[article] Rail staff welcome random breath tests

[Mark Gleeson]

Rail staff welcome random breath tests
Iveren Yongo

New rules to carry out random breath tests on staff Iarnrod Eireann have been welcomed by rail workers, the company said today.

The breathalyser tests, which were initiated three weeks ago, will reinforce "the drugs and alcohol policy as part of the company's health and safety policy" spokesman for Iarnród Éireann Barry Kenny said.

He added: "We don't believe it [drugs and alcohol at work] to be a problem but in terms of health and safety it's something that we're doing in line with the Rail Safety Act."

Spot checks are to be carried out on 5 per cent of the workforce including drivers; booking staff; human resources and service depot staff.

Mr Kenny said that the tests had been agreed by the rail workers' unions. He confirmed that so far all tests have returned negative results.


© 2007 ireland.com

There has been a lot of trouble about the new safety standards which include the drink and drug testing, so welcome might not be the word

Note Mr Kenny clearly indicates no one has failed a random test. Testing only applies to safety critical staff, so it doesn't apply to the guy who sells tickets and so on

5% of all staff (about 5300) is 265 tests per year

[Derek Wheeler]

I have just received word from a source that rail unions are not cooperating with this as stated by IE.

So its a case of watch this space.

[philip]

I can undertand why the "safety critical staff" might get p!ssed off if the 'office staff' are left alone in any testing regime. Anyone can cause an accident by turning up under the influence, the only issue is the scale of the accident.

[Colm Moore]

I thought this was old news? I think as all rail staff spend more time than Joe Bloggs rail side that it should cover them all. That said if the, if the 5% is spread around, does this dilute the effect on the more safety critical staff? Actually probably not - (on average) 5% of drivers / controllers / PW staff should still be tested should still be tested.

http://breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhmhidaumhql/Iarnród Éireann begins breath-testing staff
26/11/2007 - 12:06:46

Iarnród Éireann has begun to conduct random breath tests on staff members as part of a safety drive.

The company says spot checks started three weeks ago as part of its overall drug and alcohol policy.

So far, all the results have been negative.

Iarnród Éireann says it plans to test around 5% of its staff every year.

[Mark Gleeson]

I can undertand why the "safety critical staff" might get p!ssed off if the 'office staff' are left alone in any testing regime. Anyone can cause an accident by turning up under the influence, the only issue is the scale of the accident. I really don't think the headball in the office who isn't dealing with your complaints is a target for drink and drug tests

IE have a legal requirement to test safety critical staff, that is any member of staff on duty who may be called on to carry out a safety critical task, so the two lads in Pearse with the green flag count

[Derek Wheeler]

Spot checks are to be carried out on 5 per cent of the workforce including drivers; booking staff; human resources and service depot staff.


Thats pretty clear and ties in with what Barry Kenny said on Newstalk on Monday morning.

Testing only applies to safety critical staff, so it doesn't apply to the guy who sells tickets and so on


This is what Mark G has said.

So will the real slim shady please stand up and perhaps clarify it.

[Mark Gleeson]

booking staff would seem to imply the member of staff who counter signs a driver when he/she signs in, eg books on

[Mark Gleeson]

Remember this

Mr Kenny said that the tests had been agreed by the rail workers' unions. He confirmed that so far all tests have returned negative results.

Very careful choice of words, no random test has come up positive, not all tests are random as this proves

Rail gatekeeper in failed drug test awarded €5,000

By Edel Kennedy
Saturday January 05 2008

AN Irish Rail gatekeeper who failed a drugs test when she applied for a full-time job has been awarded €5,000 for unfair dismissal.

Elsie Higgins, Garryglass Avenue, Ballinacurra, Weston, Limerick, took the case to the Employment Appeals Tribunal after she tested positive for two illegal drugs in November 2005.

She claimed she had been at a party the night before and "anything could have been spiked". She told Irish Rail's chief medical officer that she had consumed so much alcohol at that party that she "may not have known everything that happened".

After testing positive for the drugs, Ms Higgins was certified unfit as she worked in a "safety critical position" as a gatekeeper on a line that carried heavy cement trains.

Because of the presence of one of the illegal substances in her body, she was permanently precluded from working in a safety critical position. The second substance also prevented her from undertaking such duties for at least two years.

Ms Higgins agreed to, and undertook, an in-house counselling course and also attended further pre-arranged medical examinations that recorded negative tests for those drugs. However, there was no "backroom" jobs available and she was dismissed on medical grounds.

After considering the evidence, the tribunal ruled that although she had failed the drugs tests, she had not been subjected to a disciplinary process and it "was unreasonable for the respondent to keep the claimant on prolonged suspension without pay".

- Edel Kennedy

We have become aware of an incident where a post fact test is alleged to have come up positive as well. In due course the RSC hopefully will publish stats on the test results and so on.

