to enact any other sanction but
dismissal after he had indisputably observed for himself that no intimidation
had taken place from emails I had supplied during the disciplinary hearing.[53]
38. In
conclusion, it has proved an incongruous situation to have spent over a year
trying to obtain the three statements that were used to justify my dismissal,
only to discover the real reason why they had been denied, after Employment
Judge Midgley had ordered on May 9th at the Preliminary Hearing that
they’d be supplied on the 1st September: Donna Jones’s statement as
did Jason Gosling’s, relied on email communications that were anything but intimidatory
or harassing in nature; they did however sit outside the workplace within the
union’s jurisdiction and should not have been utilised by the company. Despite
knowing these emails sat within the Poole Branch the company were still willing
to breach my own confidentiality using data protected material. The content of
these emails clearly illustrates my desire and commitment as a trade unionist
and should have been resolved at the first Grievance Hearing on the 1st
July 2024. The fact it wasn’t points towards that initial stage during the
investigation between Mark Gale submitting his statement and the first
investigation, and then something untoward going on, before more statements
materialised from Donna Jones and Jason Gosling. After all had passed from the
Branch elections, the petition, the subscriptions discrepancy, electronic
voting, and the lead up to the pay talks, I was undeniably discriminated
against for my trade union, beliefs, principles and philosophy, when Andy Shaw
dismissed me, as evidenced in all the written material that I have submitted
for the Tribunal.
39. Throughout
every stage of the process from the first investigation to the Appeal Hearing to
the involvement of ACAS and the entire Tribunal process, I’m left confounded by
the fact that I was dismissed so expediently with no evidence of any
intimidation, harassment or bullying, either inside or outside of the workplace
at any given point in time. I will always remain a committed trade unionist and
support anyone in the workplace that may ask for help in their hour of need. I’ll
always pass that experience on if I can. Thank you for listening.
Remedy
1)
Reinstatement
2)
Schedule of Loss submitted for Tribunal: Net Claim –
£29.803
Word
Count: 6,298
[1] Message
evidenced by my witness as this was later deleted from the internal company
messaging system known as ‘Blink’ that Alanah Hughes had used to communicate
directly with me. I reported in twice, but she had been called out to
investigate an accident.
[2] 38:
pp154 - 156
[3]
Received message of notification on Blink.
[4] 40:
p158 – First mention from AH of other grievances being submitted was in her off
the record phone call which is why MC could not attend and was taken out of the
equation against my wishes.
[5]
40: pp158–162
[6] 40:
p162
[7]
42: p171 Andy Shaw dismisses Jason Gosling’s account: ‘I accept that the
allegations here appear to be unfounded – the investigation has indicated there
is no case to answer.’
[8] 42; p167 Andy Shaw states that ‘nothing in the emails
appears derogatory’ then why did he dismiss me with no evidence of any
intimidation or harassment? (2) 10. p82 – submitted following the Preliminary
Hearing with Employment Judge Midgley for the Tribunal and Respondent on the 19th
May 2025.
[9] 27:
pp134 –6
[10]
42: pp171- 2 Joe Pilley’s balanced assessment in my defence – ‘no sick days, no
incidents or complaints, nominated for More hero, is an experienced driver’ –
and then Andy Shaw failing to acknowledge or inquire as to why from my
perspective I had stated ‘the actions of MG are serious – he has every right to
hate my guts – he seized the opportunity’ [to submit a grievance] and Andy
Shaw’s constant reiteration referring to my ‘intensity’ felt personal and it
was hard not to feel that this was discriminating against me in some way – without directly referring to
my beliefs, principles and philosophy as a trade unionist (as I’ve evidenced) –
because all three individuals had cause to resent what had been exposed within
the Poole Branch. There was no evidence at all for him to dismiss on the basis
that, ‘I think that you don’t even know when you are being intimidating
sometimes and you are aware of the rules – my conclusion is that it does
constitute misconduct – I am therefore dismissing you.’ Especially after as Jo
Pilley had stated, ‘there are three separate allegations – there are concerns
about context – JG and DJ have a lack of proof. I am uncomfortable about the
timing – if the issues were that significant, they would have been raised
sooner and not waited – they have seen an opportunity and tried to kick him
whilst he is down.’ This felt anything but a “fair and just” hearing.
[11]
42: p170 Andy Shaw: ‘he [Mark Gale] said it was not what you said but how – it
was sinister – you showed anger and were full of intent – you are a very
intense person.’ I certainly showed no anger and ‘full of intent?’ These
statements from AS are compounding the injustice, reaffirming baseless
accusations from MG. Where is the balance in the manager’s questioning here?
