GC did NOT evade a “Drugs and Alcohol Test”. GC was taken ill at his nearby on his way to his depot. It was documented at one of our stations that GC was taken ill. The investigating managers at GC depot requested pictures of GC vomit. GC was unwell. He booked off under the company's own procedures. GC was on his way home when he was contacted by the management team and then made aware , that the Drug and Alcohol testers were at his home depot. GC was NOT aware that the Drug and Alcohol testers were at his home depot before he booked off from duty.
The startling development on the Unfair Dismissal of GC is that the Employer is moving the goalposts. Their own procedures are NOT being followed. If this injustice goes unchecked we may allow a precedent that any Employee who has been taken ill and who books off work to make their way home could then be recalled back to work for a Drug and alcohol test. This is not permitted under the current company procedures and guidelines .
It is not disputed that :
• GC had taken ill.
• That GC was unaware of the Drug and Alcohol testers presence before he booked off work ill, all during the middle of a global pandemic.
• That GC followed current guidelines and procedures when he booked off sick
Past precedent suggests that many (most?) employers who lose an ET and are ordered to reinstate workers fail to do so. If the facts are as stated by RMT the management action appears to be draconian given the stated circumstances.Something doesn't add up. If the RMT is so worried about procedures they should allow this to go through an Employment Tribunal where a judge can consider the matter. This is what the RMT branch have to say:
I do note the last matter before the Employment Tribunal on BAILII is dated March 25th 2021. "The complaint of unfair dismissal is not well-founded and is dismissed."
Getting informally tipped off about D&A testing by colleagues and doing a runner is extremely common. I'm a former DSM and had to discipline someone for pretty obviously doing the same. Needless to say he got the boot. Everyone knows how seriously this is taken, and the likely outcome of doing it.I can't shake the feeling that the RMT statement, combined with LU's actions, are compatible with a scenario where "GC" was informally warned of the test while on his way to book on. Indeed, it seems to place particular emphasis on the fact that he officially didn't know about it prior to reporting illness — which stands out to me a bit.
Certainly, something doesn't make sense 100% here, and I'm struggling to come up with a different plausible explanation.
The judgement's conclusion of "The complaint of unfair dismissal is not well-founded and is dismissed." does indeed relate to a different person. I submit the legal principle of crying wolf may apply and readers should rightly be hesitant at accepting all claims of unfair dismissal at the hands of LUL with a degree of scepticism.That person has a completely different name to the person in the RMT press release. Is this remotely related?
The judgement's conclusion of "The complaint of unfair dismissal is not well-founded and is dismissed." does indeed relate to a different person. I submit the legal principle of crying wolf may apply and readers should rightly be hesitant at accepting all claims of unfair dismissal at the hands of LUL with a degree of scepticism.
I'd ask for evidence for your assertion of "Past precedent that many (most?)".
And well exactly, that's what doesn't make any sense whatsoever. The idea LUL would act in such a way knowing their decision would come under intense scrutiny just doesn't stand. I look forward to RMT releasing their Particulars of Claim and their Skeleton Argument for the ET.
Incidentally, I note that the RMT were themselves ordered to pay £37,741.66 following a successful claim for Age discrimination against them back in November 2020.
But that's not what you asserted in the first place lol.
Reinstatement/re-engagement after a finding of “Unfair Dismissal”. Time for a change? - Meaby&Co SolicitorsTheoretically, in circumstances in which an employer is found by an Employment Tribunal (“ET”) to have unfairly dismissed an employee, the remedy, in order of priority, are reinstatement, re-engagement, and finally, compensation. “Reinstatement” requires the employer to treat the employee as if...www.meaby.co.uk
A legal argument, complete with a case example, of why ETs can be of limited utility.
Re your last para. You can look forward to what you want. I look forward to being richer than Bill Gates. That isn't going to happen either.But that's not what you asserted in the first place lol.
"Past precedent suggests that many (most?) employers who lose an ET and are ordered to reinstate workers fail to do so."
Your link says:
"Orders for reinstatement or re-engagement occur in less than 1% of successful unfair dismissal claims"
So of that 1% how many are successful? Please provide evidence that more than 50% of those 1% are not reinstated or I simple cannot place any weight on your post.
I look forward to the RMT following the correct procedure and allowing a court to determine the claim, rather than resort to holding Londoners to ransom.
The role of an MP is to act in the best interests of their constituents, doesn't mean they shouldn't be scrutinised.Why should there be? The role of a trade union is to protect the interests of it's members. That is exactly what RMT are doing.