West Somerset Railway General Discussion

I doubt either of those people you mention would have problems doing other things elsewhere. One volunteers at two other lines, we are told and the other has fingers in many pies.
No doubt jobs would be found on the WSR, if they asked for or wanted them, but both do appear to have many who have animosity towards them.
The more important thing is how many of the volunteers will fit back into a changed - in many ways - WSR assuming it has a future. The WSR is far more than two vocal people.

 

Hmm, I'd be a bit nervous about doing that in the WSR, in my experience you usually end up with just more arguments steadily working your way back through time to decisions made back in the 70s and dredging up even more personal animosity.

 

In any decent company there are processes and procedures for sorting out serious problems between members of staff (and I consider volunteers to be members of staff). There is nothing wrong with two people having completely opposing views, it is only when that disagreement turns to animosity or disturbs those around them that action must be taken.
Not having any HR policies may have been perceived by one person as allowing then to 'rule' without challenge but it does then expose them to all the legal risks of failing to comply with the H&S, anti discrimination or any other legal requirements put on employers.

 

It’s a fair point, if peace is to break out in Somerset then something major has to change. The management of the WSR is poor at best, the facts show that to be the case given (taking Covid aside) the state of affairs from both a Business and a Cultural position currently.

Putting the business issues aside for one second, people within ‘the sides’ (and I believe there are more than two sides) as you describe have done some things that in my opinion are just plain wrong on any level. I think two things need to happen regarding turning the Culture around and starting to make the WSR a safe and happy place to volunteer again: 1, As Sidmouth says some people need to see the part they have played to get us to this point and stand aside and 2: The HR Policies need to be re-instated and some people need to be placed into them for things they have done, to be held accountable to a process that was agreed by all as fair and balanced. If the WSR does not have rules and boundaries then you get what we have got now, a lawless desert where summary removals, bullying, bad press releases and threats are just thrown around like confetti because there are no consequences and no accountability.

Moving on to the poor management of recent years which is agreed by all, that’s more subjective. People can be voted in or out at AGM’s, but the people with their hands on the levers of power control the messaging to the Members/Shareholders and Stakeholders (plus of course press releases) and this is made worst by unopposed elections which are a tradition on the WSR so the true picture is not always clear. However the facts again speak for themselves, and again Sidmouth’s post runs true, the people from all three Boards and other positions of influence who have administered over the decline and near crash of the WSR should see for themselves they are not helping and decide to go because clearly it’s not working. At the very least all 3 Boards can be accused for much of the last few years of doing next to nothing and sitting on their laurels, at worst they can be accused of doing things to keep themselves in power to the detriment of the WSR. A new level of Governance needs to be in place with checks and balances, a good old fashioned SWAT analysis, Strategic Business Plan and known direction if you like.

With Management stepping down for poor performance then there is no reason that anybody should not continue to Volunteer in my opinion, Volunteering I think is a right not a privilege to be earned from the management who can give or take to suit. Regarding people’s behaviour and actions, then the HR Policies should decide if they are allowed to continue to be involved with the WSR. The HR Policies define Gross Misconduct in sometimes specific terms, all have previously agreed those terms and in some cases if people have acted poorly enough the consequence is removal from the WSR in all things, it should not be in the power of ‘the winners’ to decide if ‘the losers’ get kicked off the WSR all together, the Policies are in place (sorry not in place !!!) which are transparent and fair and demonstrate to all who volunteer they are safe from random emotional backlashes which are currently the order of the day.

You are right that the WSR needs everybody it can get, it’s something in my opinion that the current management have lost sight of with various removals and alienations of its own groups/people and the wider community. You are also right that people should be allowed to enjoy the WSR as somewhere to go and enjoy themselves and that should also include people who are involved today where possible.

It’s a fine balancing act and following due process can sometimes be time consuming and difficult but short cuts can’t be taken if the Culture and more importantly people’s confidence in the Culture and how it will support them when people have differing opinions and fall out keeps a community like the WSR working well for all. If its not there then there is no future and the last person leaving can switch off the light.

For the record it maybe that I myself because I have posted here and ‘made trouble’ need to look at myself and my actions, the question we should all be asking ourselves is: Have I become a part of the problem ? I’ll openly say now that I don’t know the answer to that question personally because it’s tough to evaluate yourself. Because I’m unsure I don’t think I will be seeking any leadership position on the WSR in the future, and as such I call on all the people on all the sides who have played a part to do the same. As you say this is last chance saloon so its time for all of us who are involved to make some brave decisions.

