Employment Law

[Joe Newton]

If the guys any good, why doesn't he look elsewhere? Doesn't sound like the kind of boss to work for.

[Richard 1234]

He does report to a base, which they claim is not 'work'.

 

 

It's a tough situation as you said because unless he kicks up a stink and spends money he can't do anything about it.

I wonder if there are any no win no fee lawyers for this kind of thing.(not that I think they are a good idea re. Car accidents etc)

[Sciadopitys]

If the guys any good, why doesn't he look elsewhere? Doesn't sound like the kind of boss to work for.

 

 

Yup, i agree with you mate! I am sure he will not be there long. But, they must turnover staff fast as hell.... Who would put up with doing that week in - week out!!? He just said some days he is doing 12 hours for 8 hours pay! It is wrong!! Should not be allowed! They are taking advantage. If they advertise C1+E driving licence in the job advert, and you getting the job depends on having it, how the hell can driving their truck to site not be classed as "work"? Wankers!

[Richard 1234]

I think the guy needs to find a new job then report the boss to. The DWP

[Joe Newton]

Yup, i agree with you mate! I am sure he will not be there long. But, they must turnover staff fast as hell.... Who would put up with doing that week in - week out!!? He just said some days he is doing 12 hours for 8 hours pay! It is wrong!! Should not be allowed! They are taking advantage. If they advertise C1+E driving licence in the job advert, and you getting the job depends on having it, how the hell can driving their truck to site not be classed as "work"? Wankers!

 

 

Simple fact is it's not right. And your guy is facilitating this guy by doing it. Either this employer will find a mug who's happy to do it or he'll never keep good staff.

[kimtree]

where would your friend stand if on the way to 'work' in their vehicle he was involved in a traffic accident?

[Mark Bolam]

Has he talked to them about it?

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

This is where the law falls flat on its face. You, as the employee have to prove that you're being exploited. This means a tribunal that comes out of your pocket until the case is settled. And there's still no saying you'd win in court. I had a boss who used to break and bend every rule in the book but to do anything you had to prove it which cost ££££ and he new that we couldn't afford to take him to court. The laws are engineered to suit employers.

 

The change which introduced a fee for applying to Tribunal was necessary to weed out the volume of malicious and vexatious nonsensical claims which brought with them an expensive administrative burden caused by too many spurious and unrealistic claims being brought.

 

It's a perfectly reasonable proposition to have a fee - if nothing else, it weeds out the serial complainers, encourages a level of personal preparation and research and still provides an effective means of recourse for a perceived injustice to those that are sufficiently prepared and willing to make a financial commitment prior to firing off an email to the Tribunal.

 

It's not without precedent... High hedges for example requires some reasonable measures to be taken before applying for intervention and there is a fee involved.

 

It's not designed to suit the employer, it's designed to avoid unreasonable expense to the taxpayer.

 

Given the circumstances described, I'd consider the bloke is 'working' from when he gets to the yard and starts driving the work vehicle. He would be on work time whilst driving and driving under company vehicle and employees compulsory liability insurance. He should be on pay for that time.

[Mick Dempsey]

My first job was a bit like that.

Firms like that go through staff quickly.

My advice to your mate, swallow it until he feels he's competent then get another job with another firm.

There are so many people coming into this game that this sort of thing is not uncommon as new people try and overcome the "no job without experience/no experience without job" dilemma.

[ChrisPlumpton]

The change which introduced a fee for applying to Tribunal was necessary to weed out the volume of malicious and vexatious nonsensical claims which brought with them an expensive administrative burden caused by too many spurious and unrealistic claims being brought.

 

 

 

It's a perfectly reasonable proposition to have a fee - if nothing else, it weeds out the serial complainers, encourages a level of personal preparation and research and still provides an effective means of recourse for a perceived injustice to those that are sufficiently prepared and willing to make a financial commitment prior to firing off an email to the Tribunal.

 

 

 

It's not without precedent... High hedges for example requires some reasonable measures to be taken before applying for intervention and there is a fee involved.

 

 

 

It's not designed to suit the employer, it's designed to avoid unreasonable expense to the taxpayer.

 

 

 

Given the circumstances described, I'd consider the bloke is 'working' from when he gets to the yard and starts driving the work vehicle. He would be on work time whilst driving and driving under company vehicle and employees compulsory liability insurance. He should be on pay for that time.

 

 

I know all that. And I agree he sounds like he is definitely being exploited. Now the law favours the wealthy. And people like my former employer capitalise on the fact that he can bend the rules and break the law and you need a small fortune to do anything about it. I was a member of the union Unite, they told me I'd need £2500 to get him to court and cover costs which I'd get back if I won. Problem was, it was essentially his word against ours. Not a problem if you've got that sort of cash but I didn't and my former boss knew it.