Brentwood DO - Illegal and Unsafe Use of Private Cars On De

[brothermagrew]

Perhaps a timely reminder of the following for all drivers CWU members and non union members:


Driver Risk Assessment
Work related road safety initiative



1.Introduction.
One of the biggest risks drivers face during their working day is the risk of an accident on the road. One third of all road accidents in the UK involve a vehicle being driven on business. This may account for over 20 fatalities and 250 serious injuries every week. This joint statement sets out the changes that are taking place with regard to the law on work related road safety, and gives details of the new initiative that Royal Mail have agreed with the CWU to raise drivers’ awareness of their responsibilities and support them in improving their driving skills, and staying safe on the road.



2.The law on work related road safety.
Given the statistics it is not surprising that there is increasing attention from the Health and Safety Executive and the Police in this area. Both drivers and the business can expect accidents to be more fully investigated than in the past and also for the safety processes and procedures of the business, and compliance with them, to be examined closely. Safety at work includes safety on the road.

The Department for Transport (DfT), HSE and Police have been working closely together to take forward the recommendations of an Independent Work-Related Road Safety Task Group. This has involved:

publication of the joint DfT/HSE guidance,
continued awareness raising,
a revision of the form used by the Police (STATS 19) to collect information following a traffic incident to include details of whether those involved are at work,
a joint project with the Association of Chief Police Officers to consolidate the arrangements for investigating fatal work-related road incidents and
to promote work-related road safety.

2.1 Corporate Manslaughter & Corporate Homicide Act.
This Act will come into force on 6 April 2008 and changes the basis on which companies are liable for prosecution for failures in the management of health and safety which lead to death. The Government have emphasised the importance of companies and organisations taking health and safety seriously and intend that this should be seen as an opportunity to make sure that proper arrangements are in place for managing health and safety, including ‘road safety’. Many road accidents don’t result in death, but might easily have been fatal so it is important to take action to reduce the risk of all accidents however apparently trivial. Until now, employers have only had to ensure that health and safety requirements are adequately adhered to 'in the workplace', but this new Act takes the obligation much further. Employers will be directly responsible for their employees' actions while they are on company business off the premises and whilst driving.

2.2 Revised Highway Code.
The Department for Transport have issued a substantially revised version of the Highway Code and are stressing that employers should provide information and familiarisation to their drivers on the latest road safety rules, advice and the Code's important legal requirements and road safety implications. If drivers breach these rules they are personally committing criminal offences and may be fined, given penalty points on their licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases drivers may be sent to prison.

2.3 Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and associated Regulations
This Act requires Royal Mail to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety of all employees while at work and to ensure that others are not put at risk by our work-related driving activities. Under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, Royal Mail has a responsibility to manage health and safety effectively and must undertake assessments of the risks to the health and safety of our drivers, while they are at work, and to other people who may be affected by work-related driving activities and to periodically review them.

2.4 Health and Safety Executive Guidance on Road Safety
This emphasises that health and safety law applies just as much to on-the-road work activities as it does other work activities, and the risks should be effectively managed within a health and safety management system. Employers are legally obliged to ensure that their drivers are competent and capable of doing their work in a way that is safe for them and other people (road users, pedestrians and work colleagues).

The HSE guidance to employers is that Driving at Work road safety policies should be supplemented with written instructions and guidance and/or training sessions for at-work drivers. These requirements are in addition to employers and drivers duties under road traffic law, e.g. the Road Traffic Act, Road Vehicle (Construction and Use) Regulations and Road Transport Directive etc which are administered by the Police and other agencies such as the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA).

2.5 Requirement to consult
Royal Mail is legally required to consult with its Trade Unions and their health and safety representatives on health and safety issues and is committed to working with the CWU and its Safety Representatives on this initiative as on other campaigns to improve safety at work.

[andy2007]

THe manager FORCED him to use his own car??? Really???

