Offences by operators of transport systems.
28.—(1) If a person commits an offence under section 27 above, the responsible operator shall also be guilty of an offence.
(2) In this section "the responsible operator" means—
(a) in a case where the transport system on which the offence under section 27 above is committed has only one operator, that operator;
(b) in a case where the transport system on which the offence under section 27 above is committed has more than one operator, whichever of them is responsible for the work giving rise to the offence.
(3) No offence is committed under subsection (1) above if the responsible operator has exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission on the transport system of any offence under section 27 above.
The above section of the Transport and Works Act 1992 makes it the responsibility of the employer (The Operator) to ensure that has suitable systems in place to ensure no-one arrives to take duty in an unfit state.
Indeed funnily enough last night I was called for randon screening when I walked into the office.
It is a Contractual obligation to comply with ANY screening request. A failure to do so result in disciplinary action which will ALWAYS result in dismissal in the first instance.
No-one would reasonably refuse a screen in the railway industry. Why should we?. We are (practically all of us) responsible enough to report for duty in a fit and proper state.
We have broad guidelines concerning how we judge a requirement for a "For Cause" screen.
niknak.. Your views would no doubt be modified if one of your relatives was killed as a result of someone being under the influence at work??
We were discussing this case at work this morning, and we all agreed that none of us would consent to take a breath test if asked to do so by our employer, but would do so if a uniformed police officer asked us to.
The attitude of you and your colleagues intriques me