Tube strike threat over sacked driver

[castlebar]

@ class411

Maybe I am still misunderstanding it, although trying to get clarification was the reason for my questions

The personal insult you have made is typical from a person without sound foundation to an argument, > it is natural progression

But if the diabetes is not relevant, why was it brought into the frame??

But I say to you now, you have inadvertently created an ineluctable argument for driverless trains

[class411]

Feb 13, 2015 15:43:35 GMT castlebar said:

@ class411

Maybe I am still misunderstanding it, although trying to get clarification was the reason for my questions

I have been trying to make things as clear as possible for some time.

I have no idea whatsoever as to the guilt of innocence of the driver concerned.

My arguments have been against those who seem to want to consider it a cut and dried case when it is anything but.

The personal insult you have made is typical from a person without sound foundation to an argument, > it is natural progression

Actually, that is complete nonsense. Any normal person will get ratty if he or she is continually bombarded with the same inaccurate statements whilst saliant points they make are ignored.

Or do you believe that anyone with a sound argument suddenly receives saint like patience?

But if the diabetes is not relevant, why was it brought into the frame??

Who said it was irrelevant?

It may be relevant if it causes inaccurate readings in the equipment used by LU or their agents.

If that is the case LU do not have a leg to stand on. If it is not true, then it is an irrelevance and will no doubt be shown so at some point.

But I say to you now, you have inadvertently created an ineluctable argument for driverless trains

Not really.

What I have done is point out that if you insist that the rule is 'absolutely no alcohol in the blood stream', there are only two possibilities:

1) You cannot use humans to drive trains
2) That rule, even if written down in black and white and agreed to by every driver signing in blood, is not, de facto, enforced.

Given we know (1) is not the case, then (2) must be and there must, therefore, be some limit below which either the equipment does not register alcohol or the operator deems the reading to be effectively zero.

And if the equipment falsely registers some other chemical as alcohol then it is very easy to see how it might tip some innocent driver over the limit.

[Tomcakes]

Moderator comment :-

Can we please keep discussion civil and devoid of unnecessary personal insults? Thank you.

[norbitonflyer]

Diabetes is highly relevant. It is a metabolic disorder, and one of its effects is to produce a high level of acetone in the breath. Normal metabolisis of alcohol also produces acetone. The two chemicals have a similar structure, and breathalysers have difficulty telling them apart.

If a breathalyser detects high levels in the breath, several possible conclusions can be drawn, among them:
1. the subject has been drinking
2, the subject is diabetic
3. the subject is pregnant (although the level I such a case is fairly low)
4. the machine has been contaminated (there have been cases of the things being cleaned between uses with alcohol wipes!)

(These are not mutually exclusive)

You cannot tell which of these is the case unless you can eliminate ALL the others. No 2 is easy to establish: it is a well-known medical condition and it would be difficult to fake it sufficiently well to fool a doctor. The acetone breath is a side effect.

Now, it may be that the chap was in the middle of a diabetic emergency (hypoglycaemia), and unfit to drive that day. In which case he should have been signed off sick, not sacked.

"Zero tolerance" does not mean that the minimum is zero. We metabolise alcohol all the time. And there will always be a level of concentration below which no machine, however accurate, can detect a chemical substance, so at a practical level there is bound to be tolerance of any level below that minimum. What Zero tolerance means is that the minimum level, however high it is, is absolute. An analogy would be being prosecuted for doing 30.01mph in a 30 limit. It does not mean the limit itself is zero.

[Deleted]

Feb 12, 2015 12:23:14 GMT sawb said:

I am not going to go into the nitty gritty of what has or hasn't happened.

Alas, everyone else...

Not that I can judge, as you'll soon see:

For anyone who hasn't seen it, I'd like to draw your attention to an - I think - excellent summary by Aslef Shrugged. Various blog posts either side of this one also contain useful information.

Now there is no real reason to take issue with our friend Colin's assertion that no (or practically no, if you insist) alcohol may be present. This is an absolutely vital requirement and is not up for dispute. Nobody is seeking to defend anybody who turns up for work with any (apart from the natural amount, if you insist) alcohol in their blood. Everyone accepts that when they take the job. I can fish out for you exactly what Network Rail say on the matter if anyone's interested and I suspect LU staff in safety critical roles get something similar.

