RTA...Sacked driver.

daveyeff · Post by **daveyeff** » 20 Jan 2017, 17:01

we heard about this at our office a few months back. a driver, at a nearby office had been sacked after having a bump. talk was that there must be more to it than just a 'bump'...plenty of people have had them and even if you are to blame its not normally dismissal, an accident can happen to anyone. any how, the rep told us today he has lost his appeal. it turns out they've sacked him due to circumstances they deem caused the crash. the driver, it turns out DIDN'T have his bait/break. they've said it was obvious fatigue was a factor brought about by not taking a break. apparently he's done this for years, in a hurry to get a finish not taking paid breaks. they've even looked at his signing out times. it was always before the breaks were due to start. the union has taken a stance there is nothing further they can do. a tribunal would be 'unwinable' so he's on the dole, due to him not having his break. (25yrs down the pan!!) this should go out as a warning to anyone foolish enough to follow the same practices. maybe they should make people take them to avoid this sort of situation arising again!! stupid.

Pompey Boy · Post by **Pompey Boy** » 20 Jan 2017, 17:10

Exactly. I made this point in a thread sometime ago about the worktime directive, but the "runners" and non-break takers didn't believe me. Be warned.

Post by **bustedflush** » 20 Jan 2017, 17:52

daveyeff wrote:we heard about this at our office a few months back. a driver, at a nearby office had been sacked after having a bump. talk was that there must be more to it than just a 'bump'...plenty of people have had them and even if you are to blame its not normally dismissal, an accident can happen to anyone. any how, the rep told us today he has lost his appeal. it turns out they've sacked him due to circumstances they deem caused the crash. the driver, it turns out DIDN'T have his bait/break. they've said it was obvious fatigue was a factor brought about by not taking a break. apparently he's done this for years, in a hurry to get a finish not taking paid breaks. they've even looked at his signing out times. it was always before the breaks were due to start. the union has taken a stance there is nothing further they can do. a tribunal would be 'unwinable' so he's on the dole, due to him not having his break. (25yrs down the pan!!) this should go out as a warning to anyone foolish enough to follow the same practices. maybe they should make people take them to avoid this sort of situation arising again!! stupid.

Actually he has a case. If considered 'normal practice' amongst people in your office to use discretion about when they take their breaks, and the managers have allowed this then it is a discriminatory and arbitrary action sacking him. Unless there's overwhelming evidence that he wouldn't have had the accident had he taken a break then he has a case. The Union are stuck because it's their policy to make people take breaks. If the driver is on a Taco or other form of log for time then if it's those rules/laws he's breached then he's buggered so ignore my previous.

WOBBLY · Post by **WOBBLY** » 20 Jan 2017, 17:55

bustedflush wrote:Actually he has a case. If considered 'normal practice' amongst people in your office to use discretion about when they take their breaks, and the managers have allowed this then it is a discriminatory and arbitrary action sacking him. Unless there's overwhelming evidence that he wouldn't have had the accident had he taken a break then he has a case. The Union are stuck because it's their policy to make people take breaks. If the driver is on a Taco or other form of log for time then if it's those rules/laws he's breached then he's buggered so ignore my previous.

This will all hinge on wether the DOM has told them to take their breaks or not. We HAVE to take at least 20 mins of ours!

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 20 Jan 2017, 18:44

bustedflush wrote:
daveyeff wrote:we heard about this at our office a few months back. a driver, at a nearby office had been sacked after having a bump. talk was that there must be more to it than just a 'bump'...plenty of people have had them and even if you are to blame its not normally dismissal, an accident can happen to anyone. any how, the rep told us today he has lost his appeal. it turns out they've sacked him due to circumstances they deem caused the crash. the driver, it turns out DIDN'T have his bait/break. they've said it was obvious fatigue was a factor brought about by not taking a break. apparently he's done this for years, in a hurry to get a finish not taking paid breaks. they've even looked at his signing out times. it was always before the breaks were due to start. the union has taken a stance there is nothing further they can do. a tribunal would be 'unwinable' so he's on the dole, due to him not having his break. (25yrs down the pan!!) this should go out as a warning to anyone foolish enough to follow the same practices. maybe they should make people take them to avoid this sort of situation arising again!! stupid.
Actually he has a case. If considered 'normal practice' amongst people in your office to use discretion about when they take their breaks, and the managers have allowed this then it is a discriminatory and arbitrary action sacking him. Unless there's overwhelming evidence that he wouldn't have had the accident had he taken a break then he has a case. The Union are stuck because it's their policy to make people take breaks. If the driver is on a Taco or other form of log for time then if it's those rules/laws he's breached then he's buggered so ignore my previous.

