Central Line RMT strike 6 May 21

Status
Not open for further replies.

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
3,624
RMT to strike on the Central Line on polling day in protest at dismissal of a RMT rep.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Brissle Girl

Established Member
Joined
17 Jul 2018
Messages
1,148
That would appear to be the case from the RMT’s comments on the action. They state that their defence case “confirms” that their brother was not avoiding taking the test. However, presenting one’s case in any such dispute is not confirmation, merely one side’s version of events.
 

Mawkie

Member
Joined
17 Feb 2016
Messages
64
Indeed, his story is that he phoned up to report that he would be booking off duty due to sickness and the manager informed him he was going to be tested on return to his depot.

In any case, the strike action has been suspended for further talks.
 

thebigcheese

Member
Joined
2 Jan 2012
Messages
164
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:

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

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."
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
3,624
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."
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.
 

thebigcheese

Member
Joined
2 Jan 2012
Messages
164
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.
 

rebmcr

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2011
Messages
3,525
Location
Cambridge
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.
 

357

Member
Joined
12 Nov 2018
Messages
176
It's interesting. Going by RMT's account - the employee hasn't actually refused to take the test.

A better course of action would have been to be waiting for him when he signs on the first day after resuming work, and explain the circumstances.

I should add that I have been tested before just for asking "Is this a full medical on Friday or just a Drugs/Alcohol test?"!!
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
13,531
This sounds like one of those situations where it will never really be clear what actually happened.
 

thebigcheese

Member
Joined
2 Jan 2012
Messages
164
Well we will if it ends up at the employment tribunal as both sides will have to lay their cards on the table. Members of the public can remotely listen too, and request copies of Witness Statements etc.

It's a bit annoying to think that the central line could have been effectively closed down for a day affecting tens of thousands plus on what appears to be an unfounded whim.

Is there anyone doing a kind of "RMT watch" or similar? Eg subjecting their decisions to public scrutiny.
 

Journeyman

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2014
Messages
6,278
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.
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.
 

thebigcheese

Member
Joined
2 Jan 2012
Messages
164
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.
 

Egg Centric

Member
Joined
6 Oct 2018
Messages
218
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 completely agree that anything the RMT says should be taken with a pinch of salt. Nevertheless the example you gave doesn't really lend any weight to that or this case; in fact given the ex-employee in it was a litigant in person I think we can probably conclude they weren't supported by any union.

Since I haven't the foggiest what went on in this case it'd be totally unfair to express an opinion but what I would say is that it is always terrible when someone loses a long held job and I hope this sacking was either merited or is to be reversed.
 

357

Member
Joined
12 Nov 2018
Messages
176
Strike is now cancelled according to email from TfL
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
3,624
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.

A legal argument, complete with a case example, of why ETs can be of limited utility.
 

thebigcheese

Member
Joined
2 Jan 2012
Messages
164

A legal argument, complete with a case example, of why ETs can be of limited utility.
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.
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
3,624
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.
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.
 

thebigcheese

Member
Joined
2 Jan 2012
Messages
164
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.
Well indeed. That's why I asked earlier in this thread whether there was any kind of "RMT watch" or scrutiny group going on.
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
3,624
Well indeed. That's why I asked earlier in this thread whether there was any kind of "RMT watch" or scrutiny group going on.
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.
 

thebigcheese

Member
Joined
2 Jan 2012
Messages
164
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.
The role of an MP is to act in the best interests of their constituents, doesn't mean they shouldn't be scrutinised.

The RMT have said "The RMT will use every weapon available to secure the reinstatement of GC."

"Every Weapon"

Does that sound responsible to you?


They picked today as the proposed date for the strike as "We are mindful that the Mayoral election is in May, which coincides with an predicted upturn in traffic!"

So a group purporting to act in the best interests of their members deliberately chose a date to disrupt elections and you don't think that should have any scrutiny?!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top