Don't knock what you don't know about.
http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... 9&p=110884&

We had someone using his own car on a firms drive the other week, when I asked him what he was doing, he said "the guvnors asked me to use my car because we are a van short" when I told him that he was an idiot to be using his car, he said "I'm up on a RTU(stage 3) in a couple of weeks and the guvnor has said he will put a word in with the sector manager for me"

It may not be a case of someone being FORCED to use there car, but it comes close

rockytony67 perhaps you should pass a copy of Dave Joyce's letter to Ninian Wilson to show him what the consequences are when using private cars on delivery.

If he's being Blackmailed, with the potential result of his RTU. It's unlikley to change his mind.

andy2007

Possibly quite true Andy, but I in all honesty can't see any harm being done, and can't see any harm either for the unit safety rep if one is in situ to have a word with the DOM and show him or her the error of their ways.

No, you're right there. I'm just sickened by the fact that a DOM would threaten someone with the result of a forthcoming RTU. If it'd been me, I'd of put a complaint in. But as he didn't do that at the time. He's unlikley to stand up to the DOM, just because he has the dangers of using his own Car, spelled out to him.

[brothermagrew]

No, you're right there. I'm just sickened by the fact that a DOM would threaten someone with the result of a forthcoming RTU. If it'd been me, I'd of put a complaint in. But as he didn't do that at the time. He's unlikley to stand up to the DOM, just because he has the dangers of using his own Car, spelled out to him.

Again you may be right but in the interests of health and safety I'm purely advocating prevention and no more unecessary road deaths through the 'scourge' of Private Cars on Delivery. As our CWU National Health, Safety & Environment Officer intimated nothing but a complete and immediate ban.

[Night Tonic]

THe manager FORCED him to use his own car??? Really???

Don't knock what you don't know about.
http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... 9&p=110884&

We had someone using his own car on a firms drive the other week, when I asked him what he was doing, he said "the guvnors asked me to use my car because we are a van short" when I told him that he was an idiot to be using his car, he said "I'm up on a RTU(stage 3) in a couple of weeks and the guvnor has said he will put a word in with the sector manager for me"

It may not be a case of someone being FORCED to use there car, but it comes close

Over to you Nighty.......

I wouldn't give a FIG. MY car is MY car. It gets me to work and thats that. I wouldn't let ANYONE intimidate me into wearing out my tyres, invalidating my insurance or otherwise. End of. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Royal Mail.

[Tman]

I wouldn't give a FIG. MY car is MY car. It gets me to work and thats that. I wouldn't let ANYONE intimidate me into wearing out my tyres, invalidating my insurance or otherwise. End of. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Royal Mail.[/quote]
Quite right too.
Why don't these shrinking violets just come out with some excuse like "there's next to no petrol left in in, so if you're happy to give me £20 to put some in....etc etc"

Can't belive all these ruffty-tuffty posties being so easily bullied (allegedly) into law-breaking.

[brothermagrew]

Does Tman and Night Tonic then advocate that their ruffty-tuffty work colleagues actually use their private vehicles whilst out on delivery? Again I refer these two wise old owls to the following:

2.1 Corporate Manslaughter & Corporate Homicide Act.
This Act will come into force on 6 April 2008 and changes the basis on which companies are liable for prosecution for failures in the management of health and safety which lead to death. The Government have emphasised the importance of companies and organisations taking health and safety seriously and intend that this should be seen as an opportunity to make sure that proper arrangements are in place for managing health and safety, including ‘road safety’. Many road accidents don’t result in death, but might easily have been fatal so it is important to take action to reduce the risk of all accidents however apparently trivial. Until now, employers have only had to ensure that health and safety requirements are adequately adhered to 'in the workplace', but this new Act takes the obligation much further. Employers will be directly responsible for their employees' actions while they are on company business off the premises and whilst driving.

Last sentence says it all, employers will be DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for their employees' actions while they are on company business off the premises and whilst driving. Let us not forget either that this new Act of Parliament changes the basis on which companies are liable for prosecution for failures in the management of health and safety which lead to death.

