LBA Air Traffic Controller suspended
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are hand held machines avialable that give a read out, rather then the red/amber /green ones I used. I would assume that they are available at stations that cover airports...But I can't say that for definate. It would be logical to have them as they provide the evidence to arrest by.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a serving officer I would like to point out that on the day in question we were unable to attend for several hours due to other more pressing commitments.
It is now a requirement that all calls are categorised based on available manpower and the seriousness of the alleged offence. Due to limited resources most of our airport personel were tied up enforcing speeding restrictions on the airport approach road and in the Yeadon area in general as well as emptying film from roadside cameras.
Having been informed of the alleged offence the local support personel categorised the call as low risk as the controller in question was not in any likelyhood of driving his car untill the end of his shift. Prior to the end of the shift Officers did attend and appropriate action was taken.
I should like to point out that drink driving after a shift by an air traffic controller is very serious and should not be tolerated particularly if speeding is a factor.
It is now a requirement that all calls are categorised based on available manpower and the seriousness of the alleged offence. Due to limited resources most of our airport personel were tied up enforcing speeding restrictions on the airport approach road and in the Yeadon area in general as well as emptying film from roadside cameras.
Having been informed of the alleged offence the local support personel categorised the call as low risk as the controller in question was not in any likelyhood of driving his car untill the end of his shift. Prior to the end of the shift Officers did attend and appropriate action was taken.
I should like to point out that drink driving after a shift by an air traffic controller is very serious and should not be tolerated particularly if speeding is a factor.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey come on! Who is kidding who?
Police did NOT attend. No-one that I know over 40 years in aviation knows the ANO backwards and forwards. One came close but he was a very special CAA inspector who should come close. Fact is, that the ATCO is question was not breathalised, was not suspended at the time he should have been, and is therefore not guilty of any offence.
All the answers so far are simply verbose claptrap. Police, late in attending, wasn't important enough, and supervisiors unable to take action etc., It was, after all, outside their remit to accuse and, therefore, the guy cannot have been in a serious enough condition, if indeed he was in any 'condition' at all, to have been intoxicated. Was he? Did he cause an airmiss or such?
This is a load of crap that has been grossly mis-handled and the guy should not be trapped by this outrageous gossip.
Police did NOT attend. No-one that I know over 40 years in aviation knows the ANO backwards and forwards. One came close but he was a very special CAA inspector who should come close. Fact is, that the ATCO is question was not breathalised, was not suspended at the time he should have been, and is therefore not guilty of any offence.
All the answers so far are simply verbose claptrap. Police, late in attending, wasn't important enough, and supervisiors unable to take action etc., It was, after all, outside their remit to accuse and, therefore, the guy cannot have been in a serious enough condition, if indeed he was in any 'condition' at all, to have been intoxicated. Was he? Did he cause an airmiss or such?
This is a load of crap that has been grossly mis-handled and the guy should not be trapped by this outrageous gossip.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RTR
We all know Police didn't attend, thats because they were not called. In any event, the primary offence would not have been under the ANO. I doubt you have met everyone involved in aviation, so you can't claim that no one knows it. Even if they don't, oddly its written down and easily accessable.
I think you will find that mostly people agree, this has been mishandled.
We all know Police didn't attend, thats because they were not called. In any event, the primary offence would not have been under the ANO. I doubt you have met everyone involved in aviation, so you can't claim that no one knows it. Even if they don't, oddly its written down and easily accessable.
I think you will find that mostly people agree, this has been mishandled.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pardon me for treading on Hallowed Ground
I read this thread with some interest, and I hope that my observations as a railway man do not find disfavour.
I am intrigued that the relevant Act does not require a duty of "Due Dilligence" by employers to ensure compliance with the Act.
Within the Railway industry we are required to demonstrate that we have adequte "Due Dilligence" procedures, which include
* Pre-Employment screening,
* Transfer to Safety Critical Work screening,
* "For Cause" screening,
* Post Incident screening
Under Health and Safety At Work legislation there is a clear duty upon both the Employer (Section 2) and the employee (Section 7) in respect of any act or ommission that affects the health, safety and welfare of any person. This would also clearly apply to the aviation Industry I would have said.
Maybe there is a need to codify (if not legislate) procedures that should apply if a person is suspected as being under the influence of alcohol or drugs?. That way there is then a very clear set of standard procedures that apply to all, and do not require the attendance of a Police Officer.
That should prevent a situation such as the one discussed here arising?
I am intrigued that the relevant Act does not require a duty of "Due Dilligence" by employers to ensure compliance with the Act.
