[Article] Tram driver sacked for failing surprise breath test

[Mark Gleeson]

Word is there is serious resentment towards SIPTU among the drivers since they sold them out for a no strike clause and there have been numerous incidents where drivers have complained bitterly about how things where been handled remember the safety thing, they are of course rumours but press reports and the luas flu would suggest there is substance to these rumours

On the other hand its a positive thing to see that the system detected a breech of safety (and the railway safety act) and firmly dealt with the situation, though I'm personally worried that no one tried to stop the guy from driving home

Random breath tests are legally enforcable under the Rail Safety Act 2005 by all operators

Originally Posted by Irish Independent

A LUAS tram driver who drank four pints the afternoon before he was due to start work has been dismissed for failing an alcohol breath test.

After testing positive, as part of a random breath-testing policy, the driver then refused to submit to a confirmatory urine sample, claiming he soiled himself because his "stomach was in bits".

Trevor Kennedy, of Millbrook Grove, Kilbarrack, Dublin 13, started working with Veoila Transport Ireland Ltd, of Harbourmaster Place, IFSC, Dublin 1, the company running the Luas, in February 2004.

His employment was uneventful until the following October when at a management and staff meeting he made a comment from the floor, and a senior manager remarked that it was not the first time his name had come to his attention.

Following allegations the following January, involving alterations to rosters and break times, Mr Kennedy received a written warning.

He then claimed that he was being bullied and harassed by management.

In August 2005, Mr Kennedy arrived at work and was told he was among nine employees being subjected to random breath testing, as allowed in their contract. Although unhappy, he agreed to submit to the test.

His sample was three times the allowed limit, and was told to wait 20 minutes for a urine test. He asked if a positive result would lead to his employment being ended. He then went home.Mr Kennedy told the Employment Appeals Tribunal he didn't stay because he was sick and his "stomach was in bits".

He said he had four pints and food the previous afternoon and had suffered vomiting and diarrhoea during the night, but felt he had to attend work because an earlier request to swap shifts had been refused.

Before he could give a urine sample he soiled himself, became embarrassed and drove home. He washed himself and went to bed.

Because he failed to give a urine sample, he was suspended with pay pending an investigation.

At a disciplinary hearing, he raised questions about the randomness of the sampling and said he, and 60pc of drivers, had not received a copy of the company's drug and alcohol policy.

He was dismissed in September, and an appeal against his sacking failed.

The tribunal found Mr Kennedy had not received a copy of the company's drug and alcohol policy, but that it was "reasonable" that once a positive breath sample was found that a second urine test should have been taken.

By refusing to take it, the tribunal found, he was in breach of company procedures.

It also found that he was not unfairly dismissed.

Paul Melia

Unison/Irish Independent 2006
http://www.unison.ie/irish_independe...issue_id=14893

[Thomas J Stamp]

Interesting that the root of it appears to have been this:

His employment was uneventful until the following October when at a management and staff meeting he made a comment from the floor, and a senior manager remarked that it was not the first time his name had come to his attention.

Following allegations the following January, involving alterations to rosters and break times, Mr Kennedy received a written warning.

[Gobdaw]

It states that he was three times over "allowable limit". Is this the same as general limit, ie 80ml?

Good to see, hope it was part of random test rather than targetted.

[Mark Gleeson]

Originally Posted by Gobdaw

It states that he was three times over "allowable limit". Is this the same as general limit, ie 80ml?

Yes its 80

Originally Posted by Gobdaw

Good to see, hope it was part of random test rather than targetted.

Anyone can be stopped and tested, in fact I'd expect the operators are required to show a reasonable coverage in terms of frequency of tests

[zag]

I don't know whether there is any significant distinction between a targeted and random check in this instance.

If there is reason to believe that someone was in breach of safety regulations then there shouldn't be any concern about being random or targeted.

However, if someone is constantly targeted by 'random' checks then there is a valid distinction.

In this instance (based on the information in the article) a potential safety incident was averted by the check.

z

[philip]

Can a garda breathalise a tram driver? I presume so?

[Mark Gleeson]

They always had the power since its a road vehicle, they now (since Jan 06) have the power all trams, all trains

[Colm Moore]

Originally Posted by Irish Independent

He said he had four pints and food the previous afternoon and had suffered vomiting and diarrhoea during the night, but felt he had to attend work because an earlier request to swap shifts had been refused.

I'm not buying this - unless it was four pints of spirits.

[Mark Gleeson]

He drove home after failing the test

[dowlingm]

Lucky for RPA he didn't have an accident as if they had evidence he was driving home over the limit they might have been sued for failing to prevent him by taking his keys or calling the cops.