However, from reading Shrugged's blog, it does seem that LU also publish guidelines on how much you can drink and when before booking on to ensure that you're not over the limit (but can still drink in your life), which AMcG complied with.

The second issue is that there is a small chance of some breathalysers giving a false positive result when used on individuals with type II diabetes. This is only a small chance, though, which is probably why the issue hasn't come up before.

So, from AMcG's point of view, he followed LU's guidelines on drinking alcohol and turned up to work under the impression that he had no alcohol in his blood. None. He was within the limits. This is a belief in which he could have been mistaken, of course, but he naturally seems to believe that there was a mistake. This is a belief which the unions think is reasonable enough. There is nobody saying it's okay to have a little bit of alcohol in your system when you book on. They're saying: I don't think he did have any alcohol in his system - perhaps there was a mistake.

That's the first point. Bear in mind, too, that AMcG may not have known that type II diabetes can cause false readings, which is the most reasonable explanation for why it cropped up later.

The second is the more cogent one and it's what the strike is ostensibly about. When the reading is in doubt, what should happen is that the urine sample is tested. Type II diabetes cannot, as far as I know, corrupt the results of the urine test. However, LU discarded the urine sample before anyone could test it and nobody knows why. And therein really lies your problem. You've got a driver who believes there's a mistake and LU have thrown away the evidence that could have vindicated him. It may also have condemned him. I must stress that I don't know if he *was* over the limit (of zero (or essentially zero, if you insist)), those breathalysers are supposed to be good (however it seems it may have been administered by a trainee which may have introduced error).

But the point is, those who are willing to strike think that LU aren't playing at all fair - or worse - have something really quite serious to hide. And nobody wants to be the next victim without any recourse.

Which is not to say that this feeling is entirely justified - I've never worked for LU, unlike some of our esteemed commenters - but that - in theory at least- is "the 411" as they used to say

Or, at least, it's what I understand of it from t'internet.

[theblackferret]

As someone who's sat on adjudication tribunals, I will only add that the first issue is whether agreed procedures were followed.

The second is whether, if they were not, the party that failed to follow them, can advance a satisfactory reason for not doing so.

If tut's summary is correct, one would ask whether the urine sample was part of the agreed procedure, if so, for what purpose was it taken, and, if that agreed purpose was to provide a back-up in case of dispute or faulty initial test, was there a good reason it was not used for its' agreed purpose?

[rincew1nd]

Feb 13, 2015 13:20:42 GMT class411 said:

Feb 13, 2015 11:57:56 GMT rincew1nd said:

If the procedure was not appropriate I would like to think that the unions would have challenged it at introduction!

That isn't generally the way things work.

When a rule or law is changed it usually needs a 'test case' to check that it is in line with all other relevant legislation.

Maybe its a mark of the employer then. When my employer wishes to make changes to our terms and conditions of employment they ask our unions early on.

What would you have had the unions do? Call a strike over something that had not actually happened? That would have had the daily wail readers wetting themselves in sef righteous indignation.

Not a strike no, action short of a strike perhaps, raise a grievance perhaps because (as this thread has demonstrated) there are a number of commonly known occasions where false positives are possible with a breath test; probably.

Exactly the same as there can be protests because of a planned something. Its no use chaining yourself to a tree, when said tree has already been dug up to make way for a new road that you don't want across your garden!

[suncloud]

Disclaimer - Not a legal expert.

The procedures used by the police in drink driving cases are so strict (i.e. taking multiple tests and margins of error) is that they have to prove guilt 'beyond reasonbale doubt' whereas in civil cases/tribunals the level of proof of 'guilt' required may not be as high...

[Colin]

Feb 13, 2015 16:39:51 GMT class411 said:

I have been trying to make things as clear as possible for some time.

I have no idea whatsoever as to the guilt of innocence of the driver concerned.

My arguments have been against those who seem to want to consider it a cut and dried case when it is anything but.

You're trying to make things clear.............you then say you have no idea about the incident concerned and then state its anything but cut & dried. Ok, whatever.....

We (the forum staff) are often blamed for the way we run this forum as the reason LU staff have left this forum yet this thread is proof of the real reason - non LU people telling LU staff they're wrong when they ain't!

As I've not got long at home this is the nearest reference I could find and upload quickly:



As you can see, its taken from an ASLEF document and it clearly mentions about complying with a zero alcohol level.