Within the Railway industry we are required to demonstrate that we have adequte "Due Dilligence" procedures, which include
* Pre-Employment screening,
* Transfer to Safety Critical Work screening,
* "For Cause" screening,
* Post Incident screening
Under Health and Safety At Work legislation there is a clear duty upon both the Employer (Section 2) and the employee (Section 7) in respect of any act or ommission that affects the health, safety and welfare of any person. This would also clearly apply to the aviation Industry I would have said.
Maybe there is a need to codify (if not legislate) procedures that should apply if a person is suspected as being under the influence of alcohol or drugs?. That way there is then a very clear set of standard procedures that apply to all, and do not require the attendance of a Police Officer.
That should prevent a situation such as the one discussed here arising?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Astradome..
there is legislation that covers this, and you working in the Rail Industry are probably aware of it. That offence, like most is an individual repsonsibility. No one is forced to drink, no one is forced to go to work after they have been drinking. It may well be that someone goes to work not knowing they are over a limit for the amount of alcohol in thier blood, but ignorance is not a defence, it may however be mitigation. Your employer is not responsible if you steal something, nor if you assault someone, why should they be if you have had too much to drink? As you know the driver of a train will still be prosecuted if he is involved in something while having had drugs or too much to drink. The company wont be.
So there has been codification (if that word exists) and there is legislation. There has been enough publicity about this new act, certainly where I work.
The Goverment, for whatever reason have decided that that legislation does require the attendence of a police officer to investigate it. But as with anything, if no one calls the police, then there is nothing to stop it being dealt with another way. It seems, if the information given is correct, that thats whats happened here. Whether that was the right way is other matter.
Sadly nothing prevents this sort of situation arrising, drivers of trains still turn up having had a drink, bus drivers turn up over the drink drive limits, so do police officers......
there is legislation that covers this, and you working in the Rail Industry are probably aware of it. That offence, like most is an individual repsonsibility. No one is forced to drink, no one is forced to go to work after they have been drinking. It may well be that someone goes to work not knowing they are over a limit for the amount of alcohol in thier blood, but ignorance is not a defence, it may however be mitigation. Your employer is not responsible if you steal something, nor if you assault someone, why should they be if you have had too much to drink? As you know the driver of a train will still be prosecuted if he is involved in something while having had drugs or too much to drink. The company wont be.
So there has been codification (if that word exists) and there is legislation. There has been enough publicity about this new act, certainly where I work.
The Goverment, for whatever reason have decided that that legislation does require the attendence of a police officer to investigate it. But as with anything, if no one calls the police, then there is nothing to stop it being dealt with another way. It seems, if the information given is correct, that thats whats happened here. Whether that was the right way is other matter.
Sadly nothing prevents this sort of situation arrising, drivers of trains still turn up having had a drink, bus drivers turn up over the drink drive limits, so do police officers......
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BJCC
Refering to your most recent reply, hasn't it always been the case that a breath test can only be carried out by a uniformed police officer, which is precisely why the Government included the appropriate paragraph in the legislation?
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.
Other than the requirements of the current legislation, our employer has no rights to insist on any other test than that which is prescribed by a legally entitled person, (i.e uniformed police officer), to do so would place them in a very precarious position in respect of being taken to the cleaners if they were wrong.
Refering to your most recent reply, hasn't it always been the case that a breath test can only be carried out by a uniformed police officer, which is precisely why the Government included the appropriate paragraph in the legislation?
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.
Other than the requirements of the current legislation, our employer has no rights to insist on any other test than that which is prescribed by a legally entitled person, (i.e uniformed police officer), to do so would place them in a very precarious position in respect of being taken to the cleaners if they were wrong.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bjcc/niknak
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??
The attitude of you and your colleagues intriques me
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.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, it is correct that as far as the Road Traffic Acts are concerned the breath test has to be conducted by a Police Officer in uniform. As far as the RTA is concerned that makes sense, as its mostly uniformed officers that deal with vehicles.
As far as the new act is concerned yes the Constable has to be in uniform, the reason appears to be purley that the provosions of testing are an almost direct lift of the Road Traffic Act. I suspect thats because the outers from the RTA have been tried and failed. Apart from that I can't seee any real need for the uniform bit to be written in, its not so nessesary as with motor vehicles. However it is there so thats the way it is.
The request by an employer is not compulsary, there being no legal power to make such a requirement. The REQUIRMENT from a Police officer is compulsary, failier to take a test is an offence in itself.
