disciplinary meeting

Tiddlywinks

dorothyjeffery wrote: »

thank you all again.

for verification, its just a plain white van. no logo. and yes, he was taking a break for safety: 'tiredness kills' . by the same token, all the drivers who work there take breaks at different times OR dont take breaks at all. if they have to stop due to tiredness etc, they just do so. there is no taco in vans.

we shall just have to wait and see what happens tomorrow.

Yes, 'tiredness kills' which is why the company is insisting that their drivers take breaks.

You say he parked up quite close to the depot. How do you expect a manager to interpret what he saw? A driver taking a snooze in the period where he should be working?

The argument of 'everyone else does it' won't wash as that was why the company issued their directive - to force the drivers to take breaks and so not get to the stage where they have to pull over and sleep.

Takeaway_Addict

ableandy wrote: »

Just to summarise:

1. A disciplinary cannot happen on Monday as he has not been given at least 24hours written notice of the case against him.

2. If, when he gets the written notification it does not state that the outcome of the disciplinary could be his dismissal then they cannot dismiss him.

3. A worker is only entitled to a 20 minute break after 6 hours work, therefore the break rule is acceptable.

4. The company is entitled to dictate when the breaks are taken, that said it is a bit strange to say it must be taken in the first 6 hours as then it could be taken just 5 minutes after starting work, hardly very good from a Health & Safety point of view.

Realistically 1 and 2 don't matter when the person is under 2 years unless they have protection via a statutory right or if they are being discriminated in the eyes of the law.

FBaby

Something doesn't sound right. Did he put on his timesheet that he worked say from 8am to 6pm, but took a 20mns break between 5pm and 5:20? If it there policy (and/or legal) requirements that he has a break every x number of hours driving, for the purpose of safety and him breaching this safety issue is the reason why he is being disciplined?

I can see why they would do so to protect themselves, ie, if your son fell asleep at the wheel and killed someone and he hadn't taken a break, and it was discovered that the company knew that happened (timesheets alone) and done nothing, they could get into big trouble.

Or is the issue that he put that he had a break at say noon, but failed to put on his timesheet that he also had a break at 5pm?

Undervalued

ableandy wrote: »

Just to summarise:

1. A disciplinary cannot happen on Monday as he has not been given at least 24hours written notice of the case against him.

2. If, when he gets the written notification it does not state that the outcome of the disciplinary could be his dismissal then they cannot dismiss him.

That may have been true back when there were statutory procedures but now there are only "guidelines". Not following them does not, in itself, invalidate any decision. All that is required is that they follow a fair process. OK, the easiest way of doing so is to stick to the ACAS guidelines but it is not mandatory.

In any case, as TA has pointed out, without two years service this is totally moot!

If the firm has a laid down contractual disciplinary process (unusual) and they fail to follow it then there may still be a case for WRONGFUL dismissal. However, at best all that would yield would be a few days pay to cover however long it would have taken to do it properly! Now that tribunal fees have to be paid it is unlikely to be worthwhile as the chances of being awarded costs are next to zero.

dorothyjeffery

he didnt take his lunch break, but put on the work sheet that he had done so. This was because they had all had a memo about taking the breaks within the 6hrs.

he took a break at 5pm INSTEAD of the lunch break, but it wasnt marked on his time sheet.

checking with the shops he collected from could prove the times are correct. if he HAD taken 2 breaks, the hours just wouldnt add up.

Savvy_Sue

dorothyjeffery wrote: »

he didnt take his lunch break, but put on the work sheet that he had done so. This was because they had all had a memo about taking the breaks within the 6hrs.

he took a break at 5pm INSTEAD of the lunch break, but it wasnt marked on his time sheet.

This is a problem: his timesheet says he took a break (say) from 12.00-12.30 pm. His timesheet does not say he took a break at 5 pm, yet he was seen taking one. This looks remarkably like falsifying his timesheet, and that is serious.

dorothyjeffery wrote: »

checking with the shops he collected from could prove the times are correct. if he HAD taken 2 breaks, the hours just wouldnt add up.

He could try doing this himself, but I'm not sure the company would be unreasonable not to do so.

They have all the evidence they need: a timesheet which says he took his break at x time, a manager who saw him asleep in his van at y time.

I'd suggest grovelling ... and job hunting.

ohreally

dorothyjeffery wrote: »

he took a break at 5pm INSTEAD of the lunch break, but it wasnt marked on his time sheet.

Do you realise to be compliant, the break can't be taken at the end of the shift?

Tiddlywinks

He falsified records which demonstrates that he knew he should take a break but skipped it regardless of company policy and entered false information as a cover up.

Two provable lies - the first for a lunch break he didn't take and secondly for a break he took later and didn't show on the time sheets.

I don't understand why you can't see that this is unacceptable behaviour.

jobbingmusician

So, two things.

Firstly, the employer is supposed to allow time for you to prepare for a disciplinary - and to arrange for someone to accompany you. It is completely reasonable to ask for a deferment of a hearing to allow the person accompanying you to attend, and it may put the employer in a difficult position if they do not allow this.

Secondly, yes the facts as given are serious. I think in your position I would stress that you intended to take a break but opted not to take it within the first 6 hours TO BENEFIT THE EMPLOYER - although you accept that this was wrong, it was genuinely done to reduce the time lost due to traffic. However, you genuinely discovered that this was a big mistake because your personal circumstances (sleeplessness because of the hospital situation) meant that you needed a break. You realise that this was an error, caused by extraordinary stress in your personal life, but felt it was best to take a late break rather than risk driving tired. You hope that the employer will be able to take your personal circumstances at this time into account and realise that this was an isolated bad decision which would never be repeated.....

dorothyjeffery

he has said all of this in own statement. by taking the break and getting caught on the dartford crossing in rush hour(s), meant he wouldnt have got back til well after 7-ish. costing the company a lot more in hours, and into overtime hours as well.

and we know that it isnt really acceptable behaviour, but circumstances change as the day goes on.. At the time, he didnt need the break. later on he clearly did. and i know that if he had taken the break when he was supposed to, he wouldnt have had to stop later on.

i know all this, all i wanted to know from the first posting, was had they given him enough time to get his own side of it together!!!!!

for those who have given very sound advice on the time scale: they emailed him late on saturday with a formal invitation to attend the disciplinary. they have done everything by the book, including the timing. so thanks to you all.