Suspended without pay or explanation

Tigsteroonie

DAKOTA45 wrote: »

With that, they told him he was suspended from work until further notice. That was about 8 weeks ago. They have provided little information as to whether he still has a job, or how the investigation is progressing.

This is the only bit he needs to pursue. Mitigating circumstances can come later if he is brought into an investigatory interview. I'm presuming he's not in a union ...

elsien

I would also suggest taking the companies identifying details out of your OP before he's also in strife for bringing them into disrepute. The company name and geographical area is not relevant to the questions you are asking.

Undervalued

DAKOTA45 wrote: »

Hi everyone... I'm posting for a friend today & hope someone may have some advice that I could pass on, please.
A friend of mine has been working for about 9 months as a mini bus driver for a company called 24/7.
They are based in Stansted, I believe, and provide transport (in this instance) to take special needs teenagers to school.
The job is minimum wage & only pays for hours worked, but he was called in every day, so that was ok.

Initially, he was accompanied by a PA whose job was to ensure that the passengers were secured by their seatbelts, and to help the driver load and secure wheelchairs and in general, ensure that they did not interfere with or distract the driver, and also to take phone calls, (on their personal mobile phones), relating to whether there were any changes to the route or number of passengers to be dropped off or collected at home time... very important, as the vehicles are not fitted with hands free equipment.

My friend took some annual holiday, but when he returned to work, he was sent out without a PA, so there was nobody to liase with the office whilst he was driving.

One day, on his way to collect his passengers, he received a call on his mobile. He saw that it was the office number, and as he was stationary at the time, (in a traffic queue), he picked up the call, thinking it might be important & that a vulnerable passenger might be left stranded, for instance. In the event, it was something trivial... the office was asking if he had attended a course, but this question had already been answered in a previous email, so they didn't need to call him about it, especially as they would have known that he was working without a PA.

He thought no more of it, but a couple of weeks later he was called once more by the office and told that he was in serious trouble. They said he had been caught on camera whilst using his mobile. They asked who he had called, so he said the only time he'd used the phone, (he checked the history which was still listed), was when they had called him...they were a bit taken aback by that.

With that, they told him he was suspended from work until further notice. That was about 8 weeks ago. They have provided little information as to whether he still has a job, or how the investigation is progressing.

My friend has received no notification from the Police about using his phone at the wheel, and he knows he shouldn't have done so. But neither should the company have sent him out without a PA, (it might even be unlawful as these are special needs children who need supervision), & without hands free equipment, knowing that he might need to liase with them whilst driving.

He is in limbo and doesn't know what to do. If he resigns to look for other work, the company will make him pay back the fees for the induction course as he has been with them for less than a year.

Shouldn't there be a tribunal or something if he is under investigation?

I hope somebody can advise, please... or if anyone else has worked for this company, perhaps they could say how they got on...?

Many thanks!

Dakota45

The only possible argument he has is for pay whilst suspended.

However you haven't answered the question asked by a poster about whether he is on a zero hour contract? If he is the concept of being suspended is virtually meaningless.

Manxman_in_exile

Les79 wrote: »

Caught on the camera in the mini-bus by the employer by any chance? I would presume that, if the police had caught your friend, it would be panning out a bit differently right now given that it is generally considered illegal (I think it would be a clear-cut case in your friend's case):...

You are probably right but...the more I think about it, the fact nothing has yet been heard from the police doesn't mean there's nothing in the pipeline. If mobile 'phone use can be prosecuted on photographic evidence and goes down the same procedure as a NIP for speeding, then there may be quite a long chain involved. Depends who the RK of the vehicle is. If a finance company is the RK, but the 'bus is "owned" by a hire company who then hire it to the employer, that's three links in the chain before getting to the driver. Each could, in theory, take up to 28 days to identify the driver, and that doesn't include up to 14 days for the original NIP to be issued.


That's all assuming mobile 'phone offences are dealt with in the same way as speeding offences - I don't actually know. If it's the employer's bus, probably nothing to worry about.

kingfisherblue

One thing that seems odd to me is that the council are the employers of the school transporrt escorts, not the minibus company. Did he not query why he had no escort for the children? My son has used SEN transport for ten years. On the odd occasion that the regular escort has not been able to attend, the council has always supplied an escort from their bank of staff.



That aside, I agree with elsien that you should remove the details which identify the company and area. I also think it seems likely that he is on a zero hours contract, although obviously he should check that. Answering a phone which is not hands free is illegal, and he should not have done it.

Tigsteroonie

kingfisherblue wrote: »

One thing that seems odd to me is that the council are the employers of the school transporrt escorts, not the minibus company. Did he not query why he had no escort for the children? My son has used SEN transport for ten years. On the odd occasion that the regular escort has not been able to attend, the council has always supplied an escort from their bank of staff.

And just to add to that as a parent of a child using such transport, I would not let my son travel on a minibus with no PA present. The driver cannot possibly watch both the road and what is happening with the children.

kingfisherblue

Tigsteroonie wrote: »

And just to add to that as a parent of a child using such transport, I would not let my son travel on a minibus with no PA present. The driver cannot possibly watch both the road and what is happening with the children.

Exactly! If a school bus had turned up without an escort, I would have phoned the council - we have a mobile number for emergencies, and this would qualify in my opinion.

Manxman_in_exile

If I were the OP I'd ask their friend what instructions they had been given during training as to what to do if no PA turns up.


Depending on the answer, I might be minded to report this to the council. (Not clear who may be at fault here: the employer, the council employed(?) PA, and/or the OP's driver friend).


Doesn't help the OP's friend - though they may feel better.

Undervalued

kingfisherblue wrote: »

Exactly! If a school bus had turned up without an escort, I would have phoned the council - we have a mobile number for emergencies, and this would qualify in my opinion.

But he didn't!

In the OP we are told that he answered an incoming call on a hand held mobile phone. There were no children on the bus at the time and even if there were that would not make it legal to answer the call!

Undervalued

Tigsteroonie wrote: »

And just to add to that as a parent of a child using such transport, I would not let my son travel on a minibus with no PA present. The driver cannot possibly watch both the road and what is happening with the children.

Maybe so but that has nothing to do with what has happened here. He was (apparently) driving an empty bus when he was spotted answering an incoming call on his mobile phone.

What may have happened when he reached the pickup point with nobody to supervise the children he was to collect is completely unconnected with why he has been suspended.