Astradome, thats all very interesting but S.26 says....
26.—(1) This Chapter applies to transport systems of any of the following kinds—
(a) a railway;
(b) a tramway;
(c) a system which uses another mode of guided transport and is specified for the purposes of this Chapter by an order made by the Secretary of State.
It therefore only applies to railways....
The offences in s.27 can only be investigated by a constable (ie a Breath test requirement) and is much the same as the act under which aviation related employees are now under.
Your point about due dilligence is noted, but has that been tested in a court, ie does telling people they can\'t do it count as \'due dilliegence"?
In any event, there is not an equivilent in relation the the aviation industry.
As far as the new act is concerned yes the Constable has to be in uniform, the reason appears to be purley that the provosions of testing are an almost direct lift of the Road Traffic Act. I suspect thats because the outers from the RTA have been tried and failed. Apart from that I can't seee any real need for the uniform bit to be written in, its not so nessesary as with motor vehicles. However it is there so thats the way it is.
The request by an employer is not compulsary, there being no legal power to make such a requirement. The REQUIRMENT from a Police officer is compulsary, failier to take a test is an offence in itself.
Astradome, thats all very interesting but S.26 says....
26.—(1) This Chapter applies to transport systems of any of the following kinds—
(a) a railway;
(b) a tramway;
(c) a system which uses another mode of guided transport and is specified for the purposes of this Chapter by an order made by the Secretary of State.
It therefore only applies to railways....
The offences in s.27 can only be investigated by a constable (ie a Breath test requirement) and is much the same as the act under which aviation related employees are now under.
Your point about due dilligence is noted, but has that been tested in a court, ie does telling people they can\'t do it count as \'due dilliegence"?
In any event, there is not an equivilent in relation the the aviation industry.
Last edited by bjcc; 9th Oct 2004 at 23:29.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bjcc
At great risk of thread creep.
The "Due Dilligence" process has been agreed with Her Majesty's Inspector of Railways", as being acceptable and they will not pursue a S28 Prosecution with it in place.
The "Due Dilligence" process is also contained within each railway Operators Railways Safety Case in accordance with the Railways (Safety Case) Regulations.
We as the Industry would not 'test' this, neither by agreement will HMRI.
The "Due Dilligence" process has been agreed with Her Majesty's Inspector of Railways", as being acceptable and they will not pursue a S28 Prosecution with it in place.
The "Due Dilligence" process is also contained within each railway Operators Railways Safety Case in accordance with the Railways (Safety Case) Regulations.
We as the Industry would not 'test' this, neither by agreement will HMRI.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Astradome, the reason I asked if it had been tested was because i wanted to know what it means....ie if The Operator puts a sign up saying don't drink before you come to work is that sufficent? If not what is?
I only ask out of interest, as it does not apply to the aviation industry.
I only ask out of interest, as it does not apply to the aviation industry.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bjcc
The railway industry "due Dilligence" process allows for screening for alcohol and substances of abuse to be carried out as follows:-
* Pre-Employment screening,
* Transfer to Safety Critical Work screening,
* Random Screening
In addition wherever an incident occurs I as a Manager can require an individual to undergo Post Incident screening
Where I have reasonable grounds to believe that an individual MAY be under the influence of alcohol or substances of abuse I can REQUIRE that person to undergo a screening test known as a "For Cause" screen.
All the above are written into an individual's Contract of Employment. A failure to comply with a request will ALWAYS result in dismissal in the first instance.
The above are entirely separate to the requirement of an individual to undergo screening by a Police Officer.
The purpose of "Due Dilligence" is to prevent, as far as possible the opportunity for a person to report for duty under the influence of alcohol or substances of abuse, and to identify those that may have.
We carry out "random" screens to identify anyone who may be using substances of abuse. This can comprise of an unannounced random screen, as happened to me last Fri night, or can be a programmed screen at which the individual is given 48 hours notice. It has been judged that the 48 hours notice will still enable a valid drug screen to be carried out.
The programmed screen is managed by a computer based programme selecting an indivual at random. They are then notified to attend to one of the screening centres at a specific date and time.
We do not ever anticipate a person failing a notified screen for alcohol, for obvious reasons.
Unannounced randon screening is just what it says...a screening team will arrive on site and select indivuduals to be tested. This may be at the start of a shift, or during a shift.
Screening is always undertaken by an independent organisation who operate a "Chain of Custody" process for samples.
Testing always requires to collection of urine, and can also involve a breath test.