Sorry Bustedflush, but I have to comment.

Royal Mail, nor any employer have to have "overwhelming evidence" for ANY dismissal. All they have to do is show that the action they took was reasonable given the circumstances and evidence available. The evidence itself doesn't have to be forensic or even detailed, again it just has to be acceptable to a reasonable person. That's why ETs are now so difficult to win, and why the Union, as a lot of members insist they should be, are usually picky about what appeals they will support.

Jpro747 · Post by **Jpro747** » 20 Jan 2017, 19:03

Be warned; Our DOM said they can watch our every move using the van tracker or PDA, it also tells them where and how long we've been stopped for. Do the job properly, take your break and you have nothing to worry about.

Post by **bustedflush** » 20 Jan 2017, 19:18

TrueBlueTerrier wrote:
bustedflush wrote:
daveyeff wrote:we heard about this at our office a few months back. a driver, at a nearby office had been sacked after having a bump. talk was that there must be more to it than just a 'bump'...plenty of people have had them and even if you are to blame its not normally dismissal, an accident can happen to anyone. any how, the rep told us today he has lost his appeal. it turns out they've sacked him due to circumstances they deem caused the crash. the driver, it turns out DIDN'T have his bait/break. they've said it was obvious fatigue was a factor brought about by not taking a break. apparently he's done this for years, in a hurry to get a finish not taking paid breaks. they've even looked at his signing out times. it was always before the breaks were due to start. the union has taken a stance there is nothing further they can do. a tribunal would be 'unwinable' so he's on the dole, due to him not having his break. (25yrs down the pan!!) this should go out as a warning to anyone foolish enough to follow the same practices. maybe they should make people take them to avoid this sort of situation arising again!! stupid.
Actually he has a case. If considered 'normal practice' amongst people in your office to use discretion about when they take their breaks, and the managers have allowed this then it is a discriminatory and arbitrary action sacking him. Unless there's overwhelming evidence that he wouldn't have had the accident had he taken a break then he has a case. The Union are stuck because it's their policy to make people take breaks. If the driver is on a Taco or other form of log for time then if it's those rules/laws he's breached then he's buggered so ignore my previous.
Sorry Bustedflush, but I have to comment.

Royal Mail, nor any employer have to have "overwhelming evidence" for ANY dismissal. All they have to do is show that the action they took was reasonable given the circumstances and evidence available. The evidence itself doesn't have to be forensic or even detailed, again it just has to be acceptable to a reasonable person. That's why ETs are now so difficult to win, and why the Union, as a lot of members insist they should be, are usually picky about what appeals they will support.

What I meant is that you cannot prove a negative - there doesn't seem to be evidence that the break had a direct influence on the accident. So, if not taking a break is permitted by inference i.e. there's established practice in that DO/Workplace for not having them to a schedule that alone is not reason to dismiss because it then becomes arbitrary and unfair on any individual. Then we come to the accident, there is apparently precedent that a driver having an accident does NOT routinely get dismissed or have serious disciplinary procedures for what is in effect a 'mistake' (unless breaking the law being reckless, drunk or drugged or having an unsafe vehicle).

It appears thus that 2+2 have been added by the managers to make 5 in that they have arbitrarily decided 2 common events not themselves sufficient for dismissal (apparently) are now combined to make the issue become one of greater magnitude.

P.S. Obviously based on the outline story in the OP, as like the rest of you I don't have the full facts.

jetblack · Post by **jetblack** » 20 Jan 2017, 20:01

bustedflush wrote: What I meant is that you cannot prove a negative - there doesn't seem to be evidence that the break had a direct influence on the accident. So, if not taking a break is permitted by inference i.e. there's established practice in that DO/Workplace for not having them to a schedule that alone is not reason to dismiss because it then becomes arbitrary and unfair on any individual. Then we come to the accident, there is apparently precedent that a driver having an accident does NOT routinely get dismissed or have serious disciplinary procedures for what is in effect a 'mistake' (unless breaking the law being reckless, drunk or drugged or having an unsafe vehicle).

Your argument seems reasonable to me.

I suspect there may be more to this than we know.

postslippete · Post by **postslippete** » 20 Jan 2017, 20:34

If it was a 'bump' then Royal Mail's usual actions are either suspension, being taken off driving for a while and then a re-test to get you back driving again. Something tells me that this incident was slightly more serious and we all know how important our company views H&S.