Please desist telling us that a zero tolerance policy is illegal, impossible, or otherwise wrong - it clearly isn't.

[castlebar]

Thank you Colin. This is all much clearer to me now.

I assume ALL driving staff know the penalty for having alcohol in the body when signing on will be severance of their employment contract

In this case there were two positive readings with the same or similar results, yes??

I assume the person concerned has been tested on previous occasions and has previously provided "zero alcohol" readings, (so they are possible).
This time the readings were above zero, thus his severance of employment contract was mandatory.
Rather than accept this as per his signed acceptance of conditions of employment, millions of people are to be inconvenienced via a strike, and the Conservatives will probably gain some anti-union votes as a consequence. I doubt this is the "desired outcome" some of the strikers are wishing to achieve, but I think that is what is most likely to happen. The Daily Mail will no doubt see to it.

[norbitonflyer]

Zero tolerance and zero alcohol are not the same thing.

The ASLEF guidance mentions "zero alcohol" but that is not the rule book. Human lung capacity is 6 litres - 3,600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules. "Zero alcohol" would literally mean not a single one of those molecules is ethyl alcohol. There is no machine in existence which can identify such tiny concentrations. So in practice any breathalyser is calibrated to be set off by a certain concentration of alcohol, and you get a "positive" if it detects more than that.

False positives can occur in any medical test - alcohol tests being no exception. And it is well known that diabetics can give false positives. So what if he tested negative last time? It is a metabolic disorder - your biochemistry (particularly the blood sugar levels) go all over the place because you can't control them. So you can produce different results to blood breath, urine or any other samples on different days.

And as the tests are random his previous test may have been the previous day, the previous month the previous year, or this may have been the first test he ever had. have

[class411]

Feb 13, 2015 19:45:30 GMT Colin said:

Feb 13, 2015 16:39:51 GMT class411 said:

I have been trying to make things as clear as possible for some time.

I have no idea whatsoever as to the guilt of innocence of the driver concerned.

My arguments have been against those who seem to want to consider it a cut and dried case when it is anything but.

You're trying to make things clear

Yes.

you then say you have no idea about the incident concerned

Yes.

and then state its anything but cut & dried. Ok, whatever.....

Yes.

That is why billions of pounds are spent on the entire edifice of the criminal and civil justice systems.

For the case to be clear cut you would need:

1) A rule made by LU that had been tested in a court of law for its legality. (In all its specifics, not simply its general intent).

2) A set of procedures for enforcing that rule that had been tested in a court of law, again, in all their specifics.

3) Absolutely clear and undisputed evidence that the procedures had been followed.

THEN you could pretty much claim that it was cut and dried.


As far as it's been reported, and no one has provided any links to show otherwise, none of the above hold true in this case.

We (the forum staff) are often blamed for the way we run this forum as the reason LU staff have left this forum yet this thread is proof of the real reason - non LU people telling LU staff they're wrong when they ain't!

OK, you believe that you are 'right', in some absolute sense, and I am saying the there are many subtleties in many areas that may mean that what you believe is black and white is, in fact, many shades of grey.

I'm sorry if you feel that this in some way undermines you, but, as I said above, there is a very good reason why there is a complex, multi tiered justice system.

Please desist telling us that a zero tolerance policy is illegal, impossible, or otherwise wrong - it clearly isn't.

I'm sorry, again, but an ASLEF (or any other company/union document) does not prove that something is not wrong; it's up to those pesky courts, again.

If I have time, tomorrow, I'll produce an example of how a barrister would make mincemeat of any claim by anyone that they enforced an absolute zero alcohol policy.

As an LU employee you may assume that LU have some God like powers that mean that the laws that apply to everyone else do not apply to them. I'm afraid, if that is the case, you are quite wrong.

[class411]

Feb 13, 2015 20:29:24 GMT castlebar said:

Thank you Colin. This is all much clearer to me now.

It seems that when anyone says what you want to hear, it makes things clearer!

In this case there were two positive readings with the same or similar results, yes??

Have you still not grasped the fact that doing exactly the same test with exactly the same equipment twice, within a few minutes of each other does not mean any more than conducting one test if the objection to the test is that the equipment, buy it's nature, cannot provide accurate results?

