We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
disciplinary meeting
Comments
-
You don't seem to grasp the fact that his employer might not consider that it is up to him to decide when to take his breaks. In any case if they didn't mind why lying on his time sheet and why would they care to discipline him? It is becoming quite obvious that for health and safety reasons they require their staff to have at least one break within 6 hours something they probably monitor on the staff timesheet. His lying could have legal repercussions to the company hence why it could be considered gross misconduct.
If you read the rules on gov. uk it does clearly state that employers can say when breaks can be taken.0 -
As expected there seem to be some legislation in terms of rest periods for drivers which in the case of your son would be a requirement for a break from driving every 4.5 hours so what he has done seems to be a serious offence indeed.0
-
dorothyjeffery wrote: »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..
He might say this and I wouldn't blame him. It's an explanation though it's a lie. Let's be honest, none of his decisions were anything to do with the good of the company, saving them money etc. It was all about him rushing home because of his daughter. His circumstances, meant in his eyes, he would ignore company laid-down procedures and fabricate paper-work to cover that up. He took a chance and got found out.0 -
And the money saved would be nothing compared to what the company might have faced if he had an accident and injured someone and the company couldn't have evidenced that he had taken the required break.0
-
jobbingmusician wrote: »
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.
No, the company should advise him of his right to be accompanied but it is not their responsibility to arrange somebody. Indeed they would be unwise to do so as it could lead to questions about that person's suitability.
In any case, as I said earlier, with less than two years service this is all moot as he cannot claim unfair dismissal )obviously apart from discrimination etc which doesn't seem to apply here).0 -
thanks to all you lovely people. he went well armed with advice and everything else and oh lucky lucky lucky chap - a verbal warning.
cant thank you all enough.0 -
Good news, still might be worth looking for another job thoughDon't trust a forum for advice. Get proper paid advice. Any advice given should always be checked0
-
Don’t be a can’t, be a can.0
-
because he didnt note the afternoon break (that he took instead of the break that WAS on the sheet, but not taken)on the daily drivers hours sheet.
and yes, seriously looking for another job now. he said that the relationship between him and transport chappie can never be the same again. and he WILL be taking his proper breaks from now on. and i hope that now the other drivers have seen what can happen, they will do the same.0 -
Undervalued wrote: »No, the company should advise him of his right to be accompanied but it is not their responsibility to arrange somebody. Indeed they would be unwise to do so as it could lead to questions about that person's suitability.
In any case, as I said earlier, with less than two years service this is all moot as he cannot claim unfair dismissal )obviously apart from discrimination etc which doesn't seem to apply here).
Sorry, that wasn't what I meant. My grammar was correct, but the sentence was misleading! - as it could be read in 2 ways. I meant the company should
- allow time for you to prepare for a disciplinary
- and [allow time to] arrange for someone to accompany you
Hope it makes sense now!Ex board guide. Signature now changed (if you know, you know).0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.3K Spending & Discounts
- 247.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.3K Life & Family
- 261.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards