France train firm pays out after delays cost woman job

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17522401

A court in France has ordered the national rail company, SNCF, to pay 1,500 euros (£1,250) in compensation to a commuter who lost her job because of delays.
Soazig Parassols was employed in Lyon for a trial period in June 2010 but she lost her secretarial job the following month because she was repeatedly late.
She argued her trains from Amberieu, 60km (37 miles) away, were delayed at least six times.
The court ruled this caused her stress.

A bit unfair to get sacked for the train being late!

How would Irish Rail fare if such a case was brought here?

F1ngers

Deleted User wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17522401


A bit unfair to get sacked for the train being late!

How would Irish Rail fare if such a case was brought here?

She didn't get sacked because the train was late, she got sacked because she was late.
It's her responsibility to get to work on time, not public transport.
She should get up earlier and get a cab/earlier train.

whiskeyman

I'd get an earlier train if I knew my route was prone to delays and could cost me to arrive late.

mikemac1

A shade of compo culture here though the payout wasn't much, the train service needs to improve but it's still her responsibility to get there

Deleted User wrote: »

A bit unfair to get sacked for the train being late!

Not her bosses problem how she gets to work
And being late six times in your first month isn't acceptable, would get you let go

foggy_lad

Deleted User wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17522401


A bit unfair to get sacked for the train being late!

How would Irish Rail fare if such a case was brought here?

They would probably produce statistics showing they were on time even on days the train was not running!

F1ngers

F1ngers wrote: »

She didn't get sacked because the train was late, she got sacked because she was late.
It's her responsibility to get to work on time, not public transport.
She should get up earlier and get a cab/earlier train.

Yes I agree, to a point, just how much earlier is the previous train and how much slack was she giving herself.

I used to commute in the UK and my employer was flexible enough to understand that trains don't always arrive on time.
Missing a train and arriving late was another story!

foggy_lad

whiskeyman wrote: »

I'd get an earlier train if I knew my route was prone to delays and could cost me to arrive late.

She was probably of the opinion from rail company posters stating performance and reliability statistics levels that the train was very reliable, very much like here where a train that is ten minutes late is actually on time and not included in lateness statistics even though all the passengers will swear it is late and they are late!

antoinolachtnai

Employers (and indirectly, employees) pay a lot for public transport subsidies through a levy. I'd imagine that's the context of this. This woman was effectively paying a levy for trains that didn't do what they were supposed to do, and they failed on a persistent basis. You'd have to look into the reasons for the delays too. Was it just poor timekeeping, no-shows, etc, or something to do with external factors like weather.

AlekSmart

foggy_lad wrote: »

They would probably produce statistics showing they were on time even on days the train was not running!

Foggy_Lad: She was probably of the opinion from rail company posters stating performance and reliability statistics levels that the train was very reliable, very much like here where a train that is ten minutes late is actually on time and not included in lateness statistics even though all the passengers will swear it is late and they are late!

Indeed Foggy,you're ......"Probably" correct.

Louche Lad

When I was commuting by train I'd make up time lost if I was late. I think the only acceptable excuse for being late is if you happen to actually work for the train company that you use to commute. After all, I wouldn't want compensation from Penneys if my shoelace came undone causing me to be late.

jameverywhere

In Japan, if a train is more than a few minutes late they will issue little excuse slips to the passengers that they can give to their workplace showing that it was the train's fault and not theirs. (this may only happen during the morning commute hours; I don't remember)

Only time I experienced delays on Japanese trains was when someone got something stuck in the doors (usually the delay is only minutes, but the train operator still apologises), or if there was a suicide on the tracks. Which happened rarely, but still unfortunately often.

idk what the trains are like in France, but if they're usually dependable, it's a huge letdown for them to start being unreliable all of a sudden, and not something your typical, non-cynical person is going to account for.

also, who knows if there was an earlier train? perhaps there wasn't one. Perhaps the train she needed was the first one of the day. did it say?

Victor

Deleted User wrote: »

How would Irish Rail fare if such a case was brought here?

Legally, it is untested.

Up North if trains are persistently late, holders of season tickets are entitled to a discount on their next ticket.

Enterprise and Irish Rail have a refund (not compensation) mechanism if trains are more than a certain amount of time late.

seamus

jameverywhere wrote: »

also, who knows if there was an earlier train? perhaps there wasn't one. Perhaps the train she needed was the first one of the day. did it say?

I think this is probably the key to it.

If she was getting a train with the aim of arriving at her workplace with five minutes to spare, then you could say that she wasn't really leaving any time for reasonable delays.

However if she was getting a train which when on time would give her 20 minutes or more to spare when she got to work, then you could argue that the delays experienced were unreasonable.

