NEWS

ANALYSIS
Politics
Media and journalism
Reviews
Cinema
Business
'Column8'
Travel
Health
'Living'
'Family matters'
'Observations ...'

May 20, 2002


Contractor's website adds to woes

A UK rail maintenance contracting company has said that unscrewed nuts that caused a fatal crash could have been the action of disgruntled former employees.

Weekend newspapers, including The Guardian, reported that Jarvis had cited six instances in eight years when railway equipment had been deliberately been tampered with.

The company's chief operating officer Keith Hyde said nuts that had led to a crash that killed seven and injured 70 others in Potters Bar, north of London, has been undone deliberately.

If negligence, rather than deliberate sabotage, is found to be the cause, Jarvis "will almost certainly be sacked from its contract to maintain the East Coast main line," reported The Observer newspaper.

The company faced criticism within days of the May 10 crash; the value of its shared decreased by nearly 15 percent the following Monday.

The company said, in February 2001, that after winning a five-year £250 million contract to maintain the East Coast mainline, it would be responsible for "21 percent of Railtrack's track maintenance workload."

Jarvis has since been criticised for apparently blaming sabotage.

Mick Rix, general secretary of the train drivers' union Aslef, confirmed that Jarvis could lose the contract over the crash and questions would also be raised about Government plans to introduce private finance into the London Underground operation, as the company was heavily involved.

Jarvis, said Mr Rix, appeared to be anxious to avoid any blame in an attempt to stave off potential compensation claims worth tens of millions of pounds.

"I have seen no serious evidence to sustain the sabotage theory which is probably being advanced for commercial reasons," he told The Guardian.

But, if Jarvis's senior managers face criticism for negligence and cutting corners to try to maximise its profitability and "shareholder value", the implications of having so seriously lost the confidence of its workforce that such serious sabotage could result may be even more damning.

Executives would then have to face the question of what they had done to lead a former employee to take such drastic murderous action.

The wisdom of public relations advisers who permitted the company to make public any suspicions of such sabotage also raises several concerns. Discussion of the possibility of sabotage per se as a reason for the points failure that caused the fatal crash is legitimate.

For The Guardian on Saturday May 18 to report that: "Jarvis revealed that it was combing its records in search disgruntled former employees who may be responsible" could be a serious misjudgement.

Closer examination reveals that Jarvis's approach to public sensitivities, despite the best efforts, requires rapid and significant improvements.

On May 20, ten days after the fatal crash, the key line on the Jarvis plc website read: "Running services for life".

The "social accountability" section of the site that day said: "Jarvis takes a positive stance towards social, ethical and environmental issues.

"We are acutely aware of our many responsibilities towards our employees, customers, suppliers, sub-contractors, partners and shareholders, as well as more widely towards government, statutory bodies and local communities."

Passengers using rail lines maintained by Jarvis may not find such statements very reassuring.