The possible 'lager' strikes
 

In message , Mike Bristow
writes
In article ,
Robert Woolley wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:44:23 +0000, Badabing wrote:


What have those examples got to do with this case? Maybe you are the beer
fairy, in which case I claim my 5 pounds.

Don't you mean five pints?

You're doing well to get five (drinkable) pints for five pounds.

Doesn't your local do pound-a-pint nights?
--
Kat Frogs have it easy. They can eat what bugs them.

The possible 'lager' strikes
 

"Badabing" wrote in message
...
in article , Robin Mayes at
wrote on 5/12/03 12:24 AM:
"Badabing" wrote in message
...
Surely they are taking the p***? How do they suggest the beer got in
their
fridge? The bloody beer fairy?

Certain questions spring to mind:

1) Were they the only holders of keys to the room?

2) Were any of the cans / bottles finger-print tested?

3) Why, despite passing drugs and alcohol tests (those that took them)
where
they disciplined over this

4) Why wern't they all drug and alcohol tested?


It would appear the answer to my original question is 'Yes' then.

I don't think any of this is even relevant. As members of staff they have
a
responsibility to ensure noting goes on the staff room that contravenes
the
rules of their employment, and as they know there is a zero tolerance
policy
regarding alcohol.

So if someone who has a key to your office decides they want to get rid of
you and puts some beer in there and then a manager turns up and finds it in
there you'd be happy getting the sack over it and wouldn't expect your union
to do anything about it?

The possible 'lager' strikes
 

in article , Robin Mayes at
wrote on 5/12/03 11:59 PM:


"Badabing" wrote in message
...
in article , Robin Mayes at
wrote on 5/12/03 12:24 AM:
"Badabing" wrote in message
...
Surely they are taking the p***? How do they suggest the beer got in
their
fridge? The bloody beer fairy?

Certain questions spring to mind:

1) Were they the only holders of keys to the room?

2) Were any of the cans / bottles finger-print tested?

3) Why, despite passing drugs and alcohol tests (those that took them)
where
they disciplined over this

4) Why wern't they all drug and alcohol tested?


It would appear the answer to my original question is 'Yes' then.

I don't think any of this is even relevant. As members of staff they have
a
responsibility to ensure noting goes on the staff room that contravenes
the
rules of their employment, and as they know there is a zero tolerance
policy
regarding alcohol.

So if someone who has a key to your office decides they want to get rid of
you and puts some beer in there and then a manager turns up and finds it in
there you'd be happy getting the sack over it and wouldn't expect your union
to do anything about it?

First of all, the union and the men themselves have not offered up this
"Huntley-esque" scenario as a possible defence. If no-one concerned is even
hinting that this happened, I don't see why we need to consider it.

Do you really think someone could secretly plant a over hundred cans of beer
in a fridge and a cooker a room used by multiple staff, and that this would
not emerge over the course of interviews and internal inquiries? If you do,
contact Bob Crow now. You will make a brilliant defence lawyer!

If that's what happened in this case, *I'm* the beer fairy.

As in the sick-leave/squash case, these ****tak- sorry, aggrieved workers
should simply take LU to court and plead unfair dismissal, with fees paid
for by the RMT, and leave us commuters out of it.

If they really have a case, they will surely win.

The possible 'lager' strikes
 

Badabing wrote:

I don't think any of this is even relevant. As members of staff they have a
responsibility to ensure noting goes on the staff room that contravenes the
rules of their employment, and as they know there is a zero tolerance policy
regarding alcohol.

I know there's a zero tolerance policy regarding the consumption of
alcohol, but is there really one regarding the *posession* of alcohol?
If so, why?

The possible 'lager' strikes
 

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:15:25 +1030, (Aidan Stanger)
wrote:

Badabing wrote:

I don't think any of this is even relevant. As members of staff they have a
responsibility to ensure noting goes on the staff room that contravenes the
rules of their employment, and as they know there is a zero tolerance policy
regarding alcohol.

I know there's a zero tolerance policy regarding the consumption of
alcohol, but is there really one regarding the *posession* of alcohol?
If so, why?


No alcohol on the premises.

The policy is very clear. Staff shall not bring alcohol onto the
premises either in bottles/cans or inside them. Similarly LU staff
are forbidden to go to the pub after work in uniform.


Rob.
--
rob at robertwoolley dot co dot uk