[News] Rant from RMT assistant general secretary during radio interview.

[drew]

Are you just cherry picking the facts that may possibly be an explanation for the failure or are you ignoring the fact that he did actually fail a breath test (just as the union rep did in the radio interview)?

In any case, surely this is a one individual situation which should be dealt with by HR (or equiv of) and the individual (with union representation if desired). If he was unfairly dismissed and it went to arbitration then I am sure he could claim compensation. What has it got to do with anyone else and why is there a strike at all (effecting tens of thousands of commuters)?

Have you bothered to read anything about this case? The pertinent fact is not that he failed a breath test but why. He was not drunk and there appears to be no suggestion that he was. According to another poster, he was 1/10th of the drink drive limit. If that is the case, and the LU were aware of his type 2 diabetes, then why the sacking. If there is an issue, why destroy the urine sample? Common sense would dictate that you retain that until the issue is resolved.

With regard to action, what action can the union take then. He was dismissed, there was an internal appeal which upheld the decision (but let's be honest, that would have been carried out by LU management anyway). The LU won't go to tribunal which the Union have suggested so what should they do. Abandon their member to unemployment! There should be due process and it would appear from the face of it that LU are not interested in that. I am sure there are more facts that we are not aware of but I can only comment on what is in the public domain.

It seems you however, are only concerned with one line of the story, ie did he fail a breath test!


As an aside, a quick look at the RMT website would suggest that this isn't the only case where LU have destroyed evidence before an issue is resolved.


What I do agree on is that the Union rep didn't do himself any favours with his outburst.

 

[yxee]

Sounds like "due process" was followed, he broke the alcohol limit of the job, failed the appeal, and was dismissed.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Sounds like "due process" was followed, he broke the alcohol limit of the job, failed the appeal, and was dismissed.

He did not break the alcohol limit of the job. He failed a breath test. There is a difference.

 

[Norman Baker suck my lozenge]

The union asked that a urine test be done, which was refused. That's why the action is taking place.

A urine test was done but both samples subsequently destroyed before testing,this alone should have had the case against our driver thrown out.
Other facts are as follows,the test was carried out by a trainee whilst the supervising official "popped out for a fag",this machine type has been recorded as failed in the past,a manager blew 3 times over the legal limit on one just a few months earlier.
Our driver offered to go ,escorted to London Underground occupational health to give an immediate blood test,this was declined.

 

[Frampler]

The LU won't go to tribunal which the Union have suggested so what should they do. Abandon their member to unemployment! There should be due process and it would appear from the face of it that LU are not interested in that.

There's no need for LU to agree to go to a tribunal.

Speaking from the perspective of an employment lawyer, the alternative to industrial action would be for the union to:
1. Submit an employment tribunal claim for unfair dismissal
2. Fund that claim, including legal representation
3. Upon the dismissal being found to be unfair, apply to the tribunal for an order for reinstatement.

So, there is a legal way to deal with this dispute, which doesn't require the cooperation of LU. However, it would take around a year, so I can see why the union has taken the route of applying industrial pressure.

As a rail commuter I'm not particularly fond of the RMT - it's people like me who have to fund train drivers being paid doctors' salaries. However, when it comes to industrial relations on the Tube, LU doesn't get anywhere near enough criticism. The management often behaves in an inflammatory manner, and prefers to conduct negotiations in the press, rather than with the unions. In this instance, millions of people will be inconvenienced because of the high handed and oppressive manner in which LU conducts disciplinary investigations. But that's LU under Boris - total failure of management.

 

[Norman Baker suck my lozenge]

Have you bothered to read anything about this case? The pertinent fact is not that he failed a breath test but why. He was not drunk and there appears to be no suggestion that he was. According to another poster, he was 1/10th of the drink drive limit. If that is the case, and the LU were aware of his type 2 diabetes, then why the sacking. If there is an issue, why destroy the urine sample? Common sense would dictate that you retain that until the issue is resolved.

With regard to action, what action can the union take then. He was dismissed, there was an internal appeal which upheld the decision (but let's be honest, that would have been carried out by LU management anyway). The LU won't go to tribunal which the Union have suggested so what should they do. Abandon their member to unemployment! There should be due process and it would appear from the face of it that LU are not interested in that. I am sure there are more facts that we are not aware of but I can only comment on what is in the public domain.

It seems you however, are only concerned with one line of the story, ie did he fail a breath test!


As an aside, a quick look at the RMT website would suggest that this isn't the only case where LU have destroyed evidence before an issue is resolved.


What I do agree on is that the Union rep didn't do himself any favours with his outburst.

We are extremely confident that the independent employment tribunal will find in our members favour.
As a Union we are asking LUL to abide by the tribunal rules and re-instate our member if this is the case,LUL are not obliged to do this and would much rather pay our member compensation,which will be pittance compared to another 10+ years service on top of the 29 already served with the company.
All industrial action will be called off if LUL agree to honour the tribunal ruling,RMT has gone on record as saying that they are willing to abide by the ruling,seems perfectly reasonable to me.

 

[Norman Baker suck my lozenge]

There's no need for LU to agree to go to a tribunal.