This time the readings were above zero, thus his severance of employment contract was mandatory.
Rather than accept this as per his signed acceptance of conditions of employment

You see, this is where you are completely failing to understand the subtleties of the situation.

Drivers (I assume) accept that they must arrive at work with a 'zero alcohol level' (whatever they understand that to mean).

That does not mean they give LU carte blanche to use any flawed method to decide that they have alcohol in their blood stream when in fact they do not.

I would have thought this was obvious, but, I have to say, you seem absolutely determined that the driver in question is guilty without affording him the natural justice of a fair hearing.

[theblackferret]

Thanks for that Document!

On the assumption ASLEF's document has been legally checked as correct in its' information, note it says a specimen of, not two specimens of, as can surely have been the only way one could check it on two meters, must be provided.

If so, was the procedure correctly carried out as per agreed rules and regulations? It appears that the procedure is breath specimen, followed by urine to check the breath result, as required.

Somebody's lawyers will make a few bob out of this case, I believe.

[Chris M]

Feb 13, 2015 23:27:03 GMT theblackferret said:

Somebody's lawyers will make a few bob out of this case, I believe.

More than one Somebody's I'm sure!

[Deleted]

I think all this strike talk, from buses to trains, is messing with my head!

[Deleted]

Feb 13, 2015 19:45:30 GMT Colin said:

....



As you can see, its taken from an ASLEF document and it clearly mentions about complying with a zero alcohol level.

Please desist telling us that a zero tolerance policy is illegal, impossible, or otherwise wrong - it clearly isn't.

Actually, that page does not "mention about complying with a zero alcohol level" - though it does refer to another section  "Alcohol and Drugs - Guidelines for Employees" which may well do.

What it does say is that a sample (of breath and/or urine) must be provided on request - and that failure to provide is a disciplinary offence, potentially (not automatically) leading to summary dismissal.

It also provides advice on how to have zero alcohol: without stating whence that advice comes from (ASLEF, LUL or otherwise), whether it was approved other than by ASLEF, or what it was based on (research by whom, or whatever).

[norbitonflyer]

Feb 13, 2015 22:48:23 GMT norbitonflyer said:

. Human lung capacity is 6 litres - 3,600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules.

Correction: I forgot to divide Avogadro's number by the molar volume - six litres of air does not contain 3,600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules: it contains 160,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 of them.. My point still stands though.

[Colin]

I haven't got the time to turn my bedroom upside down finding the right documents to refer to.......I have to say I'm disapoonted at having to prove what I know to be fact about my own employment policies but hey ho.

I have come across a remark in my reams of paperwork that LU's drug & alcohol policy is based upon the legislation contained within the Transport & works act 1992 - so I'm guessing thats your legal angle sorted.

Thats all I'm gonna post on this subject.

EDIT: forgot to add that the advice on how much to drink in the 24 hours before booking on is LU's and comes from their own internal occupational health department.

[Deleted]

Feb 13, 2015 20:29:24 GMT castlebar said:

Thank you Colin. This is all much clearer to me now.

I assume ALL driving staff know the penalty for having alcohol in the body when signing on will be severance of their employment contract

In this case there were two positive readings with the same or similar results, yes??

I assume the person concerned has been tested on previous occasions and has previously provided "zero alcohol" readings, (so they are possible).
This time the readings were above zero, thus his severance of employment contract was mandatory.
Rather than accept this as per his signed acceptance of conditions of employment, millions of people are to be inconvenienced via a strike, and the Conservatives will probably gain some anti-union votes as a consequence. I doubt this is the "desired outcome" some of the strikers are wishing to achieve, but I think that is what is most likely to happen. The Daily Mail will no doubt see to it.

Its not just driving staff its all staff full stop everyone is liable under the drugs and alcohol policy

[rheostar]

These are extracts from our D&A guidelines -

The Transport and Works Act 1992 contains provisions relating to the use of alcohol and drugs by certain employees working on the railway (LU, Agency staff, Contractors and Consultants) defined as safety critical.

Those LU employees who are categorised as safety critical will be guilty of a criminal offence if they are unfit to carry out their duties through alcohol or drugs or if they are under the influence of/unfit because of
alcohol or drugs whilst carrying out their duties. ( See Appendix F for a definition of Safety Critical )

All employees are issued with a personal copy of the Standard which is duly signed for. Standards are readily available from the Employee Relations Website. Any manager or employee who has not been issued with a personal copy should check the ER Website or contact their own HRS for a copy.
The company has decided that to minimise any safety risks to customers and employees, it will have a ZERO alcohol policy. This also ensures that employees will stay within the limits laid down in the Transport and Works Act.

