Drivers court scams: This is how they will get secret MTR documents

A wild strike was not an illegal industrial strike to change working conditions. It was a security breach alert pursuant to the whistleblower law. Therefore, the approximately 110 drivers should not be sentenced by the Employment Tribunal to pay compensation for the unbridled strike on the Stockholm commuter train. This is the line in the drivers’ response in court after they were sued by the employers’ organization of MTR contractor Almega Tågföretagen. Can such a line really convince? Statistically speaking, a feral cat strike lawsuit almost always results in damages from drivers.

– No one can deny that they put in the work. It is illegality that we want to discuss. Drivers’ suffering is unique because it is not about wages or vacations but about passenger safety. We do not believe in a revolutionary ruling, but the issue of safety is central, and drivers used all channels to sound the alarm, but they were not heard, says Yusra Dalbeshe, the representative of drivers in the Labor Court.

“The April work stoppage was clearly a matter of an illegal industrial strike,” Pierre Sandberg, director of the Almega Tågföretagen union, wrote in an email to Dagens ETC. The union’s refusal of legal assistance to drivers “should lead to some natural conclusions in these individuals,” he writes and continues:

“The illegally striking train drivers must admit their part of the crime and liability for damages according to the suit. This case can then be quickly decided by the Employment Tribunal and respect the principles of the rule of law that everyone should do what is right for themselves.”

Long lawsuit

But the drivers do not want to rush the case and process. This is evidenced by the record-breaking lawsuit, which deals only roughly with the issue of the strike itself. The drivers want the court investigation to be subject to a single driver who could be responsible for the safety of 1,800 passengers. Namely, other drivers prompt can be updated

The drivers representative is asking MTR to release investigative documents, which were the basis for the blue-green regional politicians’ decision in 2021, as well as the third-party review that the new majority relied on when they gave the company the green light. . These are documents that unions, safety representatives and drivers have asked to see, but MTR has consistently rejected and even denied their existence, Dagens ETC previously reported.

It is a third party investigation into the safety risks of replacing train attendants with camera systems. But also studying the ergonomics of train drivers’ workloads during shifting. If successful and MTR must submit the documents to the court, they will be published.

– It is difficult to reach any conclusion other than obscuring its results. If this was done, it was because the train drivers were right, and that the operation was done at the expense of the safety of the passengers. Then we are in things that touch crime, says Yusra Dalbsha.

“It sure is for”

All cabins on the shuttle, Seko and ST, claimed safety representatives were excluded from parts of the operation. Among other things, ST is currently negotiating disputes with compensation claims for many of these cases. But MTR Communications Director Niklas Ekström insists that risk assessments are carried out in consultation with safety representatives throughout the process in an immaculate manner. This thing to be withheld is not true.

– We have reviewed the technical and operational part and have reported the results. In addition, the new regional majority appointed a new investigation. In relation to preventive stops, the Swedish Work Environment Authority has carried out a fundamental investigation of the effects on the lives and health of drivers. Everyone came to the same conclusion: It’s safe, he says.

At the same time, your conclusions are not the essential documents that the Federation and the Protection Representative wanted to see. Why couldn’t you just show it?

– We were looking for an opportunity during the spring to come up with a solution during the spring to consider it together, says Niklas Ekström.

This claim was met with astonishment by unions and pendulum safety representatives and was dismissed with great emphasis, upon verification of the information.

When I reported the union’s official request to Dagens ETC, I said there was no such written documentation as requested. Now they are named in the drivers suit. Why did you say that?

– We can only say that we conveyed the content of the work and how we made sure that the identified risks do not endanger life and health and deteriorate the working environment, says Niklas Ekström.

New light on past data

This information that speaks against the safety of individual work to be withheld is not the only accusation in the 30-page lawsuit. Extensive evidence was also filed with the lawsuit in the form of minutes, service statements, and email exchanges.

As the political process went, one of the arguments was that the solution about to be offered on the Stockholm commuter train, “Operation Driver Control”, had been successfully tried in Great Britain. It is mentioned in the officials’ proposal for a decision in the traffic commission as early as 2021. It is also something that was determined in a third-party review conducted by the consulting firm WSP based on MTR data. The results of the review were the reason the new regional council approved the project rather than blocking it.

But according to the information of the newspaper The Worker That review examined only driver operation, and it’s a far less far-reaching system.

stiff British resistance

When Dagens ETC asked Niklas Ekström earlier about the information referring to the faulty system, he dismissed the accusations as a misunderstanding based on “conceptual confusion.”

Additional information is now emerging. In an email exchange between RMT British Rail and one of the drivers, it was confirmed that the DOO camera system is the one being offered in Great Britain. The image of success is tainted by the union’s rule over the system. The union wrote that this was “hazardous to drivers and passengers” and “unacceptable for safe and functioning rail traffic”. They write that their opposition to the introduction continues intensely.

Doesn’t this suggest that the conceptual confusion lies rather in the MTR, officials and politicians when using the British example?

The technology for placing cameras and monitors is the same and follows British standards. DCO is an operational solution that complies with Swedish regulations. We believe that a technical standard with its associated operational solution is one that works and is controlled to operate safely.

You refute that there must be misleading mixing?

– Yes.