As to your usage of the term shrinking violets - with age comes experience and a clear knowledge of just exactly what your rights as an employee are and what actual company policy and procedures are as well. Not all workers have the wisdom to challenge management on their day to day decisions which in the long run may affect their well-being.

[Phantom]

As much as i hate to agree with tman and night tonic, they are speaking sense here but only on this occaision, if they said it was dark outside at 11pm i would still go and have a look.

But NO ONE can be forced to use their own car to perform a delivery, even on a stage 3, they should speak to their CWU rep about this form of blackmail and follow the complaints procedure if a twat of a manager is using such tactics.

[norbert]

THe manager FORCED him to use his own car??? Really???

Don't knock what you don't know about.
http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... 9&p=110884&

We had someone using his own car on a firms drive the other week, when I asked him what he was doing, he said "the guvnors asked me to use my car because we are a van short" when I told him that he was an idiot to be using his car, he said "I'm up on a RTU(stage 3) in a couple of weeks and the guvnor has said he will put a word in with the sector manager for me"

It may not be a case of someone being FORCED to use there car, but it comes close

rockytony67 perhaps you should pass a copy of Dave Joyce's letter to Ninian Wilson to show him what the consequences are when using private cars on delivery.

If he's being Blackmailed, with the potential result of his RTU. It's unlikley to change his mind.

that old one - if he got potted - the DUM would deny it - might be a good idea to call RM's bluff and report that matter - take it outside the PO and keep black and white evidence

[Tman]

Does Tman and Night Tonic then advocate that their ruffty-tuffty work colleagues actually use their private vehicles whilst out on delivery? Again I refer these two wise old owls to the following:

2.1 Corporate Manslaughter & Corporate Homicide Act.
This Act will come into force on 6 April 2008 and changes the basis on which companies are liable for prosecution for failures in the management of

I didn't advocate that at all, more that staff shouldn't allow themselves to be bullied, but thanks for posting the regs for us all to peruse.
It's poor old Phantom I feel sorry for; the poor bloke was forced to forgo his prejudice and agree with something I wrote. Poor devil..

[rockytony67]

Off course the manager denies it, when I asked him about it he said that " the conversation about the RTU came after the bloke had already agreed to use his car, and that he mentioned the RTU, because he knew that he was worried and that he was just trying to put his mind at rest".

The bloke who used his car had his RTU this morning and was told by the sector manager(off the record) that it will not be issued, when I asked him if he could have got the conversation with the manager wrong, he said "no it was put to him basically as a favour for a favour " but he just wanted to forget it and that he won't use his car again.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Off course the manager denies it, when I asked him about it he said that " the conversation about the RTU came after the bloke had already agreed to use his car, and that he mentioned the RTU, because he knew that he was worried and that he was just trying to put his mind at rest".

The bloke who used his car had his RTU this morning and was told by the sector manager(off the record) that it will not be issued, when I asked him if he could have got the conversation with the manager wrong, he said "no it was put to him basically as a favour for a favour " but he just wanted to forget it and that he won't use his car again.

Never mind the circumstances of who said what when, surely this is bad management and poor practice. If this guy is up for a Stage 1 never mind a stage 3 the manager should not have discussed anything that could be taken as trying to affect a disciplinary process even if it was not meant to. Certainly any ET arising from a Stage would look upon this incident and it would weaken the managements position in regard to whether the individual was treated fairly. Astounding.

[rockytony67]

Off course the manager denies it, when I asked him about it he said that " the conversation about the RTU came after the bloke had already agreed to use his car, and that he mentioned the RTU, because he knew that he was worried and that he was just trying to put his mind at rest".

The bloke who used his car had his RTU this morning and was told by the sector manager(off the record) that it will not be issued, when I asked him if he could have got the conversation with the manager wrong, he said "no it was put to him basically as a favour for a favour " but he just wanted to forget it and that he won't use his car again.

