Tube strike threat over sacked driver Feb 14, 2015 19:44:19 GMT
Post by rheostar on Feb 14, 2015 19:44:19 GMT
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?
It's only be a criminal offence if a driver has exceeded the road drink driving limit of 35 micrograms of alcohol for every 100 millilitres of breath.
In the past, I've been involved with 'for cause' incident testing where a member of staff had been reported as being under the influence of alcohol. The BTP were called and they carried out a breath test on the staff member. The test came up as amber on the breath test machine so the BTP were not interested as although the staff member had been drinking, he'd not exceeded the drink driving limit and not committed a criminal offence.
However, the LU's standard is zero. A further breath test was carried out by the independent company that we use and the staff member was proven to have alcohol in his system. He was subsequently dismissed from LU.
I'd imagine that the Northern line diver is in a similar situation. He's not committed a criminal offence, but had a positive reading on the breath test. If the test is not zero then he's breached the company standard and will have to face the consequences.
Why would there be a need for this incident to go to court?
At a later date, the driver could take LU to an industrial tribunal regarding his dismissal where the RMT can fund the driver if they believe he has a good case.