Threat of termination

SarEl

bendix wrote: »

emmzi, if he has had this job (which requires road testing) for so long and has not been doing it because he couldn't get organised enough to get a driving licence, instead relying on his workmate to do it, I would suggest the employer is perfectly within their rights to fire him, let alone anything else.

This has nothing to do with disability, and everything to do with the fact that he hasn't been doing the job he was meant to do because he couldnt be bothered getting a driving licence. So finally they are dealing with it.

And about time . the OP can hardly complain that he's now under the spotlight.

Actually yes, he can. The employer has accepted that the OP has had no driving licenece for a decade - that is quite sufficient time for this acceptance to become contractual. It is therefore the legal position that he has not been required to hold a driving licence, and to now require that is a change of conytractual terms which the employer must be able to demonstarte is necessary - they cannot do so because the OP has managed to do their job perfectly well for over a decade without one and nothing has changed.

getmore4less

I would come at this from a different angle.

The employer is clearly on the offensive and trying to get rid of people on the cheap using performance.

If(likely) SarEl is right then the OP may be best letting them go ahead and get rid of him based o nthe lack of the driving licence.

A potential good case for some compensation at least as good as redundancy.

If the OP get the licence they could find themselves out in a few weeks/months anyway on performance with a much harder case if any.

SarEl

getmore4less wrote: »

I would come at this from a different angle.

The employer is clearly on the offensive and trying to get rid of people on the cheap using performance.

If(likely) SarEl is right then the OP may be best letting them go ahead and get rid of him based o nthe lack of the driving licence.

A potential good case for some compensation at least as good as redundancy.

If the OP get the licence they could find themselves out in a few weeks/months anyway on performance with a much harder case if any.

I wouldn't generally agree that sticking on what is a minor point (I assume Emmzi to be correct and it is a simple matter to obtain a new licence because I haven't checked - although I am not sure I would want someone who hasn't driven for 15 years road testing my car!) is a good idea. But in this case I do agree. It seems fairly clear that the employer is seeking ways of reducing staff numbers whilst avoiding making redundancy payments. Had the employer approached this as "we need to make redundancies, and with the reduced number of staff it will be necessary for all employees to be able to road test cars, so one of the selection criteria will be holding a driving licence" then they would have been free and clear. They could even have made a shorter service employee redundant and then had grounds to insist everyone had a licence (two for the price of one!). But I see no reason to disbelieve the OP when he says that a manager has openly stated that they want to oust the longest serving staff without paying out redundancy. This being the case, it will be a matter of relative ease to do it, on performance grounds, or on the "minor disciplinaries stacking up to dismissal route" (nobody is so squeaky clean an employer can't find a disciplinary or two).

LittleVoice

SarEl wrote: »

I wouldn't generally agree that sticking on what is a minor point (I assume Emmzi to be correct and it is a simple matter to obtain a new licence because I haven't checked - although I am not sure I would want someone who hasn't driven for 15 years road testing my car!) is a good idea. But in this case I do agree. It seems fairly clear that the employer is seeking ways of reducing staff numbers whilst avoiding making redundancy payments. Had the employer approached this as "we need to make redundancies, and with the reduced number of staff it will be necessary for all employees to be able to road test cars, so one of the selection criteria will be holding a driving licence" then they would have been free and clear. They could even have made a shorter service employee redundant and then had grounds to insist everyone had a licence (two for the price of one!). But I see no reason to disbelieve the OP when he says that a manager has openly stated that they want to oust the longest serving staff without paying out redundancy. This being the case, it will be a matter of relative ease to do it, on performance grounds, or on the "minor disciplinaries stacking up to dismissal route" (nobody is so squeaky clean an employer can't find a disciplinary or two).

As in post #4, as long as the OP voluntarily surrendered their DL, they don't have to take a new driving test (which I think was the cost the OP was particularly concerned about).

If they gave it up on medical grounds voluntarily, they can get a new licence when the condition changes for the good. I suggested checking about a charge because there might be a £20 charge in relation to a photocard - think this depends on whether they had one before as that requires £20 to renew every 10 years.

If the OP didn't give it up on a voluntary basis, then they would have to pass a new driving test.

Muscle750

After not driving on the road for such a long time i would only feel safe and confident after retaking my test so i am left with little option now to pursue this, moving on to my employer basically ive worked under at least 5 managers and all have been aware of the situation and didnt have a problem with it the current manager is a female who has worked at the site for 10 years and in the last 12 months has become the general manager shes certainly getting above her station in many respects. She was in charge of admin etc prior and dealt with everybodys personal files etc. She was without any doubt aware of my situation prior to her been the general manager and to say she didt know is nothing but a complete and utter lie.
Ive started to set the ball in motion on getting my licence and am in contact with my trade union who cant believe the attitude by my employer.
As i said a number of us are long serving 20 years plus and the company has recently closed a number of sites the share price has plummeted and with them now doing monthly appraisels the feeling is they are looking at ways of cutting any redundancy payments etc
A number of previous staff have took them to tribunals etc and all won their cases im just really concerned that i may well be out of a job with nothing to show after 24 years of loyal service. My wife has to go into hospital in a few weeks for surgery and with the worry of that this really could not come at a worse time. Other members of staff cant believe how ive been treated

Emmzi

well, now you just sound sexist I am afraid. female = irrelevant, worked in admin = irrelevant; "above her station" - she's the boss! organising stuff IS her station!

if you don't need to take a test, just have a few refresher lessons in a dual control car - much cheaper!

bendix

SarEl wrote: »

Actually yes, he can. The employer has accepted that the OP has had no driving licenece for a decade - that is quite sufficient time for this acceptance to become contractual. It is therefore the legal position that he has not been required to hold a driving licence, and to now require that is a change of conytractual terms which the employer must be able to demonstarte is necessary - they cannot do so because the OP has managed to do their job perfectly well for over a decade without one and nothing has changed.

And yet the employer has told him they weren't aware that he didnt have a driving licence. It's one party's word against the other.

So there is no legal position; just a question of he said v they said.

gjs6385

bendix wrote: »

And yet the employer has told him they weren't aware that he didnt have a driving licence. It's one party's word against the other.

So there is no legal position; just a question of he said v they said.

You say that, but:

Muscle750 wrote: »

Approx 6 months ago i was called into the office and it was stated that they were unaware i didnt hold a driving license which is completely and utterly untrue and i can prove this.

Not sure what this proof is, it would be good to know to assess its validity should anything happen as it could build a claim. I too am inclined to agree with SarEl and Emmzi on this one.

Uncertain

bendix wrote: »

And yet the employer has told him they weren't aware that he didnt have a driving licence. It's one party's word against the other.

Oh come on that is stretching credibility to the limit! The OP also tells us

The nature of the job does require some road testing of vehicles but this has never becme a problem and one of my collegues are quite happy to do so.

And this has been going on for fifteen years. I can't imagine anybody believing the employer on that one!

Mind you it will help the OP if they do try that argument and it will significantly reduce the credibility of anything else they say!

Muscle750

The proof is that approx 6 years ago there was a problem with a job that resulted in meetings statements etc In one statement i provided and have a copy of i clearly state that i was unable to drive the vehicle in question and the it was driven by my supervisor and no fault was found at the time, and the reason i was unable to driver the car was due to that i didnt hold a full uk licence due to my medical condtion.
The best part of it is that the now GM and the head of HR whom i saw this week were present along with my union rep at the meeting.