Safe Speed Forums

I received a written complaint off my boss because I turn the exhaust brake off when driving. I have had no other warnings verbal or otherwise. In fact the first i heard of this problem was when i received this written warning. He says I have to use it constantly no matter what the situation. I think he is wrong. I've been driving HGV for 13 years in and out of the army and i have always been taught to use the exhaust brake on gradients and when pulling a heavy load. Am i right or wrong? Whre can i find this info written down so that i acn confront my boss? Is he in the right to give me a written warning? Any replies would be gratefull.

With respect to the written warning, the short answer is no.
Failing to follow the STATUTORY procedure for dismissal would lead to same being deemed automatically unfair.
You can have a read through the procedures, if you have patience.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/ResolvingWorkplaceDisputes/DG_10028111

You probably need [will need] legal/workplace advice. It sounds like a "we need to lose some guys without costing much" situation. Legal advice, if not in a union, will cost nothing under the law societies various schemes. You could also use the Citizens Advice Bureau, although they are a bit busy at times.
You should have a read through the various things your employer is required to give you, such as the company Health and Safety policy and the various requirements to use when driving, etc.
Obviously, if they have not told you of this requirement then you could not have known of it.
Automatic unfair dismissal has no length-of-employment requirement.
Best advice is to just wait, and not get upset. Much.

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

there is absolutely no requirement to use an exhaust brake. it is a feature and as it is normally operated by hand or foot that would suggest that it is to be used at the drivers discretion. providing you are not pulling fuses or driving illegally then there is no justification for a warning. how you handle it depends on how you see your job. i think this is quite a remarkable case which could be the first stage of trimming staff. he may be looking for an excuse to cut jobs without paying redundancy. i would leave and send the warning to as many reporters as possible, especially those in the transport media. leave the job and give him a bad name.

i dont know what you drive but if its a DAF CF you have a good excuse for not using the exhaust brake. it sticks on the CF!

_________________
Richie

SSAFA supporter
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=126025031585

How the heck would he know anyway ?

I use mine 99% of the time. But not through residential areas late at night/early mornings.

_________________
The Box said "Windows XP or better" ... So I installed Ubuntu

I work nights and 80% of the time in in residential built up area's. Thanks for the reply.

Are you in a union? If not, right now might be a fantastic time to join.

When I worked for - maybe I shouldn't say - I saw a couple of people dismissed, in all fairness for good reasons, who came back to claim big settlements on account of improper procedures.

When I was on "capability procedure" (several months of monitoring) - because a couple of known grumpy sods didn't want to work with me - admin cocked up on our salary and didn't upgrade any of the apprentices to electricians, but in my case the management pretended it was suspended until I passed the capability procedure. I'd have just been annoyed, but my union guy smiled wide and said "great, you've been penalised before the outcome, now if they dismiss you you can can claim you were pre-judged". All because some dumbass manager tried to be clever.

_________________
Fear is a weapon of mass distraction

Reading through this thread again, I'm a bit surprised that a query about driving habits and preferences has been viewed as a conspiracy against the OP.

Employers have to jump through a lot of hoops to dismiss anyone and must do so fairly. There is little to suggest that this is the intention here.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

They don't have to jump through any hoops. There are clear procedures they have to follow. Very clear.
The procedures came about because of the increasing amount of cases going before employment tribunals, and are an attempt to get both parties to settle the problem before it comes to court. Arbitration is compulsory. ACAS will try to settle the problem before it goes to court. If the case ever gets to an employment court, it is a failure for both sides. Nobody wins an employment court case, although one party may crow about their "victory". The employer frequently gets their dirty washing aired in public, and the employee features on various industry databases and finds employment hard to get. The solicitors, for both parties, are the only winners.

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

This is my point. Despite trying very hard to follow the 3 steps, one small irrelevant error by the employer and they "lose". The employee, however, can do practically everything wrong and get still get their vexatious case to tribunal. For example, writing to ask someone to come to a disciplinary hearing for a serious matter but omitting to use the words "which may lead to your dismissal" in the letter may void a valid complaint against an employee. This despite the consequences of gross misconduct being spelled out in the employer's handbook.


