Union to Strike for the Right for Drunks to Drive Trains

antrobus

timbo58 wrote: »

....I would like the know the background to this story before I make my own mind up frankly.
...

In this case, our member has a specific medical condition and the Union maintains that it was the failure to follow agreed procedures and to recognise that condition that has led to this unwarranted dismissal. The outdated and flawed drugs and alcohol policy should include provisions for secondary testing and have recognised equality protections. It has always been our position that there is simply not sufficient evidence to say that Alex was guilty or broke LUL’s policy.

http://www.rmt.org.uk/news/dismissal--a-mcguigan--train-operator--morden/

Like a growing number of people in the UK he suffers from type 2 diabetes which the Tube’s own Occupational Health department admit can lead to a false reading on a breathalyser, making it appear that someone had alcohol in their system when they’d not been drinking. LUL could have tested his urine sample which is used to look for substances other than alcohol but instead they’ve sacked him on the basis of the flawed breathalyser evidence.

http://aslefshrugged.blogspot.co.uk/2014_08_01_archive.html

purch

Safer to get on a National Express Coach.

The driver cannot start the engine without blowing into a breathalyser device (Alcolock) and their level is 0.08, which is basically zero.

timbo58

Thank you Antrobus for that information.
As an ex long standing RMT member and union official (H&S - I hasten to add before anyone has me down as Scargills more left wing brother!) it is good to know the Union are backing a man who has clearly been wrongly dismissed and a damn shame the staff and passengers seem to be paying for poor management yet again.

For all parties I hope there is a swift and satisfactory reinstatement and that management are retrained to comply with procedures them themselves instigated.

Perhaps now the OP can re-entitle their thread 'Union to strike for the right of workers not to be dismissed by incompetent management'?

Or would that not evoke the reaction they intended perchance?

purch

It is highly likely that LU will be using a breath testing device using a Lion Cell Sensor, which is state of the art and will not give a positive result for anything other than alcohol.

If LU did not follow the correct procedures then they cannot sack the guy, but trying to make out that Diabetes or anything else can affect the result is clutching at straws.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Thanks, so the driver actually has a medical condition (Hypoglycemia) which is proven to sway the results of these tests.

Someone on a diabetic low will have acetone on their breath and this can give a false positive on certain breathalysers. These are the type you can buy for home use. Enforcement agencies use a different type which unaffected by these metabolites called fuel cell breathalysers - TFL use this type.

I don't really want to be on a train being driven by someone on a diabetic low but that's by the by - the driver will have been aware of the condition and so after the first positive test will have mentioned this, ate a Mars bar, and then shortly after the second test will have been negative.

It would seem unreasonable to me that a driver wouldn't be allowed to do this and this might be cause for the union involvement.

I suspect the driver had been drinking and his 'medical condition' was first mentioned only after the event*. Funny really because I know a couple of people with diabetes and it's pretty clear to them and everyone around them when they're having a sugar crash.

* based on no facts of the individual case the same as everyone else.

princeofpounds

If these is doubt about the alcohol reading, a strike is not the appropriate way to address it.

A tribunal is the correct way forward, and the union will know that.

If the tribunal comes up with some totally injust conclusion, fine maybe it's something to consider.

omeone on a diabetic low will have acetone on their breath and this can give a false positive on certain breathalysers. These are the type you can buy for home use. Enforcement agencies use a different type which unaffected by these metabolites called fuel cell breathalysers - TFL use this type.

Certainly one side or the other is spreading disinformation. If what you say is true, I suspect it's the union.

wotsthat

princeofpounds wrote: »

Certainly one side or the other is spreading disinformation. If what you say is true, I suspect it's the union.

The science looks to be on the side of the employer so I can only assume the union is arguing that the random test wasn't random or the procedure hasn't been followed correctly.

Diabetes is a red herring - may as well argue the driver was on the Atkins diet.

antrobus

London Underground say;

• This case went through the full disciplinary hearing and appeals process as well as a separate independent Director's Review. LU explored in detail the suggestion that diabetes could impact on the breathalyser result, which included taking guidance from Occupational Health specialists
• Diabetes produces acetone in the bloodstream, which can affect some other types of breathalyzer. But a fuel cell breathalyzer, the industry-leading equipment used by LU, is not affected by acetone, which it can't detect
• LU doesn't test for alcohol in urine because this is not a 'real-time' test: it doesn't show what's in a person's bloodstream at that moment
• LU's tests are fair, accurate and industry-recognised. They meet legal obligations, which are policed and monitored closely by the Office of Rail Regulation.

https://www.tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2015/february/lu-urges-rmt-members-to-vote-no-in-alcohol-ballot

princeofpounds

Interesting, thanks. Timbo58, does that change your thinking at all? (not trying to be provocative, I'm honestly interested in your opinions as someone closer to this particular coalface)

mystic_trev

I thought the Driver had admitted to drinking before he took the breathalyser?