Speaking from the perspective of an employment lawyer, the alternative to industrial action would be for the union to:
1. Submit an employment tribunal claim for unfair dismissal
2. Fund that claim, including legal representation
3. Upon the dismissal being found to be unfair, apply to the tribunal for an order for reinstatement.

So, there is a legal way to deal with this dispute, which doesn't require the cooperation of LU. However, it would take around a year, so I can see why the union has taken the route of applying industrial pressure.

As a rail commuter I'm not particularly fond of the RMT - it's people like me who have to fund train drivers being paid doctors' salaries. However, when it comes to industrial relations on the Tube, LU doesn't get anywhere near enough criticism. The management often behaves in an inflammatory manner, and prefers to conduct negotiations in the press, rather than with the unions. In this instance, millions of people will be inconvenienced because of the high handed and oppressive manner in which LU conducts disciplinary investigations. But that's LU under Boris - total failure of management.

You seem to be resentful of drivers salaries,what sort of salary do think would be suitable for a train driver?

 

[Brian Fantana]

You seem to be resentful of drivers salaries,what sort of salary do think would be suitable for a train driver?

For a job that could conceivably be automated in the fairly near future, I think they're overpaid.

 

[Ernest]

For a job that could conceivably be automated in the fairly near future, I think they're overpaid.

Then why do the firms pay them so much ?

 

[User removed 4]

We are extremely confident that the independent employment tribunal will find in our members favour.
As a Union we are asking LUL to abide by the tribunal rules and re-instate our member if this is the case,LUL are not obliged to do this and would much rather pay our member compensation,which will be pittance compared to another 10+ years service on top of the 29 already served with the company.
All industrial action will be called off if LUL agree to honour the tribunal ruling,RMT has gone on record as saying that they are willing to abide by the ruling,seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Sounds reasonable to me too.

 

[Brian Fantana]

Then why do the firms pay them so much ?

No idea. Just giving my opinion that they're too high.

 

[Norman Baker suck my lozenge]

For a job that could conceivably be automated in the fairly near future, I think they're overpaid.

How much do you think I should be paid?
9k? 10k? Bit more? Bit less?

 

[User removed 4]

Then why do the firms pay them so much ?

Because Bob crow threatened industrial action(often unreasonably) so often !

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

How much do you think I should be paid?
9k? 10k? Bit more? Bit less?

£30k would be fair I think. Maybe £35k to take into account living in London, but then you get free travel as well.

 

[User removed 4]

How much do you think I should be paid?
9k? 10k? Bit more? Bit less?

I'd say it's probably around a 30k a year job, but good luck to you with whatever you earn, I for one don't begrudge you any of it.

 

[drew]

There's no need for LU to agree to go to a tribunal.

Speaking from the perspective of an employment lawyer, the alternative to industrial action would be for the union to:
1. Submit an employment tribunal claim for unfair dismissal
2. Fund that claim, including legal representation
3. Upon the dismissal being found to be unfair, apply to the tribunal for an order for reinstatement.

So, there is a legal way to deal with this dispute, which doesn't require the cooperation of LU. However, it would take around a year, so I can see why the union has taken the route of applying industrial pressure.

As a rail commuter I'm not particularly fond of the RMT - it's people like me who have to fund train drivers being paid doctors' salaries. However, when it comes to industrial relations on the Tube, LU doesn't get anywhere near enough criticism. The management often behaves in an inflammatory manner, and prefers to conduct negotiations in the press, rather than with the unions. In this instance, millions of people will be inconvenienced because of the high handed and oppressive manner in which LU conducts disciplinary investigations. But that's LU under Boris - total failure of management.

I can appreciate where you are coming from with regard to being a commuter but like you say, the abject failure of the management on this occasion seems to be the problem in this case (although that isn't to say the Union are always right!).

Sounds like "due process" was followed, he broke the alcohol limit of the job, failed the appeal, and was dismissed.

Then you need to do a bit more research. Does due process include destroying evidence?

 

[drew]

No idea. Just giving my opinion that they're too high.

Out of interest, what line of work do you do?


edit: Not entirely sure what being a 'reporter in the field' actually means!

 

[Norman Baker suck my lozenge]

£30k would be fair I think. Maybe £35k to take into account living in London, but then you get free travel as well.

That's quite a bit more than 10k,bless you.

 

[Norman Baker suck my lozenge]

I can appreciate where you are coming from with regard to being a commuter but like you say, the abject failure of the management on this occasion seems to be the problem in this case (although that isn't to say the Union are always right!).



Then you need to do a bit more research. Does due process include destroying evidence?

In the company's drugs and alcohol policy it states all samples taken should be kept for one year.

 

[JCL - the new kid in town]

Are people just ignorant or do the only see what they want to see and ignore facts that are placed right in front on them. The OP has made a comment about a report. Fair enough. Some earlier posts also comment but then we have people posting more facts about the case for example :-

He's a diabetic

Diabetics can register a positive reading without having had a drink

and you ignored the comment that the test performed shouldn't be affected by being a diabetic (post 22). However it does seem silly to go down the dismissal route from one test, I wouldn't be comfortable with that. Don't the police have a system whereby you have to fail a breathalyzer and a second test (blood or urine) to be prosecuted for drink driving (i could be wrong)