Metro’s Lies Exposed



At every public turn, Metro Trains Melbourne have attempted to put on the persona of a company only concerned about safety and ensuring that the traveling public can get from A to B.  They even took the RTBU Ltd to Fair Work claiming that a planned 4 hour stop work on Friday posed a ‘safety risk’.

However, leaked documents have revealed Metro’s dark side:

Metro’s Head “People and Performance” Manager (Human Resources) has decreed that any train driver who doesn’t refuse to take part in three types of Industrial Action will be stood down.

What are these three types of Industrial Action?

  • Refusing to enter a section of track where a trespasser has been sighted until it is declared clear by the Signaler or Train Controller.
  • A Ban on terminating trains short of their destination and returning them back towards town in order to inflate performance results.
  • A refusal to move trains unless the driver can clearly see the entire length of the train.


But don’t these Industrial Actions either have no effect on Safety, or actually make things Safer?

Exactly!  Refusal to bring a train into a section of track where a trespasser is possibly threatening self-harm has the potential to save lives!  Refusal to move a train unless the driver can clearly see the entire length of the train will definitely make things safer for those passengers who insist on trying to get onto a train as it’s doors are closing.

So why are Metro essentially declaring a lock-out?

Basically, that is the only way Metro Management know how to Operate.

Metro don’t care about ‘Rules’ or doing what’s ‘right’.  They only care about money, and are willing to break any rules in order to get more.  It’s time for the Government to open their eyes and realise that the company that they are dealing with.

Dirty tactics are the order of the day.  Just look at Metro’s threats to cancel 50 services on Thursday despite assurances from Union head Marc Marotta that the first train ready for service will be the 4:12 am from Pakenham.

Remember, this is the same company who:

  • Refused to begin negotiation of the new EBA In December when it was meant to.
  • Had to be forced into negotiations (which they promised to start in April)
  • Delayed Negotiations until May.
  • Walked out of multiple EBA meetings
  • Cancelled EBA meetings
  • Stated during EBA negotiations that they did not intend to reach an agreement.

not prepared to accept the performance of any work


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s