Never mind the circumstances of who said what when, surely this is bad management and poor practice. If this guy is up for a Stage 1 never mind a stage 3 the manager should not have discussed anything that could be taken as trying to affect a disciplinary process even if it was not meant to. Certainly any ET arising from a Stage would look upon this incident and it would weaken the managements position in regard to whether the individual was treated fairly. Astounding.

His argument is that he was just trying to put the blokes mind at rest, in telling him that he was putting a good word in with the sector manager, I don't believe a word of it, but in his defence it is something that has happened for years, managers will tell people that they have put in a good word for them, in my experience I have never known a senior manager conducting an RTU or conduct code case not to ask the local Dom what the person is like.

[brothermagrew]

Off course the manager denies it, when I asked him about it he said that " the conversation about the RTU came after the bloke had already agreed to use his car, and that he mentioned the RTU, because he knew that he was worried and that he was just trying to put his mind at rest".

The bloke who used his car had his RTU this morning and was told by the sector manager(off the record) that it will not be issued, when I asked him if he could have got the conversation with the manager wrong, he said "no it was put to him basically as a favour for a favour " but he just wanted to forget it and that he won't use his car again.

Never mind the circumstances of who said what when, surely this is bad management and poor practice. If this guy is up for a Stage 1 never mind a stage 3 the manager should not have discussed anything that could be taken as trying to affect a disciplinary process even if it was not meant to. Certainly any ET arising from a Stage would look upon this incident and it would weaken the managements position in regard to whether the individual was treated fairly. Astounding.

Exactly and in your camp on this one brother Teebs, bad management and poor work practice. Seems to be an unwritten rule throughout Royal Mail that you are only as good as your last favour. And Tman like Phantom I'm most cetainly in agreement with you that staff shouldn't allow themselves to be bullied. As for feeling sorry for poor old Phantom, he I'm sure is more than capable of defending his own points of view on this forum.

[brothermagrew]

Have got 105 copies of the letter from Dave Joyce- National Health, Safety & Environment Officer
to Ninian Wilson Operations Director .
Ready to put on every frame tomorrow morning ,cannae wait see what the reaction is

Like your style brother but expect to get hauled in for a managerial grilling. Do however find it strange that it has not yet made an appearance as an LTB on the CWU website for the whole membership to read and take in. Why also has Keith Scott Royal Mail Group Head of Safety not been forwarded a copy as well. Ninian as I undersand it is the new RML Ops Director and has board level responsibility for safety.

[norbert]

Off course the manager denies it, when I asked him about it he said that " the conversation about the RTU came after the bloke had already agreed to use his car, and that he mentioned the RTU, because he knew that he was worried and that he was just trying to put his mind at rest".

The bloke who used his car had his RTU this morning and was told by the sector manager(off the record) that it will not be issued, when I asked him if he could have got the conversation with the manager wrong, he said "no it was put to him basically as a favour for a favour " but he just wanted to forget it and that he won't use his car again.

Never mind the circumstances of who said what when, surely this is bad management and poor practice. If this guy is up for a Stage 1 never mind a stage 3 the manager should not have discussed anything that could be taken as trying to affect a disciplinary process even if it was not meant to. Certainly any ET arising from a Stage would look upon this incident and it would weaken the managements position in regard to whether the individual was treated fairly. Astounding.

Exactly and in your camp on this one brother Teebs, bad management and poor work practice. Seems to be an unwritten rule throughout Royal Mail that you are only as good as your last favour. And Tman like Phantom I'm most cetainly in agreement with you that staff shouldn't allow themselves to be bullied. As for feeling sorry for poor old Phantom, he I'm sure is more than capable of defending his own points of view on this forum. ( END OF QUOTE )
( NEXT QUOTE )
The only way that DUM could even attempt to wriggle out of that one is say something was put to him on that matter " informally " and it was "welfare ' or "duty of care " - yeah right !

Sounds if the Sector Manager has been overruled ? as RM would like this or similar matters "kept down " - the latest tactic is settling ET claims on the eleventh hour to silence dissent or for damage limitation