Losty Dublin

Victor wrote: »

Legally, it is untested.

Not quite untested, Victor, though admittedly a different background for delay.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0312/1224313154415.html

A 36-YEAR-OLD Hungarian national who was delayed in returning to work after his holidays in 2010 by the volcanic ash cloud has been awarded €1,000 for unfair dismissal. Gyorgy Takacs, Cloudereen, Timoleague, Co Cork, took a case to the Employment Appeals Tribunal against Wayne Santry, Garryndruig, Co Cork, a farmer who bred and sold horses.

Mr Takacs, who was engaged in manual labour and cleaning work around the farm, went on holidays for two weeks ending on April 14th, 2010, but did not return to the yard until April 30th. He said he had been delayed in Hungary by the volcanic ash cloud that had been impeding aviation at that time, and he ultimately had to return overland.

The farmer indicated through a second Hungarian employee, whom Mr Takacs had contacted, that if the claimant did not make personal contact with the farmer he could take it that he was on notice. But Mr Takacs indicated to the tribunal that because of his poor English he had communicated with his co-worker and another Hungarian friend who lived in Bandon, and he relied on them to notify his employer.

Acknowledging that the absence of Mr Takacs from the yard had created difficulties for the farmer, the tribunal nonetheless found the farmer acted precipitously in the circumstances, and the claimant was genuinely prevented from returning to work on time by the presence of the volcanic ash cloud. Mr Takacs was remiss in not speaking directly with the farmer regarding what happened and had to accept a certain amount of responsibility himself, but the tribunal took the view that Mr Takacs had been unfairly dismissed. It made an award of €1,000.

In addition, the tribunal made a further award of €609.82 under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act.

foggy_lad

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Not quite untested, Victor, though admittedly a different background for delay.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0312/1224313154415.html

A 36-YEAR-OLD Hungarian national who was delayed in returning to work after his holidays in 2010 by the volcanic ash cloud has been awarded €1,000 for unfair dismissal. Gyorgy Takacs, Cloudereen, Timoleague, Co Cork, took a case to the Employment Appeals Tribunal against Wayne Santry, Garryndruig, Co Cork, a farmer who bred and sold horses.

Mr Takacs, who was engaged in manual labour and cleaning work around the farm, went on holidays for two weeks ending on April 14th, 2010, but did not return to the yard until April 30th. He said he had been delayed in Hungary by the volcanic ash cloud that had been impeding aviation at that time, and he ultimately had to return overland.

The farmer indicated through a second Hungarian employee, whom Mr Takacs had contacted, that if the claimant did not make personal contact with the farmer he could take it that he was on notice. But Mr Takacs indicated to the tribunal that because of his poor English he had communicated with his co-worker and another Hungarian friend who lived in Bandon, and he relied on them to notify his employer.

Acknowledging that the absence of Mr Takacs from the yard had created difficulties for the farmer, the tribunal nonetheless found the farmer acted precipitously in the circumstances, and the claimant was genuinely prevented from returning to work on time by the presence of the volcanic ash cloud. Mr Takacs was remiss in not speaking directly with the farmer regarding what happened and had to accept a certain amount of responsibility himself, but the tribunal took the view that Mr Takacs had been unfairly dismissed. It made an award of €1,000.

In addition, the tribunal made a further award of €609.82 under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act.

How is this similar? No transport operator was forced to pay compensation for loss as a direct result of their train/bus/plane being late or not operating. In this case it is a simple case of unfair dismissal due to the person failing to make contact with their employer, while the op is relating to an order made against the train operator for causing the dismissal with consistently operating late services.

mtjm

I remember reading a number of years ago where a women sued Dublin Bus for being late, same type of thing in relation to the OP

L1011

mtjm wrote: »

I remember reading a number of years ago where a women sued Dublin Bus for being late, same type of thing in relation to the OP

DB don't publish arrival times, only estimates, so I'm not sure how she'd have any basis.

IE/BE do provide arrival times.

Tarabuses

Deleted User wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17522401
Quote:
A court in France has ordered the national rail company, SNCF, to pay 1,500 euros (£1,250) in compensation to a commuter who lost her job because of delays.
Soazig Parassols was employed in Lyon for a trial period in June 2010 but she lost her secretarial job the following month because she was repeatedly late.
She argued her trains from Amberieu, 60km (37 miles) away, were delayed at least six times.
The court ruled this caused her stress.

While the report says the trains were delayed at least six times it doesn't say how often she was late. It just says repeatedly late which could have been every day!

Victor

Tarabuses wrote: »

While the report says the trains were delayed at least six times it doesn't say how often she was late. It just says repeatedly late which could have been every day!

I imagine the court would have taken this into account.