Ian Faletto: who crossed the line?

Ian Faletto (Picture: Daily Echo)

Today is a Wednesday, it's a nice day outside, and the news agencies are covering Barack Obama's visit to the UK, as I write this, he's in London, at one of the many engagements planned for him on this visit.

Also in London today is Mr. Ian Faletto, and some of his supporters, who attempted to deliver a petition, signed by around 8000 people, to South West Trains (SWT) at their offices on the Blackfriars Road in London.
The petition itself was calling on South West Trains to reinstate Mr. Faletto, after SWT dismissed him for "a serious breach of safety"

Mr. Faletto's story has been broadcast around the world, with many high-profile British newspapers picking up the case, among which the Daily Telegraph, The Mirror, The Sun, The Daily Mail as well as the BBC, all ran multiple pieces detailing the facts of the dismissal of Mr. Faletto, or did they?

Due to a possible industrial tribunal, and a policy of not speaking about individual cases, SWT have stayed quiet throughout this whole saga, other than to say that Mr. Faletto was dismissed for "a serious breach of safety" they've stayed quiet, until a small addition to that this week (I'll get to that later)

The articles that these newspapers have printed only have the word of Mr. Faletto and his supporters to go on, they've painted a picture of a 49 year old "Station Master" who loves and lives his job, and was sacked "after clearing a shopping trolley that could have derailed a train."

Mr. Faletto's supporters, as well as many newspapers have praised him for "saving lives", now I've got a few points to bring up, and I'm going to bullet point them, please bare with me, all the points below can be treated as facts.

1, Ian Faletto was employed not as a Station Master, or a Station Manager, or a conductor, but as a Ticket Office clerk at Lymington Town station.

2, Mr. Faletto claims that he removed a trolley from the tracks at Lymington Pier station; this happened a number of hours before his booked sign-on time, in a station at which he was not employed.

3, as a Ticket Office Clerk at Lymington Town station, his responsibility would be to sell tickets at that station, and ensure that particular station was in a respectable manner, clear of rubbish on the platform, and that vandalism was reported to the relevant person.

4, Mr. Faletto was dismissed for "a serious safety breach" he was on a railway line, with a 750 volt conductor rail parallel to the train tracks a few inches away from one of them.

5, Mr Faletto did not carry a Personal Track Safety (PTS) card, PTS training is mandatory for any railway worker who may need to work on the railway line as part of their duties, at SWT, Drivers, Guards, relevant managers and Platform Staff (RO2 grade) all hold PTS, but even though they are assessed for competency bi-annually, this does not give them the right to walk on the railway line when they want.

6, a signalman CANNOT turn off the conductor rail, he needs to contact the Electrical Control Officer (ECO), the nearest ECO to Lymington Pier is at Eastleigh, once Mr. Faletto calls the signalman, the signalman would call the Eastleigh ECO to ask for a current isolation at Lymington Pier station, the ECO would confirm to the signalman that the current was isolated, and the signalman would confirm to Mr. Faletto that it was safe to go onto the track, this takes approximately 3 minutes in an emergency.

7, after asking for a current isolation, and going onto the track, once the danger has cleared, you need to call the signalman to ask for the current to be restored, only the person who asked for the current to be isolated, can ask for it to be restored.

8, Mr. Faletto says that he called the signalman to tell him that the current needed to be switched off, there is no mention in Mr. Faletto's story that he received confirmation from the ECO (via signalman), or that he asked for the current to be restored, he also claims that he only found out that the current was not isolated during his disciplinary hearing with SWT.

9, there was NO immediate danger to any train, as the next service was not due for over half an hour, and even if a train had been approaching, Lymington Pier is a terminus where trains would approach at a maximum of 20MPH, which is easily slow enough for a driver to apply the emergency brake to avoid running over a shopping trolley, in reality the train would be travelling at a much lower speed, and a 170-ton train (4-car 450) would have flattened any trolley in front of it, with only a few scratches and a possible reboot of the train needed for it to continue.

10, Mr. Faletto was dismissed at a disciplinary hearing, and that decision was upheld at an appeal, Mr. Faletto has not said whether he is going to take SWT to an industrial tribunal, but SWT have said that they are ready for any tribunal and have evidence for their decision to be upheld yet again.

11, Mr. Faletto has said that whilst he was on the electrified railway lines, he cleared the track of a "few other small pieces, such as tin cans" so he has admitted to litter picking on the railway line, he has said this, this is a fact, it is also a sackable offence.

Now for points that I cannot claim to be facts as I cannot guarantee their accuracy, but points that I believe to be truths.

1, there has been no reports that the signalman (Network Rail employee), that Mr. Faletto claims to have asked for current isolation from, has received any disciplinary action from his employers, Mr. Faletto says that the signalman told him that the current was isolated when it wasn't, this could have been manslaughter on the part of the signalman, you'd think that he would have been disciplined.

2, the CCTV was viewed by managers due to previous warnings issued to Mr. Faletto, the CCTV was watched 1 week after the incident, if the Signalman had been aware of a member of staff on the line, or Mr. Faletto had informed someone by phone, or in a report what he had done, I believe that the CCTV would have been checked a lot earlier.

3, no newspaper mentioned Mr. Faletto's religion, he is a religious man, and the Daily Mail is always a newspaper to champion the cause of a hard-working Christian (even if their views are controversial) could it be that Mr. Faletto's religion wasn't mentioned because Scientology is ridiculed in the UK?

4, Mr. Faletto had no responsibility to make sure passengers had a valid ticket, this is the responsibility of the train guard, or a member of the Revenue Protection team (RPI or RPO) however I have been asked for my ticket by him whilst waiting on the platform in civilian clothes, when I pointed out that he had no reason to check my ticket, he informed the guard of the incoming train and reported me as a fare evader, I had a SWT travel pass in my wallet.

5, the RMT union, if Mr. Faletto is a member, would have been invited to sit in on his appeal hearing, they have not publicly backed Mr. Faletto, one of the RMT's aims is to make sure that the railway is a safe working environment, and ticket office clerks putting themselves at risk for no real reason won't sit too well with them, the Daily Echo claims that Mr. Faletto has the full backing of the RMT although any news article lacking quotes is always suspect.

6, Mr. Faletto claims that he got granted "T3 Possession" by the signalman, I'm not going to bore you with the exact details of a T3, but Mr. Faletto would NEVER be issued it as a ticket office worker, and there would also be an easily found paper trail, of which there is no evidence of.

Now, it's easy to defend Mr. Faletto by saying that his customer service was exceptional, and his awards show that, his 27 years service on the railway means that he should be given a second chance.

I firmly believe that he's had chances before, and when any employment tribunal comes, SWT are ready for it,

Verbatim from the BBC website
South West Trains said the facts were "fundamentally different" from the "seriously inaccurate picture painted".
"We can understand the feelings of people in the local the community and we have no doubt their response to what has been reported about this particular case is genuine," a spokesperson said.
"It would be entirely wrong for any disciplinary decisions, including one involving a serious breach of safety, to be influenced by external parties or factors.
"As we have made clear, our internal consideration of the case is closed and we are ready to ensure the full facts are made public at an employment tribunal if required."

And I will revisit this subject, once the tribunal has taken place.

for further reading, can I please point you towards the Zelo Street blog (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) and the blog of J.Rothwell (here)

DISCLAIMER: I am an employee of South West Trains, and I do not claim to represent them and all views expressed in this blog are mine, if you want me to clarify any points made here I can be easily found on Twitter @askSWT