St Helier

[dogleg]

</script>="8" cols="60" tabindex="1">

I would be interested to know what the full details are concerning Andy Hibbs original dismissal by the RNLI. He was apparently subsequently re-instated by the RNLI with a full apology.

This is truly shambolic. I have dismissed dozens of employees during my career for almost every rule transgression you can think of and most of these have appealed against the dismissal but not one has ever been re-instated upon appeal.

The reason is simple .... I did a thorough and conscientious job the first time around such that there was no margin for error and the appeal panel had no sensible option open to them other than to agree with my initial decision.

If I had ever been in the situation where the appeal panel had felt it appropriate to reinstate and issue a "full apology" to a dismissed employee, I would have tendered my resignation immediately on the grounds of my personal incompetence.

I have no idea whether the person who conducted the RNLI disciplinary investigation and/or dismissal hearing has resigned but it sounds to me as if the Jersey crew are expecting that, or something similar, and I can fully understand their position.

Richard

I suggest a look at Jersey Action group facebook page which is largely supportive of the coxswain but if you look carefully down the page you will see 2 long posts which give a much fuller explaination of the causes and the history of the dispute which unfortunately seems to have originated from a personal argument between 2 people who may have forgotten the bigger picture ie saving lives at sea

 

[NormanB]

So, within 24 hours of the AWLB being taken back to Poole, an incident occurs for which the lifeboat would have been a tremendous asset, pumping out the water while it is towed back to St Helier, or at least beaching somewhere out of the way of other shipping.



Instead it sank south of St Brelades Bay, blocking the main channel approaching St Helier from the west to commercial shipping. That'll mean quite a detour until they can recover the wreck.

Not the finest hour for either the RNLI or the St Helier crew who triggered the latest crisis.

You should work for the Daily Mail.
It is not the role of the RNLI to act as a salvage organisation.
Their purpose is to save lives.

Were any lives lost in this incident - you did not mention those details in your rant.

 

[RichardS]

I suggest a look at Jersey Action group facebook page which is largely supportive of the coxswain but if you look carefully down the page you will see 2 long posts which give a much fuller explaination of the causes and the history of the dispute which unfortunately seems to have originated from a personal argument between 2 people who may have forgotten the bigger picture ie saving lives at sea

Facebook is useless for finding any specific information because of the stupid layout and the fact that all the posts are shown in extract form only.

If the posts you are referring to answer my questions about why the individual who originally enacted the Coxwain's dismissal acted in such an incompetent manner and whether they themselves have now been disciplined/dismissed or have resigned, please can you copy and paste the gist of it into here.

Many thanks

Richard

 

[Pye_End]

It is shocking to see the reputation of such an esteemed, top class organisation being dragged through the mud, regardless of who's at fault. It would be better to do this behind closed doors, else we could see a significant decline in donations, and this will be bad news for all sea users. If the organisation is over funded and bloated as some would have us believe, if true, surely this is better than under funded and scratching round to find resources to run a depleted service.

If the quality of the argument is as good as the Jersey Action Group FB page I am not surprised the two sides have problems in resolving this:

'The RNLI stole our Jersey all weather lifeboat yesterday whilst the crew were in a meeting. Sneaky buggers. It has been taken off to Poole. Two thirds of the money to pay for this boat was raised locally. This is the sort of mentality we are dealing with. The RNLI way or we take the boat back. In doing so they break their own Royal Charter by putting lives at risk.'

Trial by media is going to do nobody any good.

 

[Kurrawong_Kid]

Reading the Times this morning I read that there has been a similar problem at New Brighton. Apparently Leisa Harwood, Director of Community Lifesaving said there were common factors in both cases. She said the RNLI needed to have the same compliance and guidelines as “any emergency service. We are becoming much more like them....some people find change more difficult than others. Changes are difficult. In some stations we have found it easier and in some we did not”
A friend of mine worked as a volunteer guard, ticket collector and signalman on the Severn Valley Railway for nearly 20 years. A new Managing Director turned up and decided, to justify his existence perhaps?, to introduce a “job” description for all volunteers, which they had to sign.. My friend told them to get lost, he was a volunteer, not an employee.
This is a problem with our society today. Our civil service, as well as Europe, want to control and regulate every aspect of our life. Management of voluntary organisations are encouraged to join the tick box culture and common sense, initiative
experience, enthusiasm let alone courage goes out of the window to be replaced by compliance, systems, discipline and lack of understanding. And of course protecting their own backsides and their exorbitant salaries and expenses.

