Regular readers of “Up Fr ont” will remember the report in Aug ust de sc ri bi ng ho w Al ex McGuigan was wrongfully di smis sed fo ll owi ng a fal se positive reading arising from an unannounced breath test. Alex’s rep pr ov ed that a number ofmedical conditions had aected the re ading an d al so th at the Dr ug an d Al co hol Pr oc edure hadn’t been properly followed. At the Appeal stage, the manager rubbished the original statement from an LUOH doctor which agreed that false positives were possible by producing a statement from a dierent doctor – also from LUOH! This is a clear case of constantly seeking opinions until you get the one you want! Alex’s rep raised the breach of procedure at the appeal hearing but the manager didn’t address this at all . It is ac cep ted that Al ex di dn ’t ha ve a medi cal review following the D&A test. The LUL procedure clearly says that no test will be decla red positive unless and until there has been a med ic al revie w. But at the Director’s review it was asserted that although that’s what it says – that isn ’t what it means! The well -support ed RMT campaign to hav e Alex reinstated is having an eect, with LUL lying to the media to undermine our arguments. In the Evening Standard on October 30th it was alleged that Alex had been sacked for “drinking on the job”. This astonishing lie wa s ch al le ng ed by th e RMT press ocer who was informed by journalists that the inf ormation came fr om a LUL spokesperson giving an “unattributable brieng”. Thi s lie was fed to journalists who laz il y acce pt ed it and repeated it without doing any ac tua l “jo urn ali sm”. The RMT cont ac te d me di a outl ets to issue a factual statement - that Al ex wa sn’t ev en accused ofdrinking on the job. At this point the BBC and ITN revised their stories; the St and ard and the Mail chose to stand by the lies they had published earlier. None of us should be surprised that the Standard and the Mail print lies about trade unionists; but ev ery emp loy ee of LUL sho uld rightly be outraged that a fellow employee is openly lying to the media. It is this “anonymous” employee who should be sacked for gros s misc onduc t, not Alex who ha s an ex empl ary reco rd going back 29 years. Th e ch oice is cl ear – do you support a long standing colleague who has been wrongfully dismissed? Or do you allow LUL to ignore their procedures, lie about the details and send an honest member ofstaoto a life of unemployment? Written for train drivers, by train driversNovember 2014 Upfront www.rmtlondoncalling.org.uk /trains ☆ ☆ LIES, DAMNED LIES, AND UNATTRIBUTABLE BRIEFINGS “The well-supp orted RMT campaign to have Alex reinstated is having an eect, with LUL lying to the media to undermine our arguments.”
