Threat of termination

LittleVoice

Muscle750 - Did you give up your driving licence voluntarily (as in the term used by the licencing authority)?

System

The bottom line here is that you never formally informed the company that you had given up your DL, the only evidence being a one liner in a set of statements investigating a problem in a single job.

Under those conditions I would think that the company are within their rights to state that they were never informed of the lack of licence.

If you want to use the above as evidence. Claiming the loss as a part of a disability that now no longer applies surely means the company are now rightly insisting that you get your licence back to do your job properly, since you no longer have any dispensation due to disability.

SarEl

I don't think that the OP is depending on one line in a statement. He is also depending on the fact that every line manager and supervisor he has had in the 15 years previously has known about this, because the road testing of every vehicle was undertaken by someone other than the OP because the OP had no licence. And the fact he had no licence was on his personnel file. And the fact that after having not driven for so long he feels a lack of confidence in his current ability to do so without re-learning. And the fact that in any circumstances, to dismiss someone after this number of years service, it is the employers problem to prove that the requirement to have a licence is an absolute must have, and they cannot possibly afford to employ someone who doesn't have one - which is going to be rather hard since they have been doing so perfectly well for 15 years.

The reason that the OP lost their licence/gave up their licence is a red herring. The issue is whether the employer can now dismiss someone for something which they have sanctioned for the last 15 years, and which has never been an issue during all that time. Even if they were to claim that they did not know the OP had no licence, their defence doesn't hold water - in admitting they didn't know they are admitting that it didn't present any problems because had it done so they would have known.

So if it can be proven that they knew - and it seems that there is some evidence to this effect - then they admit that it hasn't caused any problems because otherwise they should have done something about it before 15 years elapsed. And if they argue that they didn't know, the question would be how it caused problems because the problems never once came to their attention despite the fact that a supervisor, at the very least, must have been aware of it.

zzzLazyDaisy

To be honest, I think this is a typical case of an employer shooting itself in the foot, as a result of not taking proper advice when these things crop up in the first place.

OP originally lost his licence because of a medical condition that was capable of being a disability under DDA 1995 (as it was then). An arrangement for someone else to do the driving part of the job would be viewed as a 'reasonable adjustment'. OP has now been advised that he is now medically fit to drive, so the need for a reasonable adjustment owing to his disability, has disappeared. If that were the case, the employer would still need to be seen to be acting reasonably, but that reasonableness would probably be achieved by a phased return to full duties.

As it is, the employer is denying that they knew he had no licence, which (as SarEl says) is evidence that a licence really isn't that important, otherwise how could they possibly have not known about this for the past 15 years?

As a by-the-by, for those who don't know - in the real world, SarEl always represents employees, and I (almost) always represent employers - so while the law is the same, we sometimes approach problems from different angles - but we usually come to the same end result...

SarEl

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

As a by-the-by, for those who don't know - in the real world, SarEl always represents employees, and I (almost) always represent employers - so while the law is the same, we sometimes approach problems from different angles - but we usually come to the same end result...

And that is no doubt because if everyone listened to us in the first place nobody would ever end up in court Lawyers usually only get consulted when somebody or everybody has already screwed it up - if they consulted us first then it would cost a lot less!

Savvy_Sue

Muscle750 wrote: »

After not driving on the road for such a long time i would only feel safe and confident after retaking my test

well that is, of course, your choice, although it seems a bizarre one to me.

Emmzi wrote: »

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!

I agree.

Emmzi wrote: »

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

absolutely: I've done this after extended periods of not being able to drive, you can have as many lessons as you need and if the instructor doesn't think you're safe they'll soon tell you!

somethingcorporate

Sounds like the OP is just making excuses - not enough money to drive, have to take a retest just to feel safe etc etc.

Man up here OP and stop being a victim. It is not going to cost to renew your license and a block booking of a good few hours lessons to get your confidence back is going to cost less than £100.

Let the employer do what they feel best and deal with the consequences. If you want to keep your job the minimal cost suggestions have already been made a number of times on the thread.