Murphy Supervisor Dismissal Upheld After Cable Spool Incident at Rail Worksite

A long-serving site supervisor has lost his claim for unfair dismissal against J Murphy & Sons following a safety incident during overnight rail works, despite the employment tribunal acknowledging systemic issues and expressing sympathy over his treatment.

Steve O’Neil, who was managing night-time rail infrastructure activities near Doncaster, South Yorkshire, was dismissed after a cable spool fell from a trailer shortly after a colleague walked past it. Although no injuries or damage occurred, the incident raised serious health and safety concerns.

O’Neil was suspended immediately and formally dismissed on 27 June 2024 following an internal disciplinary process. An appeal was rejected in mid-August.

The incident occurred during a cable installation operation on 31 March 2024. Tribunal documents noted that both the lift plan and the plant operations plan contained key inaccuracies, including a wrongly recorded cant level of zero. O’Neil claimed he had assessed the site conditions—including cant and other variables—on the night and verbally briefed his team, though no written record of this existed.

The cable spool and A-frame were lifted onto a road-rail vehicle by telehandler, after which O’Neil instructed a worker to retrieve securing straps.

Moments later, the spool was dislodged by the machine's mechanical arm and fell to the ground, prompting an immediate work stoppage.

Murphy’s internal investigation acknowledged that O’Neil had been placed in a high-pressure situation, performing multiple roles concurrently—works supervisor, winch operator, and single point of contact—without adequate support.

The investigator concluded that the arrangement was “ineffective and untenable” from a safety management perspective.

In its report, Murphy also admitted shortcomings in resource planning, noting the project team had failed to allocate sufficient personnel ahead of the operation. Despite this, O’Neil was held accountable for the failure to manage the immediate risks and maintain site safety.

O’Neil told the tribunal he had raised workload and resourcing concerns with management months prior to the incident but was instructed to “just get on with it.” He maintained that he had become a “convenient fall guy” for broader project management failures.

His legal representative criticised the company’s investigation, highlighting its failure to interview both the designer of the flawed plant operations plan and the line manager who had previously been made aware of O’Neil’s concerns.

Employment Judge Joanne Elizabeth Dunlop, sitting at the Manchester Employment Tribunal, acknowledged the pressures O’Neil faced but ultimately ruled that the dismissal was procedurally fair. She noted that while Murphy’s disciplinary officer accepted certain mitigation, it did not offset the serious breach of safety protocols.

The tribunal also dismissed O’Neil’s claim that the disciplinary outcome was predetermined, after he received an email suggesting “summary dismissal.” Judge Dunlop accepted that the decision-maker had not been involved at the time and that a fair process had been followed.

In her judgment, she said: “I have sympathy for his view that he was a convenient fall guy, but the fact remains that his own decisions created the opportunity for this incident to occur.”

She concluded that O’Neil could have refused to proceed with the operation under unsafe conditions and would have been protected either by senior management or by legal frameworks.

This case underscores the critical importance of accurate planning, documented risk assessments, and adequate resourcing—particularly in high-risk infrastructure environments such as rail works. It also highlights the legal and operational consequences of safety management failures, even when broader organisational shortcomings are present.