 

[Angele]

You should work for the Daily Mail.
It is not the role of the RNLI to act as a salvage organisation.
Their purpose is to save lives.

Were any lives lost in this incident - you did not mention those details in your rant.

Blimey!

Hardly a rant. And you are right, no lives were lost. But a key asset is no longer on the island. And it is much easier to tow a vessel that is sinking, but still afloat, out of the shipping lane, than it is to effect a salvage operation afterwards. (And I'm sure that is what any RNLI crew would have done in those circumstances if it was safe to do so).

I don't know on which side the fault lies. Probably a bit of both. I just wish, as Pye End says, that the two sides can bury the hatchet and remember what they were trying to achieve together in Halcyon days.

 

[penberth3]

A friend of mine worked as a volunteer guard, ticket collector and signalman on the Severn Valley Railway for nearly 20 years. A new Managing Director turned up and decided, to justify his existence perhaps?, to introduce a “job” description for all volunteers, which they had to sign.. My friend told them to get lost, he was a volunteer, not an employee...

Perhaps the new MD was making sure the railway complied with all the relevant legislation. Roles and responsibilities have to be defined in a safety critical environment, hence a "job description". Volunteer or employee, heritage railway or main line - there's no difference.

 

[JumbleDuck]

You should work for the Daily Mail.
It is not the role of the RNLI to act as a salvage organisation.
Their purpose is to save lives.

Unlike the USGC, though, the RNLI can and does attempt to save boats as well.

 

[mainsail1]

All the new paperwork and rules is inevitable in the present blame, shame and claim culture. How we return to sanity is anybody's guess.

 

[Mark-1]

Cut and paste from FB of one poster's guess/opinion:

1. The coastguard received the request for assistance (“pan, pan or similar”) for a vessel
2. The coxswain of the AWB (which had either launched for training or was being prepared) decided to attend the vessel and provide a two
3. The coastguard noted that it had other assets available to deal with the incident and therefore was aggrieved as the AWB had been used for a purpose where there was no existing or imminent danger to life
4. The coastguard would have made a charge and now as part of the Ports of Jersey there is a revenue incentive.
5. Ports of Jersey/Coastguard inform the RNLI of the incident
6. RNLI investigate the incident and agree that their asset had been used for a purpose that it is not intended to be used for.
7. RNLI disciple the Coxswain
8. Coxswain is peeved that as a longstanding RNLI volunteer with significant experience that the punishment disproportionate to the crime
9. Media storm arrives and story placed into the court of public opinion – lots of noise made.
10. RNLI realise that although there are issues the best thing to do is negotiate and offer an unreserved apology in public and re-instate the coxswain
11. Back to normal however RNLI have concerns regarding the launching authority and conduct of the lifeboat in general.
12. RNLI arrange to put in place a full time RNLI appointed station manager to oversee Jersey operations in order to ensure their asset it utilised according to their rules.
13. Local crew now aggrieved that they are not trusted – announce they will go it alone
14. RNLI have a duty to protect their assets and therefore remove service including their boat.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1469728243134396&id=795600477213846

 

[RichardS]

Cut and paste from FB of one poster's guess/opinion:

1. The coastguard received the request for assistance (“pan, pan or similar”) for a vessel
2. The coxswain of the AWB (which had either launched for training or was being prepared) decided to attend the vessel and provide a two
3. The coastguard noted that it had other assets available to deal with the incident and therefore was aggrieved as the AWB had been used for a purpose where there was no existing or imminent danger to life
4. The coastguard would have made a charge and now as part of the Ports of Jersey there is a revenue incentive.
5. Ports of Jersey/Coastguard inform the RNLI of the incident
6. RNLI investigate the incident and agree that their asset had been used for a purpose that it is not intended to be used for.
7. RNLI disciple the Coxswain
8. Coxswain is peeved that as a longstanding RNLI volunteer with significant experience that the punishment disproportionate to the crime
9. Media storm arrives and story placed into the court of public opinion – lots of noise made.
10. RNLI realise that although there are issues the best thing to do is negotiate and offer an unreserved apology in public and re-instate the coxswain
11. Back to normal however RNLI have concerns regarding the launching authority and conduct of the lifeboat in general.
12. RNLI arrange to put in place a full time RNLI appointed station manager to oversee Jersey operations in order to ensure their asset it utilised according to their rules.
13. Local crew now aggrieved that they are not trusted – announce they will go it alone
14. RNLI have a duty to protect their assets and therefore remove service including their boat.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1469728243134396&id=795600477213846