To guarantee not reporting for work under the influence of alcohol, employees must not consume ANY alcohol in the eight hours immediately before booking on and no more than seven units of alcohol are to be consumed in the sixteen hours before that eight hour period commences.

This is an extract of a message to all LU staff from Nigel Holness (Operations Director JNP) -

...the breath alcohol tests we conduct at LU use a industry-leading fuel cell technology that isn’t affected by diabetes (as has been alleged repeatedly by the RMT). Several other employees were tested but they all showed readings of zero alcohol. The individual at the centre of this case was tested twice. There was alcohol in his bloodstream as he attempted to book on to drive a Northern line train with up to 1000 people on board and that’s a clear breach of our zero tolerance policy, so he lost his job.

[rheostar]

Extracts from The LU Company Standard on Drugs and Work -

The purpose of this standard is to ensure that all London Underground (LU)
employees and suppliers are aware that LU has a zero tolerance approach to drugs
and forbids the use, possession, consumption, storage and sale of illicit drugs on the
company’s premises.

b) The Transport and Works Act 1992 places a duty on LU to exercise ‘all due
diligence’ to prevent employees from working whilst they are unfit for duty through
alcohol and or drugs or where an individual’s ability to work is impaired through the
use of alcohol or drugs.

c) Those employees who are categorised as safety critical will be guilty of a criminal
offence if they are unfit to carry out their duties through alcohol and/or drugs or
where an individual’s ability to work is impaired through the use of alcohol or
drugs. Where such breaches are deemed to be gross misconduct, disciplinary
action may result in dismissal and criminal consequences may include:

i. fines of up to £5,000;

ii. and/or six months imprisonment.

All employees:

a) shall understand and accept their responsibility to comply with the requirements
outlined in this standard;

All LU staff are under no illusion regarding the company's stance on D&A. If we fail the tests we will be dismissed, it's what we expect.

[norbitonflyer]

I understand all that - and note that "zero alcohol policy" means none to be consumed or kept on the premises, and none to be consumed less than eight hours before going on duty. (and dismissal if turning up for work unfit for duty - which is defined as over a certain (very low) limit.

What I do not understand is why LU are not prepared to defend this dismissal in a court of law. LU are not above the law. The driver thinks there is a case to answer. LU should let him have his day in court. Whatever the facts turn out to be, until LU confirm that they will respect the court's decision, they are in the wrong.

[crusty54]

To go before a court the police would have had to have been called at the time and the individual arrested.

I have worked for LUL and contractors. Every time you have any training you are reminded of the rules on alcohol.

You can even be arrested for drinking in uniform in a pub.

I am a Type 2 diabetic and have been tested.

[class411]

Feb 14, 2015 9:45:30 GMT norbitonflyer said:

What I do not understand is why LU are not prepared to defend this dismissal in a court of law. LU are not above the law. The driver thinks there is a case to answer. LU should let him have his day in court. Whatever the facts turn out to be, until LU confirm that they will respect the court's decision, they are in the wrong.

That is what sparked my interest in this case.

And why I have been somewhat dismayed at the number of people queuing up here to rubbish the idea that the driver might have a valid defence.

It's what I'd expect from the readership of the daily fail but I'd hope for a more balanced and fair minded approach, here.

Feb 14, 2015 10:20:04 GMT crusty54 said:

To go before a court the police would have had to have been called at the time and the individual arrested.

That only applies in a criminal case.

The court we are referring to here is a civil one and no such restriction applies.

[theblackferret]

Feb 14, 2015 9:45:30 GMT norbitonflyer said:

I understand all that - and note that "zero alcohol policy" means none to be consumed or kept on the premises, and none to be consumed less than eight hours before going on duty. (and dismissal if turning up for work unfit for duty - which is defined as over a certain (very low) limit.

What I do not understand is why LU are not prepared to defend this dismissal in a court of law. LU are not above the law. The driver thinks there is a case to answer. LU should let him have his day in court. Whatever the facts turn out to be, until LU confirm that they will respect the court's decision, they are in the wrong.