Post by **woopesh** » 20 Jan 2017, 21:37

Yeah, it sounds like there is more to this case than is being revealed by the op. Did someone else get injured? Was it a major smash rather than a bump? The posties I know who have had minor accidents didn't get the sack.

BTW. Are the vans tracked? I thought they just looked at the mileage. I know the new PDA's can be tracked and they can see if you had a break or not by looking at your scan log, even with the old ones.

rehabron · Post by **rehabron** » 21 Jan 2017, 05:40

http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... hp?id=7946" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Thought we had an agreement that the conduct code WAS NOT to be used as a mechanism in RTA reporting.

walkthewalk · Post by **walkthewalk** » 21 Jan 2017, 21:13

daveyeff wrote:we heard about this at our office a few months back. a driver, at a nearby office had been sacked after having a bump. talk was that there must be more to it than just a 'bump'...plenty of people have had them and even if you are to blame its not normally dismissal, an accident can happen to anyone. any how, the rep told us today he has lost his appeal. it turns out they've sacked him due to circumstances they deem caused the crash. the driver, it turns out DIDN'T have his bait/break. they've said it was obvious fatigue was a factor brought about by not taking a break. apparently he's done this for years, in a hurry to get a finish not taking paid breaks. they've even looked at his signing out times. it was always before the breaks were due to start. the union has taken a stance there is nothing further they can do. a tribunal would be 'unwinable' so he's on the dole, due to him not having his break. (25yrs down the pan!!) this should go out as a warning to anyone foolish enough to follow the same practices. maybe they should make people take them to avoid this sort of situation arising again!! stupid.

I swear he had his break 5 mins after leaving the office

daveyeff · Post by **daveyeff** » 21 Jan 2017, 22:45

walkthewalk wrote:
daveyeff wrote:we heard about this at our office a few months back. a driver, at a nearby office had been sacked after having a bump. talk was that there must be more to it than just a 'bump'...plenty of people have had them and even if you are to blame its not normally dismissal, an accident can happen to anyone. any how, the rep told us today he has lost his appeal. it turns out they've sacked him due to circumstances they deem caused the crash. the driver, it turns out DIDN'T have his bait/break. they've said it was obvious fatigue was a factor brought about by not taking a break. apparently he's done this for years, in a hurry to get a finish not taking paid breaks. they've even looked at his signing out times. it was always before the breaks were due to start. the union has taken a stance there is nothing further they can do. a tribunal would be 'unwinable' so he's on the dole, due to him not having his break. (25yrs down the pan!!) this should go out as a warning to anyone foolish enough to follow the same practices. maybe they should make people take them to avoid this sort of situation arising again!! stupid.
I swear he had his break 5 mins after leaving the office

apparently,...he's told them he didn't have his bait.

daveyeff · Post by **daveyeff** » 21 Jan 2017, 23:12

woopesh wrote:Yeah, it sounds like there is more to this case than is being revealed by the op. Did someone else get injured? Was it a major smash rather than a bump? The posties I know who have had minor accidents didn't get the sack.

BTW. Are the vans tracked? I thought they just looked at the mileage. I know the new PDA's can be tracked and they can see if you had a break or not by looking at your scan log, even with the old ones.

I ''revealed'' what the rep told us. when we first heard about this a few months ago, we all said the same thing. there has GOT to be more than just a 'bump' you DONT get sacked for JUST a bump....this is what followed. he's been sacked for NOT taking his bait. HE told them he didn't take it.!! now if he's hit somebody or knocked somebody down, I don't know. its as suspect to me as ANYBODY reading this. personally, in my opinion, they've been after him for whatever reasons. and they've found out he's never took his break, put together a load of shite cock and bull excuse, and peddled the poor f****r. now, this has consequences for all drivers if not EVERYBODY. they are looking for reasons to sack people. they've got one here. the union, should be looking to get RM to agree to make it COMPULSORY to take your break. if not, then you are breaking health and safety rules and regs....which is gross misconduct. a sackable offence. this will make people think twice about not taking their break. ffs.

LouBarlow · Post by **LouBarlow** » 22 Jan 2017, 08:05

rehabron wrote:http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... hp?id=7946
Thought we had an agreement that the conduct code WAS NOT to be used as a mechanism in RTA reporting.

I actually also thought that tracking in vans couldn't be used for disciplinary reasons, as half of them in our office still don't have them. It would therefore be classic discrimination if it is used to stitch someone up, while other vans remain unmonitored.