[12]
42: p172
[13] 1)
29: p141 – the one letter I addressed to Donna Jones & (2) 42: pp164–167
& (3) 47: pp195 –201 & (4) 30: 142–143 & (5) 31: 144 –145
[14] 45:
p185 – emails to Nicola Friend, the day after dismal on the 11th
July 24 and after hearing nothing from the company I wrote directly to Richard
Wade (General Manager) and cc’d ‘Colleague Support’ on the 18th July
requesting an appeal; p183 confirmation from Katie Way after an exchange of
emails of my appeal date finally set for 24th July 2024.
[15] 46:
p188 – In his ‘Introduction’ his first reference was whether I had seen the
performance and conduct policy. This is omitted from the notes and some are inaccurate:
Martin Conder did not suggest that Andy Shaw ‘showed us the CCTV’ but AS had
made reference to it – however Martin Conder did underline on p189 ‘that Andy
Shaw suggested that no body language shows animosity, which is a strange
conclusion to come to.’
[16]
46: p193
[17] 46:
p193
[18] 46:
p194
[19]
13: p109
[20] 14:
pp110–14 Letter to General Secretary
[21] 58:
p266/67 b) c) m) and 51: p209 – please reference code of ethics questions sent
to Sarah Henderson, RMT solicitor 24/10/2024 prior to the submission of
statements on 1st September 2025.
[22] 35:
p151 Donna Jones statement that Geoff Kite, the Regional Organiser, is copied
in, fully aware of the investigation days after pay talks announcement, and the
day before Jason Gosling’s statement is submitted to management.
[23] 14:
pp110–14 Letter to General Secretary.
[24]
17: pp117–18 Email to Regional Organiser.
[25] 17:
Email to Geoff Kite p117
[26] 16:
p116 Letter from Sue Levell sent as further evidence for the investigation to
Regional Organiser and General Secretary.
[27] 16:
p116 – Letter from Sue Levell.
[28]
17: pp117–18 – Email to Geoff Kite.
[29]
20: pp121-22 Letter from General Secretary, Mick Lynch.
[30]
21: pp123–24
[31] 22:
p125
[32] 23:
pp126 –27
[33] 56:
p233 – JDB Screenshot
[34] 25:
p129 – Reaching out to Geoff Kite, Regional Organiser and 56: p233
[35] 25:
p130 – Geoff Kite’s erroneous reply, appearing to mock the membership, prior to
crucial pay talks.
[36]
29: p141 – Email to Donna Jones.
[37] 31:
pp144–45 – Email to Jason Gosling – Electronic Voting Follow Up From AGM
[38] 58:
pp266–267 – Standards of Behaviour Bye Laws 15.1 b) c) m) 30/11/2023
[39] 57:
p237 – Screenshot on Contract B drivers board on social media from Donna Jones.
[40]
57: p242–43 – Go South Coast Drivers Board: Disillusioned member resigns after pay
talks ballot.
[41]
44: p183–84 – Email to Nicola Friend Submitting Subject Access Request.
[42]
44: pp179–181
[43] 54:
pp 219–20 – Letters to ICO
[44] 52:
p213 – Letter to ICO after exchange of emails with Paul Staiano, Head of HR, Go
South Coast.
[45] 55:
pp 223 – 224
[46]
33: pp148–149
[47]
55: pp224–225
[48] 55:
p224 – Statement from Jo Pilley.
[49] 58:
pp266–267 – Standards of Behaviour Bye Laws 15.1 b) c) m) 30/11/2023
[50]
42: p171
[51] 42.
p167 - I state to Andy Shaw that ‘I don’t want to tell him how to do your job’
and I didn’t, but he still proceeded with it. Union emails sit outside the
workplace and sending them to the Head of HR during the hearing (instead of
photocopying them from the supervisor’s office downstairs as they’d asked) was
crossing boundaries, but better than being forced to go downstairs to ask the
supervisors for assistance in full view of anyone passing the main door.
[52] 42:
p169 – clear evidence leading up to the “sinister” statement that completes a
revealing exchange that evidences Andy Shaw’s intransigent attitude towards
countering everything I’ve said in my defence by framing a negative outcome, and
as previously documented, despite his observation [p167] ‘nothing in the emails
appears derogatory’ he continued to justify what can only be described as a
predetermined decision. There is no other explanation.
[53] 42.
p171 ‘I believe you have one set of views and that is that.’ It has been
emphatically evidenced in my statement and the emails provided, before this
callously dismissive observation from Andy Shaw, that this was not the case and
it appears to demonstrate a clear contradiction when reading the entirety of
the exchange that has been documented by the Head of HR.
Comments
Post a Comment