Union to Strike for the Right for Drunks to Drive Trains

danothy

ukcarper wrote: »

I see you ignore "very unlikely" manufacture is obviously not confident enough to say "will not".

And bleach kills 99.9% of germs ... why don't the manufacturers say it kills 100% of germs? Are they not confident enough?

ukcarper

danothy wrote: »

And bleach kills 99.9% of germs ... why don't the manufacturers say it kills 100% of germs? Are they not confident enough?

TFL Lilly White even though they will not agree to reinstate employee even if employment tribunal finds in favour of him.

Generali

The driver was drunk. Here is the standard of the breath tester used:

http://pacdatasys.com.au/media/fd38164b-13ba-4b72-b650-92f7aa22f6b3

high specificity to alcohol, unaffected by other possible breath contaminants.

Approvals: the instrument is approved by law enforcement authorities worldwide, for both screening and evidential
breath testing applications.

So the alcometer used doesn't pick up acetone or any other breath contaminants and is good enough to be used to send people to prison.

Of course TFL won't reinstate the driver under any circumstances including an employment tribunal saying he should get his job back. They have proof positive that he came to work drunk. He's working in a safety critical role and should have more respect for passengers and other railway workers than to come in drunk. The defence of this self-centred idiot is ridiculous.

ukcarper

If all that is true why not accept tribunal. This is the problem with industrial relations in LU both side are at fault, why are LU adamant they will not accept results of tribunal before it has reported and why are RMT balloting for strike before results.

Hand held breathalysers are not considered good enought to convict you for drink driving in UK

chewmylegoff

ukcarper wrote: »

If all that is true why not accept tribunal. This is the problem with industrial relations in LU both side are at fault, why are LU adamant they will not accept results of tribunal before it has reported and why are RMT balloting for strike before results.

Hand held breathalysers are not considered good enought to convict you for drink driving in UK

I expect that's something to do with the difference in the evidential test in criminal law as opposed to civil law. In order to convict someone of drink driving and potentially send them to prison you need to demonstrate something so that a jury can be sure that it happened. In order to legally dismiss someone from work for gross misconduct you only need to prove that on a balance of probabilities they committed gross misconduct.

The employment tribunal is a red herring - it can't make the driver not over the limit at the time of 2 breath tests last June.

Generali

ukcarper wrote: »

If all that is true why not accept tribunal. This is the problem with industrial relations in LU both side are at fault, why are LU adamant they will not accept results of tribunal before it has reported and why are RMT balloting for strike before results.

Hand held breathalysers are not considered good enought to convict you for drink driving in UK

The driver isn't being convicted for drink driving in the UK though. He's been sacked by London Underground for being drunk at work. This is despite the driver knowing full well that LU has a zero tolerance alcohol policy. From the RMT website itself:

http://www.rmtlondoncalling.org.uk/files/da_policy.pdf

The company has decided that to minimise any safety risks to customers and employees, it will have a ZERO alcohol policy

p. 10

The testing itself:

A failed breathalyser test will be any reading of 13 micrograms or more of alcohol in 100ml of breath. The legal limit under the Transport and Works Act is 35 micrograms of alcohol per 100ml in breath or 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100ml in blood or 107 milligrams of alcohol in 100ml of urine).

Note that the LU Alcohol Standard is zero but it is possible for some individuals to generate up to 5 micrograms of alcohol in 100ml of breath. Where an employee registers a reading of over 5 micrograms of alcohol per 100ml of breath, and under 13 micrograms of alcohol per 100ml of breath, it may indicate that
alcohol is present. In these circumstances employees should be reminded of the company's policy on alcohol and informal discipline, e.g. oral warning confirmed in writing, might be appropriate according to circumstances.

• Following a positive breathalyser test result (13 micrograms per 100 ml of breath or above) and confirmation by a second test, the employee must be stood down immediately and the matter referred to a disciplinary hearing.
• The medical review appointment is an interview between the employee and an LU Doctor. The review will examine the reasons for the test result and any claim by the employee that they had taken a substance for sound medical reasons which may have led
to a positive test result. The employee will also be offered a copy of the test results and will be required to sign that they have received a copy.
• The result of the medical review will be given in writing. LUOH will telephone the manager to inform him or her that the result is available for collection. In some cases further investigation will be required. LUOH will inform the manager if this is the case.
• The medical decision of the LU Doctor will be final. If a positive result is confirmed, the matter must be referred to a disciplinary hearing.

So did the driver return two positive breath samples? Yes, it appears so.

The result is clear in such an instance. The Doctor confirms the result and the matter is returned to a disciplinary hearing which fired the driver.

The RMT are wanting to override the contract the driver and LU have signed despite the Drugs and Alcohol Policy being perfectly clear. The driver knew the risk he was taking when he drank but did so anyway. He is now facing the consequences of his actions.

Reinstating the driver would be a very dangerous act. These rules are in place for a reason.

purch

It's just the usual story of an individual not wanting to accept the consequences of their actions, and trying desperately to pin the blame on someone else.

The consequences for the public, if he hadn't been stopped could have been serious injury or even death, yet there are still people who will try to defend him.

Bizarre.

Generali

purch wrote: »

The consequences for the public, if he hadn't been stopped could have been serious injury or even death, yet there are still people who will try to defend him.

Colleagues too.

The Tube bans drivers from drinking for very good reason. I honestly don't understand why even the union is defending this clown as he put fellow union members at risk with his actions.

ukcarper

If appears there were several discrepancies. Including breath tests to close together, breathalyzer operated by trainee, signature on forms altered,urine samples lost.

Generali

ukcarper wrote: »

If appears there were several discrepancies. Including breath tests to close together, breathalyzer operated by trainee, signature on forms altered,urine samples lost.

According to the drugs and alcohol policy, a urine sample is only required for a positive drugs test.

You're starting to embarrass yourself with the rest. Altered signature? As for breathalyzer operated by a trainee? The Generalissimos could operate a breathalyser, hell if a traffic cop can do it anyone can :rotfl