Could you not park your car on delivery round get bus or walk to the office in the morning, and pick up car on finnish.takeyourbreak wrote:Hi there. I back this Royal mail campaign 100%. But I was wondering if someone could keep me right. I stay about 10 miles from my office and therefore a need my car to get to work. When I go out on delivery I need to take my car to my 1st point of dely and leave it there. Is this what the union want to stamp out among posties? If I was able to deliver the area I stay in I would just leave the car but as you know it isint as simple as that. With family commitments etc I would find it impossible to leave my car at home. I do everything else give my bags to driver, weigh my bags etc....
Cheers guys....
ANNOUNCEMENT : ALL OF ROYAL MAIL'S EMPLOYMENT POLICIES (AGREEMENTS) AT A GLANCE (Updated 2021)... HERE
ANNOUNCEMENT : PLEASE BE AWARE WE ARE NOT ON FACEBOOK AT ALL!
taking my car
-
k979aaa
- Posts: 12578
- Joined: 03 Sep 2007, 19:14
- Gender: Male
- Location: THE NORTH
Re: taking my car
-
brothermagrew
- Posts: 3015
- Joined: 06 Aug 2007, 16:38
- Gender: Male
- Location: Shares a border with England to the south.
1997 Important Court Decision
Court Decision
The following information is taken from the memorandum of a conviction or other proceedings entered in the Register of the Magistrates' Court, South Glos. Magistrates' Court, No 2 Court sitting on 25th March 1997 at 2pm.
o Between the 1st June 1995 and the 31st
December 1995 being an employer, did
contravene Section 2(1) and 2(2)(a) of
the Health and Safety at Work Etc Act
1974, in that you failed to operate a
safe system of work in the Royal Mail Stroud
delivery office in that there was no
proper system operating for authorising or
permitting the use of private motor
vehicles by your employees in the course
of the discharge of their duties thus
ensuring that any vehicle that was so used
was roadworthy, that the driver was a
competent person who was qualified to
drive and that the said vehicle was insured
for the purpose of delivering the mail,
whereby you are guilty of an offence as
provided by Section 33(1)(a) of the Health
and Safety at Work Etc Act 1974 and liable
to a penalty as provided by Section 33 (1)(a)
of the said Act as amended.
Fined £7,000 and £14514.23 costs.
o Between the 1st June 1995 and the 31st December
1995, being an employer, did contravene Section
2(1) and 2(2)(b) of the Health and Safety at
Work Etc Act 1974, in that you failed to ensure
that the arrangements for transporting the mail
were safe and without risk to health in that
you permitted the mail to be carried in unregulated
and unauthorised private vehicles in relation
to which there were no checks in respect of
their roadworthiness or to ensure that the
driver of the same was a competent person or
that the said vehicle was insured whereby you
are guilty of an offence as provided by Section
33(1)(a) of the Health and Safety at Work
Etc Act 1974 and liable to a penalty as provided
by Section 33(1)(a) of the said Act as amended.
Fined £7,000.
o Between the 1st January 1993 and the 31st
December 1995, being an employer, did contravene
Regulation 4(1)(b)(i) of the Manual Handling
Operations Regulations 1992 in that you failed
to make a suitable and sufficient assessment
of the manual handling risks involved in the
loading and unloading of private vehicles with
the mail, whereby you are guilty of an offence
as provided by Section 33(1)(c) of the Health
and Safety at Work Etc Act 1974 and liable to
a penalty as provided by Section 33(3) of the
said Act as amended.
Fined £1,300.
Royal Mail pleaded guilty to all three charges. The following two additional charges being withdrawn:
o Failure to instruct, train or supervise
employees in any or any safety policy
as regards the use of private vehicles
during the course of delivering the
mail in contravention of Section 2(1)
and 2(2)(c) of the Health and Safety
at Work Act.
o Failure to carry out a suitable and
sufficient risk assessment of the risks
to the health and safety of employees
undertaking to make deliveries of mail
using private vehicles and the suitability
of each vehicle for carrying loads in
contravention of Regulation 3 of the
Management of Health and Safety at Work
Regulations.
Implications
The case has made clear what has been suspected for a long time, namely that the Health and Safety at Work Act and its associated legislation, unless specifically excluded by the way in which regulations made under the Act are framed, is applicable to private vehicles used for company business.
The following information is taken from the memorandum of a conviction or other proceedings entered in the Register of the Magistrates' Court, South Glos. Magistrates' Court, No 2 Court sitting on 25th March 1997 at 2pm.
o Between the 1st June 1995 and the 31st
December 1995 being an employer, did
contravene Section 2(1) and 2(2)(a) of
the Health and Safety at Work Etc Act
1974, in that you failed to operate a
safe system of work in the Royal Mail Stroud
delivery office in that there was no
proper system operating for authorising or
permitting the use of private motor
vehicles by your employees in the course
of the discharge of their duties thus
ensuring that any vehicle that was so used
was roadworthy, that the driver was a
competent person who was qualified to
drive and that the said vehicle was insured
for the purpose of delivering the mail,
whereby you are guilty of an offence as
provided by Section 33(1)(a) of the Health
and Safety at Work Etc Act 1974 and liable
to a penalty as provided by Section 33 (1)(a)
of the said Act as amended.
Fined £7,000 and £14514.23 costs.
o Between the 1st June 1995 and the 31st December
1995, being an employer, did contravene Section
2(1) and 2(2)(b) of the Health and Safety at
Work Etc Act 1974, in that you failed to ensure
that the arrangements for transporting the mail
were safe and without risk to health in that
you permitted the mail to be carried in unregulated
and unauthorised private vehicles in relation
to which there were no checks in respect of
their roadworthiness or to ensure that the
driver of the same was a competent person or
that the said vehicle was insured whereby you
are guilty of an offence as provided by Section
33(1)(a) of the Health and Safety at Work
Etc Act 1974 and liable to a penalty as provided
by Section 33(1)(a) of the said Act as amended.
Fined £7,000.
o Between the 1st January 1993 and the 31st
December 1995, being an employer, did contravene
Regulation 4(1)(b)(i) of the Manual Handling
Operations Regulations 1992 in that you failed
to make a suitable and sufficient assessment
of the manual handling risks involved in the
loading and unloading of private vehicles with
the mail, whereby you are guilty of an offence
as provided by Section 33(1)(c) of the Health
and Safety at Work Etc Act 1974 and liable to
a penalty as provided by Section 33(3) of the
said Act as amended.
Fined £1,300.
Royal Mail pleaded guilty to all three charges. The following two additional charges being withdrawn:
o Failure to instruct, train or supervise
employees in any or any safety policy
as regards the use of private vehicles
during the course of delivering the
mail in contravention of Section 2(1)
and 2(2)(c) of the Health and Safety
at Work Act.
o Failure to carry out a suitable and
sufficient risk assessment of the risks
to the health and safety of employees
undertaking to make deliveries of mail
using private vehicles and the suitability
of each vehicle for carrying loads in
contravention of Regulation 3 of the
Management of Health and Safety at Work
Regulations.
Implications
The case has made clear what has been suspected for a long time, namely that the Health and Safety at Work Act and its associated legislation, unless specifically excluded by the way in which regulations made under the Act are framed, is applicable to private vehicles used for company business.