Personnel in the Railway Industry have no problem with the process as it will dispel any suggestion that alcohol and drugs may have been a factor in an incident.
Despite some initial reservations, similar to those expressed here, after 10 years we have got used to the regime and I know of no-one who would ever object. Indeed anyone who would is viewed with suspicion by their colleagues for obvious reasons.
All the above however requires standard procedures to be in place and rigidly adhered to.
* Pre-Employment screening,
* Transfer to Safety Critical Work screening,
* Random Screening
In addition wherever an incident occurs I as a Manager can require an individual to undergo Post Incident screening
Where I have reasonable grounds to believe that an individual MAY be under the influence of alcohol or substances of abuse I can REQUIRE that person to undergo a screening test known as a "For Cause" screen.
All the above are written into an individual's Contract of Employment. A failure to comply with a request will ALWAYS result in dismissal in the first instance.
The above are entirely separate to the requirement of an individual to undergo screening by a Police Officer.
The purpose of "Due Dilligence" is to prevent, as far as possible the opportunity for a person to report for duty under the influence of alcohol or substances of abuse, and to identify those that may have.
We carry out "random" screens to identify anyone who may be using substances of abuse. This can comprise of an unannounced random screen, as happened to me last Fri night, or can be a programmed screen at which the individual is given 48 hours notice. It has been judged that the 48 hours notice will still enable a valid drug screen to be carried out.
The programmed screen is managed by a computer based programme selecting an indivual at random. They are then notified to attend to one of the screening centres at a specific date and time.
We do not ever anticipate a person failing a notified screen for alcohol, for obvious reasons.
Unannounced randon screening is just what it says...a screening team will arrive on site and select indivuduals to be tested. This may be at the start of a shift, or during a shift.
Screening is always undertaken by an independent organisation who operate a "Chain of Custody" process for samples.
Testing always requires to collection of urine, and can also involve a breath test.
Personnel in the Railway Industry have no problem with the process as it will dispel any suggestion that alcohol and drugs may have been a factor in an incident.
Despite some initial reservations, similar to those expressed here, after 10 years we have got used to the regime and I know of no-one who would ever object. Indeed anyone who would is viewed with suspicion by their colleagues for obvious reasons.
All the above however requires standard procedures to be in place and rigidly adhered to.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike Jenvey
Be careful with this...
You have quoted S.92 Being unfit for duty. There is no requirement under that section for a screening breath test to be conducted (although one may be given). The power to arrest is contained in S.97, and only requires reasonable suspicion that an offence is being committed or has been committed and the person still has drink or drugs in thier body. The evidence would have to be the same as for a person driving while unfit, which in the cases I had were basicly drunk.
The other section is S.93 which is having a BAC above the precribed limits, that would always be dealt with by breath test as the screening test and thus giving power to arrest.
Be careful with this...
You have quoted S.92 Being unfit for duty. There is no requirement under that section for a screening breath test to be conducted (although one may be given). The power to arrest is contained in S.97, and only requires reasonable suspicion that an offence is being committed or has been committed and the person still has drink or drugs in thier body. The evidence would have to be the same as for a person driving while unfit, which in the cases I had were basicly drunk.
The other section is S.93 which is having a BAC above the precribed limits, that would always be dealt with by breath test as the screening test and thus giving power to arrest.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You will also note that this law (or rather these offences) are related to the RTA.
There would be no alternative charge with this, why should there be, if you are guilty of section 92, then you will (because of the low BAC limit ) be guilty of S93. This is assuming Alcohol is involved not drugs. However if you are guilty of S93, then you may well not be guilty of S92.
There is a power to breath test for S92, but there is no requirment to do so. The offence is Working while unfit. The evidence of being unfit does not have to be the BAC level its the person as a whole and what he is, or is not doing. Whith vehicles, usualy I only used that for someone who was what amounted to drunk. In any case a person arrested under this section would be examined by a Doctor at a Police Station, and that would add weight to the evidence.
With regard to drugs under S92, thats never going to be revealed by a Breath test. Again the evidence is what the Police officer sees hears and possibly finds if he searches the person. Remember that drugs can be any substance (except alcohol)So some cold medicines can make you unfit though drugs.
The reason I said be careful with this is because the way you put it could be interpreted as Police will Breath test if someone is arrested for an offence under S92. They probably wont. Although it has to be said, I would always go for S93 and breath test, its easier to prove.
There would be no alternative charge with this, why should there be, if you are guilty of section 92, then you will (because of the low BAC limit ) be guilty of S93. This is assuming Alcohol is involved not drugs. However if you are guilty of S93, then you may well not be guilty of S92.
