Chapter 12 - Sham Disciplinary Process

Having spent the past year trying to find a positive way forward and having that stymied by the WSR plc ultimatum to the Heritage Railway Association, all I am left with is to complete the ‘Roostery’ process by putting the materials from what I regard as the ‘sham’ disciplinary process used to justify removing my volunteer status into the public domain so that others can form their view of the WSR plc Board, its Chairman, ‘My HR’ the firm of consultants they used (and continue to use for staff matters) and the HRA.

We have previously (Roostery Chapter 4 – The Gruffalo) seen that the Jonathan-Jones Pratt led WSR plc is entirely comfortable with making up entirely fictitious complaints on which to base disciplinary processes.  So how did they do when they decided to get rid of me for good?

The process started with a ‘charge letter’ in February 2021, and that is pretty hilarious in itself – you will see that next week - but I thought I would kick off the disclosures with the ‘dismissal’ letter from 7.7.21.  You will then be able to follow the farse of an investigation and disciplinary process as it unfolds, knowing its destination.  There will also be the sham mediation interlude and an interesting twist at appeal.  So sit back and enjoy.

Back to the decision letter.  Of the multiple charges made in February, only one remained – bringing the WSR plc into disrepute by breach of the social media policy.

Just a FEW problems with that – I had never seen the policy which, with all other relevant policies, was nowhere available at the time.  ‘Rigby logic’ on this made me laugh out loud when I read the letter.  The paragraph in the middle of page 2 starting ‘As a volunteer…’ refers.

And when you have read the decision letter I’d be pleased to understand if YOU have any understanding of which statement of mine is relied on as breaching the policy I’d never seen.

We have a decision letter not grounded in evidence and with no findings of fact.  Presumably because none were available to the maker.  

It should be remembered that the WSR plc, at a time of economic stringency, paid over £10,000 to ‘MyHR’ for this nonsense, that the present WSR Board have endorsed the process and the Heritage Railway Association have felt no need to intervene or comment.  All volunteers and staff across the whole movement should, in my humble view, be concerned that these seem to be the acceptable standards.

Oh, and a footnote.  You will be reading the decision letter without yet seeing the meeting notes.  I had been supplied with quite a number of redacted documents in the process.  It appeared to me that the ‘redactions’ were just ‘layers’ in Word and so removable with a single click.  I tried one document to see and the name of the complainant was revealed.  I tried a second to confirm the first was not a single error.  I stopped there and informed Mr Rigby of the problem in the disciplinary hearing.  I made (and have made) no use of the material inadequately redacted by the WSR plc or MyHR. But apparently that’s my fault.  Go figure.  You may feel that the sheer desperation of needing to find something comes out in this making it to the ‘Sanction’ paragraph.

I also note that my railway service since age 14 doesn’t rate a mention in mitigation.

Robin Moira White

21 June 2024