I actually wonder why he wasn't taken to court, vide the information rheostar has supplied on it being a criminal offence? Is a Tube driver not safety-critical?

Seems a little strange, given their agreed zero-tolerance approach, that they apparently don't want to go to court at all.

There could be a very good reason for this, of course, but by refusing to allow a higher authority to deal with it, they give the impression they know their case is full of holes, as perhaps advised by their briefs?

[class411]

Feb 14, 2015 11:20:35 GMT theblackferret said:

Feb 14, 2015 9:45:30 GMT norbitonflyer said:

I understand all that - and note that "zero alcohol policy" means none to be consumed or kept on the premises, and none to be consumed less than eight hours before going on duty. (and dismissal if turning up for work unfit for duty - which is defined as over a certain (very low) limit.

What I do not understand is why LU are not prepared to defend this dismissal in a court of law. LU are not above the law. The driver thinks there is a case to answer. LU should let him have his day in court. Whatever the facts turn out to be, until LU confirm that they will respect the court's decision, they are in the wrong.

I actually wonder why he wasn't taken to court, vide the information rheostar has supplied on it being a criminal offence? Is a Tube driver not safety-critical?

Seems a little strange, given their agreed zero-tolerance approach, that they apparently don't want to go to court at all.

It may be that the alcohol threshold for a criminal offence is significantly higher than LU's fictional 'zero alcohol in your blood stream', and thus there would be no case to answer.

There could be a very good reason for this, of course, but by refusing to allow a higher authority to deal with it, they give the impression they know their case is full of holes, as perhaps advised by their briefs?

It would not be the first time that a company (or government department) has pig headedly insisted in continuing along an unsupportable path, despite all advice to the contrary.

Of course, that might just as easily apply to the union!



ETA

It could, of course, be, that the case relies on a pivotal and arcane legality that has not yet got any associated case law, and both sets of barristers have said that there is a fair chance that their side could win in court.

[theblackferret]

Feb 14, 2015 11:41:09 GMT class411 said:

It would not be the first time that a company (or government department) has pig headedly insisted in continuing along an unsupportable path, despite all advice to the contrary.

Of course, that might just as easily apply to the union!

Yes, before I sat on adjudication tribunals, I was a union rep at over 30, and won the vast majority of cases I presented (26 out of 29 to be precise).

Two of the three I lost, and around six or seven I let someone else take on were cases where the union were unable to see the wood for the trees, rather than the senior managers/personnel etc in the relevant Civil Service department.

It does cut both ways, for sure, but if there is an agreed script that criminal sanctions may be applicable for this sort of offence, they must be consistent and get the police involved every time. Whether a criminal case proceeds beyond that is not their call, but if they seem to pick and choose in which cases the police should get involved, they are not sending out a very clear signal on their zero-tolerance approach, nor, frankly, reassuring the public that they are properly vigilant in prosecuting such matters.

[whistlekiller2000]

I have to admit to feeling decidedly uneasy about all this. Firstly, the breathalyser machines are not considered admissible evidence when used by the police (let alone a private company) and require either a calibrated machine at a police station, a urine test or a blood test as proof of guilt or otherwise. Why then was one relied on (twice) in this case and why was the urine sample destroyed and not taken into account? I'd have thought this was grounds alone for the case to be dismissed.

To be honest if I were the person facing the sack I'd have insisted on a further test on a seperate device where diabetes is not a possible contributory factor, not the first device again. This in itself is basic stuff. You don't use the same machine to prove or disprove a first reading.

The unions have predictably gone to DEFCON 1 when IMHO they'd have been better off funding a court case for the person in question. Instead, as has been rightly pointed out by 411, they've given yet more grist to the mill of reactionaries who sign themselves "Disgusted of Mayfair".

The whole episode is pretty shabby, on both sides.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Feb 14, 2015 11:57:32 GMT theblackferret said:

Yes, before I sat on adjudication tribunals, I was a union rep at over 30, and won the vast majority of cases I presented (26 out of 29 to be precise).

Two of the three I lost, and around six or seven I let someone else take on were cases where the union were unable to see the wood for the trees, rather than the senior managers/personnel etc in the relevant Civil Service department.

.

To put that into perspective, most civil cases are won by the plaintiffs - after all, it's they who decided to take the matter to court, so presumably they thought they could win. The defendant has little choice in the matter!