Tube strike threat over sacked driver

Just look at the comments.

Particularly the one where it states that there were not, in fact, two incidents, but two tests a few minutes apart. Down-voted 30 times.

Certainly reinforces my opinion of the sort of 'person' who reads the daily wail.

They haven't the slightest interest in a fair and accurate result - only in bashing the driver and the unions.

Test repeated to confirm the first wasn't an error.

Yeah, because using the same hand held meter is the really intelligent way to make sure that it's working properly and obviously a satisfactory way to carry on when it's someone's livelihood at stake.

@ class 411

So what do you propose as an alternative?

The unanswered questions of Moorgate ensure that there must be some system in place. And in the event of an accident, there could be more than just one person's livelihood involved. So what is your idea for an acceptable alternative please??

@ 411

So, your inference is either that the current procedure would not satisfy a court of law?

ARE you saying the current "procedure" followed in this case is thus illegal?

If so, why have the Unions allowed this situation to happen,
until this specific case brought a procedure to light that would not satisfy a court of law, to occur??

Please clarify

Thanks norbiton

I am trying to establish whether LU followed a legal or an illegal procedure. That's the question.

IF it was a legal procedure, LU are obviously in the wrong.

But IF they conducted the breath test via correct procedures and thus got a "positive", then I cannot see the issue, and the consequences are clear.

So was the breath test properly conducted via agreed procedures or not? An answer, rather than opinions please. (And it should be a simple "Yes" or "No" answer)

castlebar That is the crux of the matter. LU claim it was and the Union argues that there discrepancies in the execution of the test.

The point everyone seems to have missed is that the LU policy on drink is zero tolerance.

There isn't an acceptable level, its nothing at all in your system when you book on.

Surely it doesn't matter what device is used, or how the procedure is conducted - its done by outside company BTW! - the fact remains that alcohol was found in his system and thats that. Like I say, the "limit" is zero, so any alcohol registered is a failure to comply.

I wouldn't want to argue with someone who is very clearly far better qualified to know the rules and regulations, but I have to ask if you are certain that you have interpreted that correctly.

I ask for two reasons:

1) All humans produce alcohol, every day, through natural fermentation of stomach contents. It's a very small amount, true, but a sufficiently sensitive test can pick it up, so a corollary for requiring a zero alcohol level would be that LU could not employ humans to drive trains.

2) If it were that clear cut, why would the union be fighting the case? Surely they would not want to appear to be in any way condoning flouting established safety rules?


To be 100% clear, there are two possible 'zeros' here:

a) A zero tolerance of anyone found to have more than a certain level of alcohol in their blood.
b) An acceptable level of zero alcohol.

The two are, of course, very different.

Of course... I strongly doubt TfL as a large employer would fail to have a clear, fair and appropriate policy in place for such a critical matter... And Colin's post indicates he's in little doubt of the expectations.

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.


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.


The widespread, but nevertheless fanciful, idea that just because a company is very large, it can impose any rules it wants is something of a myth. One thing that has been brought up in this case is diabetes. If a company disregards this illness, then it is in breach of disability legislation and cruising for a bruising in the courts. That does not mean, of course, that diabetics are allowed to perform safety critical work whilst drunk. Merely that whatever procedures are in place must take account of any special circumstances that the disease my bring about. It doesn't matter one jot if the procedure has been 'agreed' - what matters is whether a court decides it is reasonable and in line with relevant legislation.

I'm clearer on this now. Thanks to all.

My understanding is thus:

1)There is a "No alcohol if the bloodstream" policy when staff are signing on

2)Somebody signed on for work to drive a train, and was tested for alcohol in the bloodstream. He was re-tested and the same result was obtained.

3)Because that employee had alcohol in his bloodstream, he was sacked

4)The employee now admits to drinking wine the day/night before his shift

5)LU carried out previously agreed rules and procedures, and the tests were conducted by a third party in order that there is no victimisation when tests are conducted.

6)Diabetes is now being used as a reason for drinking wine(??)

7)Because LU refuses to change the rules for this one (ex-)employee, staff have been called out on strike

8)Above, I read that this should be some sort of "test case" to change existing rules, whereas I would have thought these rules have been made and agreed because of previous events and test cases which have caused these rules to be created

9)Those calling for a strike are calling for re-instatement of the employee with alcohol in his system, irrespective of how this will impact on other peoples' lives.

Am I right, or have I still misunderstood the situation?

I wonder what the test/limits are for airline pilots? There has been a couple of cases recently. What is BALPAs answer to this?

Glad you're clear about that as it is nonsensical when applied to an entity that creates alcohol as part of its metabolism and will thus aways have a non zero blood alcohol content.



I suppose you are one of those people who would be happy if signal lamps were always paired for safety - and wired in series.

Makes about as much senses as saying 'the test was repeated with the same result' when refering to a test conducted by a hand-held device that is specifically NOT deemed to be acceptable for providing evidence in a court of law.



Why have you put the word 'now' in there?

Do you have any evidence that he ever denied this?

Or are you just desperately trying to show him in the worst possible light by suggesting he has changed his story.




Pure supposition. There is no evidence one way or another that the procedure carried out was 'previously agreed'



If you really believe that is what anyone is saying, I'd give up trying to understand anything more complicated than Andy Pandy, now.



Tendentious nonsense. That is not even close to the situation.







No, they do not want the employee reinstated with alcohol in his system.

They are want LU to agree to abide by the result of arbitration or an employment tribunal which would determine if the test procedure was fair and if it was correctly carried out.



Some of the above is muddled, some inaccurate, some deliberately tendentious, and some demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of common mode failure.

But, basically, you have misunderstood the situation (possibly deliberately) in a number of ways.