I agree with you but the employee has little to loose in refusing to settle via ACAS. The chances of getting a costs order against them in a Tribunal are not high even if you have done everything by the rules and have a lot of evidence against the employee. ACAS can only mediate if both sides want to settle.

In reality, settlement via ACAS is a pragmatic procedure where employers pay off an undeserving employee as it is cheaper for them both in money and time. Employees who lose a Tribunal should be liable for costs by default. This would be a better spur to settlement with an employer than ACAS.


Now, here, you are correct.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

One of the big problems in the workplace is that Employers fail to see that without employees they wouldnt be anything other than a one man band or nothing. Likewise employees very often fail to see anything other than them and us! I have never needed a union, if an employer messed with me I moved on or took private legal action , I never failed. If employer treated me well I went out of my way for them...it works! When I was an employer I had the same philosophy, bad employees always make a big enough mistake to dump them ligit you just have to be patient and observant, my good ones were well rewarded as I was grateful they helped me make money. What a pity few people have the same up front and fair attitude.

You read too many 'papers.
The payouts are frequently less than a thousand pounds, even if the case if is fully found for the employee.
Most of the cases are not proceeded with and stop before getting to the tribunal.
The tribunals decisions, and the payout (if any) are not binding anyway. Many small employers do not pay and the case then moves into a civil court.
The employee, if found to have been misinforming the court, will have to pay some if not all) the costs.
The courts are not as slanted towards the employee as the 'papers make out.
The large awards are for serious, crippling, injuries, and most of the large payouts are awarded against public services employers.I remember one employer mouthing-off about a decision against them for a personal injury, saying that they had trained the employee in manual handling so why should they have to pay for the injury. The court decided that expecting someone to carry an automatic washer up several floors was a bit stupid. The employer didn't think so.
Judges have seen it all, heard it all.
I remember one case where the whole workforce was brought as witness for the employer.
The court decided it was intimidation.
4 grands worth.
The employer is the usual winner, since tribunals don't operate on "innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt".
And MOST employees who have a case do not proceed with it anyway.

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

It's not the papers, it's personal experience. I am an employer of about 40 staff for over 20 years and I, too, have "seen it all".

Of course tribunals don't work on the standard of proof required in the criminal court. A contract of employment is a civil matter so the balance of probabilities is all that matters. In any event, I don't understand your comment. If the standard of proof was higher then wouldn't this make it more difficult for the employee to prove the employer was in the wrong (the employer being the defendant)?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

The employer is usually the respondent.
The case is usually decided upon whether the employer proceeded according to the regulations. Most don't.
Sacking someone "on the spot" went out the door a long time back.
The fault for that lies solely with employers. They used that to reduce staffing levels whenever they needed to.
In any case, the majority of employers still operate with little regard to various regulations, the ones who suffer are the employees.
Health and Safety law is the most common law to be ignored.
Yes, the various safety regulations cost time and money. Not too much really. Ignoring them costs health and life.
Fortunately the gov cannot remove many of the regulations, otherwise they would.

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

Unfortunately, like you state, such an attitude is the exception to the norm. I had little choice but to join the union as I was disciplined several times in a short space of time for some very menial things. My own experience of "them and us" is something that came more from the higher echelons than the workforce; it appeared the electricians were considered unnecessary baggage in an otherwise perfect electrical contracting concern. In all fairness, they really were a joke outfit- reduced our wages after privatisation as "we have to compete in the marketplace like everyone else", but still carried a top-heavy public utility management structure and re-organised the entire firm every year without failure.

But I've worked here and there on a casual basis since and not seen a company I'd want to be tied to- I think my field still suffers from the old snobbery white collar vs. blue collar thing, rather than just accepting you're a highly skilled worker- some of the silly "disputes" I've had while trying to obtain stupid things like drill bits or hacksaw blades - the old "we're doing you a favour by giving you the materials you need to do our work" attitude.

self-employment FTW.

_________________
Fear is a weapon of mass distraction