Home Bexley and Bromley News Article
Southeastern Railway platform manager stamped on Orpington colleagues' foot three times to 'test' safety boots
17:53, 17 April 2020
updated: 18:37, 17 April 2020
A tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a platform manager after he stamped on a colleagues' foot three times to 'test' his safety boots.
The incident happened in March last year at Orpington railway station in Bromley.
It was brought to tribunal after the platform manager contested the decision by Southeastern Railway to remove him from his post.
CCTV evidence showed the employee had stepped twice on the front of his colleague's shoe to check if it was a safety shoe.
He then stamped on his foot a third time across the arch where there was no protection.
This action was carried out while the colleague was dispatching a train, an activity deemed a "critical task", and in front of customers.
As the platform manager's role was to assess safety this was deemed to be gross misconduct.
The former employee was interviewed by Orpington station manager Chomba Musonda and admitted to stamping on the man's foot.
He wrote a letter of apology but insisted he did not assault him.
The platform manager later admitted at a disciplinary meeting it was ‘silly’ of him to have tested the shoes in this way.
Southeastern Railway said there was no set method for testing safety shoes.
They said they would have expected the shoe to be taken off to be inspected to see if it had the correct safety standard stamped inside.
However, the rail franchise pointed to the "excessive force" used and "highly questionable" method of testing appropriate footwear.
It took into account his ten year's "good character" as a team leader but considered he was expected to lead and set an example and therefore dismissed him.
The tribunal agreed with the decision and dismissed the platform manager's claim for both unfair and wrongful dismissal.
It concluded: "The procedures carried out within the disciplinary process was in accordance with the disciplinary policy and within ACAS guidelines.
"The claimant was given every opportunity to defend himself against the allegations and did so at length.
"I am satisfied that the investigation was reasonable and that following on from that investigation and the hearing there were genuine grounds upon which the Respondent held their belief that the Claimant was guilty of gross misconduct."