There is a power to breath test for S92, but there is no requirment to do so. The offence is Working while unfit. The evidence of being unfit does not have to be the BAC level its the person as a whole and what he is, or is not doing. Whith vehicles, usualy I only used that for someone who was what amounted to drunk. In any case a person arrested under this section would be examined by a Doctor at a Police Station, and that would add weight to the evidence.
With regard to drugs under S92, thats never going to be revealed by a Breath test. Again the evidence is what the Police officer sees hears and possibly finds if he searches the person. Remember that drugs can be any substance (except alcohol)So some cold medicines can make you unfit though drugs.
The reason I said be careful with this is because the way you put it could be interpreted as Police will Breath test if someone is arrested for an offence under S92. They probably wont. Although it has to be said, I would always go for S93 and breath test, its easier to prove.
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Astrodome
I said that we wouldn't have a problem in being tested by a uniformed police officer, but we would if our employer asked us to do so, simply because they have no system in place to ensure that such tests are conducted totally impartially and within the law.
Our current contract of employment dictates that we shall not drink alcohol whilst on duty , and to do so could lead to instant dismissal, there is no mention of being subject to the same procedure if we refuse to take a drug or alcohol test by our employer.
I assume that if we were to be suspected of doing either, our employer would call the police and then we would be subject to the due process of current legislation.
Personally, I would never drink prior to a duty, let alone do so whilst at work, and I would hope that if suspected of doing so, my employer would take me off operational duties immediately and I am sure that this applies to 99.9% of atcos.
Perhaps you would care to prove otherwise.
I said that we wouldn't have a problem in being tested by a uniformed police officer, but we would if our employer asked us to do so, simply because they have no system in place to ensure that such tests are conducted totally impartially and within the law.
Our current contract of employment dictates that we shall not drink alcohol whilst on duty , and to do so could lead to instant dismissal, there is no mention of being subject to the same procedure if we refuse to take a drug or alcohol test by our employer.
I assume that if we were to be suspected of doing either, our employer would call the police and then we would be subject to the due process of current legislation.
Personally, I would never drink prior to a duty, let alone do so whilst at work, and I would hope that if suspected of doing so, my employer would take me off operational duties immediately and I am sure that this applies to 99.9% of atcos.
Perhaps you would care to prove otherwise.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting Newspaper report. But the blood alcohol concentrations are irrelevent, so far as can be assatained he's not been charged with the criminal offence, just suspended for a discipline matter.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
niknak
Maybe the difference is that we have a fully documented and controlled procedure using independent agencies to undertake the drug and alcohol screening.
All these procedures were implemented with the co-operation and agreement of the relevant railway Trade Unions.
In the Railways, and similar to yourselves no doubt, we do not as a matter of routine summon the Police if we believe (for example) that someone may be under the influence.
We arrange for them to be immediately relieved of duty, isolated with somebody, and 'For Cause' screened.
In all circumstances when a person is 'Post Incident', or 'For Cause' screened they are also by procedure immediately suspended from duty pending the outcome.
It is not normal practice to involve the Police in such cases.
If the Police attend an incident they can choose to exercise their right to require a person to undergo screening.
It appears strange that your organisation does not see fit to prohibit reporting for duty under the influence??
All these procedures were implemented with the co-operation and agreement of the relevant railway Trade Unions.
In the Railways, and similar to yourselves no doubt, we do not as a matter of routine summon the Police if we believe (for example) that someone may be under the influence.
We arrange for them to be immediately relieved of duty, isolated with somebody, and 'For Cause' screened.
In all circumstances when a person is 'Post Incident', or 'For Cause' screened they are also by procedure immediately suspended from duty pending the outcome.
It is not normal practice to involve the Police in such cases.
If the Police attend an incident they can choose to exercise their right to require a person to undergo screening.
It appears strange that your organisation does not see fit to prohibit reporting for duty under the influence??
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Astradome
It does, and always has done.
Air Navigation order originaly, Now the RAILWAYS and TRANSPORT SAFETY ACT 2003, which is an act of parliament, it says ecactly that (in a lot more words) that you cannot work while 'under the influence'.
You can't have much more of a prohibition than that.
It does, and always has done.
Air Navigation order originaly, Now the RAILWAYS and TRANSPORT SAFETY ACT 2003, which is an act of parliament, it says ecactly that (in a lot more words) that you cannot work while 'under the influence'.
You can't have much more of a prohibition than that.
