Union to Strike for the Right for Drunks to Drive Trains

wotsthat

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.

If this were true (and it's easy to verify) the driver must be wondering why the union is pushing for arbitration instead of supporting them in making a formal claim for unfair dismissal.

purch

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.

I guess throwing out a mix of lies, rumours and completely made up nonsense is the best way to win and argument, when all other avenues are closed.

ukcarper

wotsthat wrote: »

If this were true (and it's easy to verify) the driver must be wondering why the union is pushing for arbitration instead of supporting them in making a formal claim for unfair dismissal.

The way I understanding it he has.

danothy

wotsthat wrote: »

If this were true (and it's easy to verify) the driver must be wondering why the union is pushing for arbitration instead of supporting them in making a formal claim for unfair dismissal.

From what it says on the gov.uk pages on employment tribunals it seems to me that in order to go to tribunal you need to go to the arbitration service first, and if that fails then seek tribunal. Presumably, it's completely legitimate for the employer to simply stand their ground at that stage, and thus triggering a court heading if the former employee continues to push when arbitration fails (through lack of engagement). Maybe it will get to tribunal ... but I am not surprised that LU are not interested in dispute resolution as clearly from their point of view there's no middle ground here.

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.

Right, so, he blew positive twice, on apparently the correct type of tester for his condition, which is extremely simple to operate, and other people there passed. Supposedly your/the RMT's position is then that any or all of the following invalidate the result:

- Wrong type of breathalyser
- His condition affected the result
- The breathalyser was faulty in some way
- Breathalysers are possibly unreliable and shouldn't be used for this kind of thing
- He had followed the guidelines on how much he could drink
- The breathalyser was used incorrectly
- The test was administered by the wrong person
- The two positive results were spaced incorrectly
- Paperwork was forged
- Other tests that aren't part of the process weren't performed
- He was harassed/victimised/singled out

Did I miss any? If that's not a textbook exercise in the RMT chancing their arm and hoping something sticks then I don't know what is. Very few of the arguments actually challenge the positive result, and the ones that do are really tenuous and/or unsupported assertions. Has the RMT tried simply denying the result was positive yet rather than desperately trying to find an excuse to disregard it?

ukcarper

purch wrote: »

I guess throwing out a mix of lies, rumours and completely made up nonsense is the best way to win and argument, when all other avenues are closed.

Do you knows they are lies I don't think so you believe LU and right wing press without question I don't. If they are lies the tribunal with prove that and find against him.

Generali

Danothy, it is rather noticeable that nobody has claimed that the driver was sober.

ukcarper

danothy wrote: »

From what it says on the gov.uk pages on employment tribunals it seems to me that in order to go to tribunal you need to go to the arbitration service first, and if that fails then seek tribunal. Presumably, it's completely legitimate for the employer to simply stand their ground at that stage, and thus triggering a court heading if the former employee continues to push when arbitration fails (through lack of engagement). Maybe it will get to tribunal ... but I am not surprised that LU are not interested in dispute resolution as clearly from their point of view there's no middle ground here.



Right, so, he blew positive twice, on apparently the correct type of tester for his condition, which is extremely simple to operate, and other people there passed. Supposedly your/the RMT's position is then that any or all of the following invalidate the result:

- Wrong type of breathalyser
- His condition affected the result
- The breathalyser was faulty in some way
- Breathalysers are possibly unreliable and shouldn't be used for this kind of thing
- He had followed the guidelines on how much he could drink
- The breathalyser was used incorrectly
- The test was administered by the wrong person
- The two positive results were spaced incorrectly
- Paperwork was forged
- Other tests that aren't part of the process weren't performed
- He was harassed/victimised/singled out

Did I miss any? If that's not a textbook exercise in the RMT chancing their arm and hoping something sticks then I don't know what is. Very few of the arguments actually challenge the positive result, and the ones that do are really tenuous and/or unsupported assertions. Has the RMT tried simply denying the result was positive yet rather than desperately trying to find an excuse to disregard it?

We don't know RMTs case fully as it hasn't be published as far as I can see.


This is what Gov.uk say


You must notify the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) of your intention to make a claim to the tribunal.
You’ll be offered the chance to try and settle the dispute without going to court by using Acas’s free ‘Early Conciliation’ service.


You’ll get a certificate from Acas if conciliation doesn’t work - use this when you make a claim to the tribunal.

danothy

ukcarper wrote: »

We don't know RMTs case fully as it hasn't be published as far as I can see.

If you can infer that the RMT are probably in the right on the basis they want to arbitrate then I can infer that the RMT have no case because they haven't published it.

ukcarper

Generali wrote: »

Danothy, it is rather noticeable that nobody has claimed that the driver was sober.

If he was drunk he should not get his job back and I don't think it would be in RMTs interest to pursue it. What have they got to gain by insisting a drunk driver gets his job back.

ukcarper

danothy wrote: »

If you can infer that the RMT are probably in the right on the basis they want to arbitrate then I can infer that the RMT have no case because they haven't published it.

Nobody seems to be prepared to put any detail to their cases, most on what we know from shoddy journalism and you have to dig quite deep to get any more facts and they mainly hearsay.