That is clearly not correct as I am sure that the RNLI did not just discipline the Coxswain, they dismissed him from the service. This clearly was totally disproportionate as evidence by the later "full apology and reinstatement".

It's impossible to adjudicate on the matter without having more information about why a clearly disproportionate penalty was enacted.

If it was simply the incompetence of the RNLI individual who took the dismissal decision then the RNLI need to review whether this person is suitably qualified and experienced for their position. They may need to be disciplined, demoted and/or re-trained as appropriate.

If the decision to dismiss involved matters not related to the actions of the Coxswain, then the RNLI need to dispense with the services of the individual concerned.

Richard

 

[pvb]

I'm bemused by the statement that "The coastguard ... was aggrieved as the AWB had been used for a purpose where there was no existing or imminent danger to life". As far as I can see from the published "shouts", the majority of RNLI launches seem to be to tow boats into port in circumstances where there's no real danger.

 

[Pye_End]

It's impossible to adjudicate on the matter without having more information about why a clearly disproportionate penalty was enacted.

Which is it - 'impossible to adjudicate', or 'clearly disproportionate'?

 

[RichardS]

Which is it - 'impossible to adjudicate', or 'clearly disproportionate'?

Both, obviously.

It's "impossible to adjudicate" because I say so. It's "clearly disproportionate" because the RNLI say so.

Wake up at the back.

Richard

 

[Blue Sunray]

Perhaps the new MD was making sure the railway complied with all the relevant legislation. Roles and responsibilities have to be defined in a safety critical environment, hence a "job description". Volunteer or employee, heritage railway or main line - there's no difference.

:encouragement:

 

[viago]

Both, obviously.

It's "impossible to adjudicate" because I say so. It's "clearly disproportionate" because the RNLI say so.

Wake up at the back.

Richard

even if the rnli are 100% in the right, which is unlikely imho, i think the decision to snatch the lifeboat is perhaps the most self detrimental act anyone could conceive.

it will alienate both seafarers and the general public alike.

the rnli need to act and act fast in a damage limitation exercise.

i hope they are reading this.

 

[JumbleDuck]

I'm bemused by the statement that "The coastguard ... was aggrieved as the AWB had been used for a purpose where there was no existing or imminent danger to life". As far as I can see from the published "shouts", the majority of RNLI launches seem to be to tow boats into port in circumstances where there's no real danger.

The UK coastguard doesn't lose money if a lifeboat gives someone a tow. The Jersey coastguard does.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Perhaps the new MD was making sure the railway complied with all the relevant legislation. Roles and responsibilities have to be defined in a safety critical environment, hence a "job description". Volunteer or employee, heritage railway or main line - there's no difference.

The heritage railway world has recently had a string of accidents, some fatal, involving gung-ho volunteers treating safety standards as an inconvenience. The regulators are getting fed uo with that, and things are being rightly tightened up across the sector.

I manage a team of volunteers working with other people's children. We have very high standards, including a volunteer code of conduct (only two pages long) which they have to read, accept and sign.

 

[Blue Sunray]

even if the rnli are 100% in the right, which is unlikely imho, i think the decision to snatch the lifeboat is perhaps the most self detrimental act anyone could conceive.

it will alienate both seafarers and the general public alike.

the rnli need to act and act fast in a damage limitation exercise.

i hope they are reading this.

Utter balderdash.

 

[Daydream believer]

If a private vessel had turned up on the scene & offered the casualty a free tow just before jersey CG arrived on the scene what would the Jersey coastguard have said then?
They could hardly complain to the vessel giving the free tow - could they?
They could not object if the casualty were to accept a tow from someone else- could they
I am assuming that the CG had not, at that point, been legally contracted to give the tow; only notified of a distress situation.
So if the RNLI were the first on the scene , is there a difference?