 

One observation on that excellent post. The issues I pointed to in my earlier post this morning are not about people being kicked out, but about individuals needing to acknowledge that their positions are part of the problem, and applying the logic you apply to yourself. But that may also need, sadly, to involve considering not just leadership but volunteering.

 

My uncle, who was a vicar, told me that, as the Ultimate Authority, the Catholics had the Pope, the Non-conformists had the Bible and the Anglicans had the previous vicar.

 

Sigh! Why does everything have to be condensed into a gladiatorial contest between two people? The WSR (and almost every other matter that suffers this process) is far more complex than that and such simplification only plays on personal animosities to no gain and leads to the liability of the monstering of one or both of the "champions", something we have seen far too much of on these pages. However, while we are in gladiator mode, I would point out that one of the two has a history of standing aside and the other doesn't.

 

Although it is indeed more complex, a lot does focus on those two individuals. But as to whether either or both of them should stand aside,

Also, as various references to Christianity are being bandied about, how about "By their fruits shall ye know them"?

 

Indeed, and my views are based firmly on the fruits that they have delivered.

 

It seems to me that those who wish to change the current structure need, at least a figurehead and secondly one formidable enough that the PLC cant or wont 'take her out' as has happened to so many others.

It also reminds me of a comment I heard many years ago which was that 'middle management' often played an important role in organisations as they were in a position where the higher management had to listen to them, possibly the role that may be being taken on here

 

To pick up on one point here I believe it’s widely understood by volunteer dependent organisations, not just heritage railways, that there is no right to volunteer. The distinction between employees and volunteers is far more complicated than most realise. It’s not just a case of whether tor not they are paid nor even what both the railway and the individuals believe or want to be the case. The basic test is whether there is a “mutuality of obligations” i.e are there things the individual and the railway must do with regard to each other? Consequently rule books can be problematic if they state that volunteers must do something.e.g turn up for duty if rostered. Ideally they should state instead the volunteers are expected to do so. One of the trip wires is a common disciplinary policy and procedure. Volunteers should ideally be protected by a different regime to avoid the possibility that , for instance, they could take the railway to an industrial tribunal.
Getting it wrong is potentially disasterous. Volunteers, whether they wanted it or not, would be entitled to the minimum wage, NI and pension contributions etc.
I’m pretty confident that as an expert in this area Robin can confirm that recent case law has confirmed that volunteering is not a right and that organisation you volunteer for is not providing a service which would allow the Equality Act to apply.
Of course there is a difference between law and good practice. Volunteers ought to expect they will be treated fairly and without discrimination. However that’s because it’s in the interests of the organisation to look after its volunteers not because they have any enforceable rights.

 

I don't really want to extend this any further as we are wandering a long way off thread, which is already somewhat overburdened.
However, I was only quoting one particular example of why F/book is unappealing to some of us. The others are covered by your "lots of other reasons" - which I alluded to by mentioning security in all its senses. There is possibly a case for continuing this topic (Social Media use ?) on its own thread if you wish but I think we should drop it as a topic on this particular thread.
By the way, nice to see you back !

 

Whilst what you say may be legally accurate, I'm not sure it's the best attitude to take. I think I said similarly with respect to the S&DRT lease as it happens.
Personally, coming from a railway which I'm delighted to say, has quite a well known reputation for being a pleasant place to volunteer, especially in the general public's eye, I think Andy's attitude is absolutely the right one for fostering a better culture within the volunteer ranks. It ensures you value everyone's contributions. For legal reasons, sure, it's not a "real" right, but I see no good reason to not act as if it was.

I do find it troubling that a HRA representative is seemingly so fixated on the legal perspective that it seems to me you sometimes lose sight of the bigger picture, on this and other matters.

 

Those are fair comments, which I've never heard it suggested that the withdrawn processes contravened.

However, while in law the "right to volunteer" may not exist, I'd suggest that any volunteer based organisation should operate on the basis that any willing person capable of performing a role should be able to volunteer for as long as they wish and remain capable of so doing. The issue I have around @Andy Norman's experience, even taking the views of those who violently disagree with him, is that this principle appears not to have been respected, with volunteer access being revoked for other, "political", reasons - and the relevant processes withdrawn at the same time.