[eugene]

To follow up, this was published 31st December in the Indo:

Luas worker's case throws doubt on right to drug-test staff

By Andrew Bushe

Monday December 31 2007

THE rights of companies to drug test employees is being questioned after toxicology experts disagreed about the findings of a random test on a Luas worker.

The man had been employed by the French company Alstom, manufacturers of the light rail trams, for two years before he was fired in September 2006.

The company said he was employed in a "safety critical role" which cannot be carried out under the influence of banned substances.

But the worker denied at all times he had used the drug.

The worker's case was supported by the European Workplace Drug Testing Society.

Argued

On behalf of the worker, the TEEU argued that the level of a banned substance which he was found to have tested positive for was of such a low percentage that the test should properly have been classified as negative.

The union told the Labour Court the worker's sample was 50pc less than the recommended cut-off point for a positive test and "was in fact negative".

It added: "Consequently, he was wrongly accused and unfairly dismissed."

However, Alstom said it has a zero tolerance on intoxicants and where any test shows a positive result, the worker involved will be regarded as guilty of gross misconduct and treated accordingly.

The company's expert witness, who analysed the test, was "firm in his opinion that the result in this case was properly classified as positive".

Alstom told the court that it must ensure that "its operations are governed by the strictest safety policies in line with legal requirements".

The TEEU and Alstom also differed on whether there had been an agreement between them about testing employees for drugs and alcohol.

The court said it is conscious that drug and alcohol testing is becoming an increasingly common feature of many employments, particularly in safety critical areas.

"Changed societal factors, including increased drug abuse, has heightened the need, and the justification, for such testing. The Court has consistently supported the use of drug and alcohol testing in safety critical employments."

However, the court said there was disagreement between expert witnesses on both sides about whether the disputed result should have been classified as positive or negative.

"In the court's view, in all the circumstances of this case, there is room for some doubt as to whether the result in issue should have been reported as positive or negative.

"The court is of the view that the worker should be given the benefit of the doubt."

The court concluded that a "reasonable compromise" in the circumstances was for Alstom to offer the worker his job back, and for the TEEU to accept that.

Crucial

The court said it was "imperative" that the disagreement on a crucial aspect of the testing procedure be resolved.

Agreed guidelines covering all of the testing procedure, including the processing of results, should be put in place without delay, the court said.

"The parties should commence discussions with that objective immediately," the court added.

Neither the worker nor the drug involved were identified in the court recommendation.

[Colm Moore]

I don't think that case changes anything. The test was inconclusive. The court stuck with innocent until proven guilty. A appropriate balance would have been (paid) safety education for the worker and if necessary increased vigilence.

I stand by my point of view that such testing should be rail safety based (that is the RSC orders or does testing) and not employment based (IÉ or Veolia doing testing).

[Colm Donoghue]

The case shows there is a very sloppy procedure at Alstom for defining limits to their drug tests. A non-zero reading for any substance cannot be taken as a positive reading. For example a pioneer could eat an overripe plum and they would have a non-zero blood alcohl level. Natural justice would not permit disciplinary proceedings to be successful in such a case.
Similarily if a person ate a piece of chocolate, they would have a non-zero caffeine level.

When the Irish Sports council would fail you for having caffeine in an in competition doping test, they specified a minimum limit.
Alstom fail to specify a minimum limit,which would influence a person, and so their case failed.

If Alstom were so concerned about safety procedures, they would have gotten a better process in place at the start, not after the first case to be challenged was won by the appellant, which will make it less likely for others working for Alstom to stay away from drugs, which is a net reduction in safety.

[Mark Gleeson]

Dispute delays spot checks for CIE drivers

By Anne-Marie Walsh
Monday February 25 2008

CIE drivers are still not subject to random drug and alcohol spot checks almost two years after they were first proposed.

A row has erupted between trade unions and management over the screening tests, which are designed to ensure the safety of passengers.

The National Bus and Rail Union (NBRU) said a dispute over the role of the company's medical department in rolling out the programme has halted an agreement.

CIE is obliged to agree a code of practice for random screening for drugs and alcohol with staff as part of the Health and Safety and Railway Act.

The NBRU said the process has been delayed because of objections to the current regime of testing at the medical department.

Union official Dermot O'Leary claimed staff were asked for unauthorised urine samples when they were called in for check-ups after being sick from work.

He said that union members would not agree to an official testing system until this allegedly unauthorised system was axed.

- Anne-Marie Walsh

Dermot O'Leary is assistant secretary at the NBRU not a front line man. Now if you called in for a medical examination its fairly reasonable to assume you will have blood and urine taken thats normal

[James Shields]

Yes, but it's also normal that you have a right to know what those samples will be used for.

If I was a railway worker I would have no probelem with drugs tests taking place, but I would want reassurances that they were being managed fairly, and that samples weren't being used for anything that hadn't been agreed.