Ex-Dart driver who refused urine sample to be reinstated

A former Dart driver who was demoted from the position after refusing to provide a urine sample following a safety incident at a train station should be reinstated, a High Court judge has found.

On Friday, Mr Justice Paul Gilligan awarded Paul Leblique the costs of his action against his employer, Iarnród Éireann, and said that disciplinary findings against Mr Leblique over the incident on January 25th, 2016, should be set aside.

Mr Leblique, of Griffith Road, Finglas East, Dublin, had sought various orders and declarations in his action, including that Iarnród Éireann reverse a decision to take him off train-driving duties.

The company opposed the action and denied his claims.

The case arose out of an incident on the morning of January 25th, 2016, when the southbound Dart Mr Leblique was driving stopped short at the Tara Street station in Dublin, with the last carriage not coming up to the platform.

Mr Leblique was subsequently spoken to by a superior who joined the train at Pearse Street and they both continued on to the Bray station, where another superior asked him to provide breath and urine samples.

His breath sample was clear, but he refused to provide a urine sample on grounds that under the Railway Safety Act, 2005, only a medical practitioner could take such a sample.

His urine sample was due to be taken by an employee of a Northern Ireland company which carries out such tests for the rail company.

Mr Leblique was later suspended and then demoted to a position that did not involve train-driving, with a consequent cut of €10,000 to his annual salary.

He brought a High Court action against the train company and, following a two-day hearing last month, Mr Justice Gilligan adjourned the case for the parties to make submissions.

Judge’s ruling

On Friday, having considered the submissions, the judge said it appeared the train company was no longer pursuing the central issue in the case — the refusal of the sample — and its application for orders concerning that would have to be set aside by the court.

That only left the matter of Mr Leblique stopping short at the platform, he said, which should be addressed through the company’s driver development and support scheme.

The judge said that, in the circumstances, as far as both issues were concerned, it was not necessary for the court to deliver a full judgment on the case.