Union to Strike for the Right for Drunks to Drive Trains

danothy

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Companies need to show they have made reasonable efforts to accomodate all known disabilities and medical conditions etc.

By, for example, using breathalysers that don't return false positives for diabetic people? Just like TfL/LU say very specifically that they use? Or are we still working on the assumption that the RMT is correct and they simply don't?

Out,_Vile_Jelly

My boyfriend works for TFL and is a Type 1 diabetic. The alcohol policy across all staff is very clear.With the regular testing that drivers have, and the rise of diabetes (note the driver is Type 2, the self-inflicted through lardiness version) in this country this is unlikely to be the first or last incident and I would be surprised if breathalysers that didn't account for this common condition were being used.

ukcarper

Generali wrote: »

Yes, it tells us that the union don't have a case to take before a court so are hoping that arbitration will come up with a 'split down the middle' judgement.

I'm not sure why you seem to be defending the union's position. Do you really want drunks driving trains? I don't.

I obviously don't want drunks driving trains and I'm pretty sure the RMT don't. None of us know real facts arbitration would establish this and if the case is as clear cut as LU say they would win.

ukcarper

purch wrote: »

This thread in many ways sums up this forum.

Argument for arguments sake, usually for no good reason, and nearly always without any or at best scant knowledge of the facts.

If you know absolutely nothing about how modern breathalysers work. Argue that diabetes can affect the test results.

If you know nothing about the TfL/LU disciplinary system, argue that there should have been a blood test.

When all that fails argue that TfL/LU must have something to hide because they have not allowed this to go to arbitration.

This stuff is beyond embarrassing.

Employees in the UK have very strong and well protected rights.

Any employee who is dismissed without good cause, and where it can be shown that the employer did not follow it's contractual obligations can easily get recourse through an employment tribunal.

So despite the obvious conclusion that anyone with any sense would draw from what we know about this matter, that the employee failed a legitimate breath test and that the employer followed their own procedures correctly and did nothing that would break their contract with the employee, there are people on here who would argue that the Union has the right to call a ballot and a strike over the matter.

If the Union said that they were fully supporting their member who was taking the employer to an employment tribunal to seek redress for wrongful dismissal, because they had a case then any right minded person would support that action.

But they aren't doing that because they haven't got a case, yet some people on here still support them.

Strange.

But they have offered to go to ACAS. To me as someone who does not know the intricacies of breath analysers or how accurate they are at the lower levels LU use the obvious solution is to go to arbitration especially as this would avoid strike.

Generali

ukcarper wrote: »

I obviously don't want drunks driving trains and I'm pretty sure the RMT don't. None of us know real facts arbitration would establish this and if the case is as clear cut as LU say they would win.

LU gain nothing from arbitration. At present they have the result that they want: they got shot of a driver who was a danger to himself and others.

Arbitration costs LU both time and money and the best possible outcome is the one that they already have. Plus every time they wanted to fire a drunk they'd have to go through the same fiasco.

ukcarper

Generali wrote: »

LU gain nothing from arbitration. At present they have the result that they want: they got shot of a driver who was a danger to himself and others.

Arbitration costs LU both time and money and the best possible outcome is the one that they already have. Plus every time they wanted to fire a drunk they'd have to go through the same fiasco.

So they face a strike instead if they are so confident go to arbitration win and sack driver.

Generali

ukcarper wrote: »

So they face a strike instead if they are so confident go to arbitration win and sack driver.

They already sacked the driver.

It's not LU's fault that they are trying to deal with intransigent extremists.

ukcarper

Generali wrote: »

They already sacked the driver.

It's not LU's fault that they are trying to deal with intransigent extremists.

I think that last statement reveals your position.

wotsthat

ukcarper wrote: »

But they have offered to go to ACAS. To me as someone who does not know the intricacies of breath analysers or how accurate they are at the lower levels LU use the obvious solution is to go to arbitration especially as this would avoid strike.

If an employer thinks they've got a watertight case they don't arbitrate - they wait for the employee to make a formal claim for unfair dismissal instead.

Likewise if you're an employee with a watertight case then you'd go straight for an unfair dismissal claim.

purch

ukcarper wrote: »

None of us know real facts arbitration would establish this and if the case is as clear cut as LU say they would win.

TfL/LU know the real facts.

RMT know the real facts.

If the employer had done anything that contravened the legally binding contract between the employer and employee, then this would have been taken to an employment tribunal.

As the employer has obviously followed the correct procedures laid down in the contract, the employee and his Union have not sought recourse through the law.

They have called for strike action which is totally unnecessary and cannot hope to end up in the resolution they want, which is for the employer to change their terms and conditions of employment.

They are throwing the red herring of "arbitration" out there in the hope of gaining support for their totally unreasonable stance.

The ruse seems to be working, and the smoke appears to have blinded some to the real truths behind what is going on here.