 

Actually I have some sympathy with @Lineisclear on that point. Most of us as volunteers probably find such things boring at best, an encumbrance at worst, but that doesn't mean they can be ignored. I'd also suggest that the HRA is exactly the right body to be doing that legal legwork on behalf of its members (by providing guidance notes), rather than making each railway try to muddle through reams of legislation with varying degrees of access to properly competent advice.

Employment law is not something I have any real familiarity with. But we would probably be naive to think that every volunteer has perfect motivations and would never exploit some loophole. There has been much speculation on this thread that somehow there is, or has been, a plot afoot to try to seize control of the railway to make a financial gain - which, if valid, assumes that there are unscrupulous people willing to exploit such an organisation for their own gain. So if you at least accept that that is a possibility (even if difficult to see how it could work in practical terms), it would be naive to assume that no-one would try to engineer some kind of employment situation for their own gain. A railway needs to ensure therefore that its processes protect against such.

There are lots of areas where the sector is having to take more account of regulation. You wouldn't allow a situation in which, say, boiler inspection was done on an informal nod - "you can trust us not to operate it if we see cracks appear in the firebox": instead you have a formal system to manage that risk within a regulatory environment. So the formal regulatory environment around the employment status of paid and unpaid staff is equally important.

All of that notwithstanding: with very few exceptions, heritage railways are completely dependent on volunteer labour and altruistic donation, so absolutely top of any railway's risk register ought to be mitigating the risk that those two resources diminish.

Tom

 

I spend my working days working with contracts, and their interpretation. I find that two parts of my job exist in permanent tension. One is the legal side of my role, ensuring that those contracts are watertight, and that the relevant risks are properly covered. The other is in the real world, where those abstruse questions are of very limited interest (at least till they boil over), and the focus needs to be on what my employer, it's customers and it's suppliers are actually trying to do.

I agree completely with the above post, and why it is essential both that there are clear policies, and that they are carefully written to consider and avert vexatious use. I also completely agree with @flying scotsman123, in that I found the focus of post #32751 misplaced, in particular in it's apparent preference that volunteers shouldn't be subject to policies or have rights under them.

 

I 100% agree with that, and it's a constant source of bewilderment to me that people higher up the chain of command than me are working so hard on putting together risk assessments and procedures for this that and the other which surely must be applicable to many other railways. In that area I don't think it's possible for the HRA to do too much.

Like I said, I have no problem with it not being an "official" right to volunteer, that seems eminently sensible legally. But my concern sometimes is that all the focus goes on that technical, legal aspect, when the substance of the matter actually lies elsewhere. In this case the matter is not "Should volunteers be able to bring their railway to an employment tribunal" but "Should volunteers be valued and treated fairly". Same with the S&DRT, the issues around the eviction go far beyond whether the lease is valid or not, but that was the only aspect substantially examined.

 

Just on that snippet: Imagine a situation in which a railway had a particular safety-critical duty (say driver, or signalman) for which there were 1,000 duties available per year. The SMS would almost certainly define some frequency of role, for example, you might have to undertake a minimum of 12 duties per year to maintain competence. If the railway had 30 volunteers in that role, ensuring that all 30 of them got the minimum of twelve turns wouldn't be too difficult. But if it had eighty volunteers, it would be impossible: there wouldn't be sufficient turns available to ensure that everyone got the minimum number.

So extrapolating: a railway may feel that in a particular role, it can't take on any new recruits, so you can't say that "any willing person capable of performing a role should be able to volunteer for as long as they wish and remain capable of so doing" - there may be no capacity for them.

I suspect in practical terms, most railways are at the opposite end of the spectrum, with too few rather than too many volunteers. One would also hope that a close eye is kept on things like demographics, promotion rates etc, so that you can see whether you have any looming holes in, say, five years time that need to be addressed by enhanced training now. But there is still a basic principle that there is no absolute right to volunteer: the railway has to have a vacancy to be filled. The fact that a role is voluntary doesn't change that.

I do completely agree that volunteers should be valued; and should have some kind of formal HR structure around them. For safety-critical volunteers, that probably also spills over into the SMS, i.e. I can imagine scenarios when you might want to immediately remove someone from a safety critical role, with no fault implied, pending an investigation. That seems proper to me; what is improper is to then abandon the process at that point with no formal resolution one way or the other.

Tom