New documents obtained by The Guardian suggest that hundreds of London Underground workers may have been exposed to asbestos for nearly two decades without receiving proper protective equipment, according to reports. Under regulations introduced in 2002 to control asbestos and hazardous materials, employers are required to provide workers with individually fitted face masks to prevent inhalation of toxic dust. However, internal emails and meeting minutes reveal that London Underground managers admitted such masks were not issued to staff until as late as 2020. The documents suggest that Transport for London (TfL), the public body overseeing the London Underground, could face additional legal claims after already paying over £7 million in asbestos-related compensation and legal fees. The documents were shared during an employment tribunal involving Micky Steeds, a former London Underground cleaner who successfully argued he was unfairly dismissed after raising concerns about asbestos exposure. Meeting notes show that a manager had no record of face-fitted masks being issued to cleaners responsible for dust removal from vents in 2018, including those handling asbestos-sheathed cables. Another manager stated that such masks were not provided to civils teams—responsible for maintaining tube buildings—until late 2020. In December 2020, a manager in charge of lifts and escalators noted that many workers were not face-fitted and admitted that staff had worked without them, blaming the issue on a lack of training. In 2019, a manager claimed allowing Steeds to work without a mask was an oversight that would be corrected later. In a 2023 email, a manager admitted that required asbestos dust fibre sampling—also mandated by law—had not been conducted. According to data released by Confront Power, an investigative newsletter, TfL has recorded over 20,000 asbestos-containing materials across its network. TfL maintains it has controls in place to manage asbestos risks for both staff and the public. A senior engineer stated in a 2022 email that test results showed asbestos levels were “below the relevant workplace exposure limits.” However, he noted that cleaning activities occasionally released “traces of asbestos fibre.” Steeds and a former colleague argue that these tests were not conducted while asbestos was being disturbed during cleaning. Meeting minutes reveal concerns about damaged asbestos, which is more hazardous. One experienced cleaner reported encountering asbestos on cables 90% of the time and sometimes dealing with “broken chunks of asbestos or cable shearing.” When asked what he did upon finding asbestos, he said: “We would just carry on and use common sense … don’t bash cables and do what you can.” Catriona Ratcliffe, a solicitor specializing in personal injury cases, explained that damaged asbestos poses a higher risk of exposure, as fibers are more likely to be released into the air. She noted that she recently secured a six-figure settlement for a former inspector who developed a rare form of cancer 27 years after overseeing asbestos removal. Ratcliffe warned that the documents from Steeds’ case could lead to more injury claims, as prolonged exposure—even at low levels—can pose serious health risks. She added that if an employer is aware of the risk but fails to provide the required protections, it could result in legal action. Steeds, who went without a proper mask for 15 months, said that TfL’s failure to provide safety equipment put hundreds of workers at risk. He expressed frustration that his concerns were ignored and that managers attempted to cover up the issue. Rob Donnan, another former cleaner appealing an employment tribunal ruling, claimed he worked without a mask for three years and estimates that up to 80 cleaners in the vents department and 300 in the escalator department were similarly unprotected between 2002 and 2020. A TfL spokesperson stated that they have strict controls in place to ensure safety, in line with government regulations, but declined to comment further while appealing Steeds’ tribunal ruling.