My partner has been working for the same employer for nearly a year but is an agency worker as a Forklift Operator.

He is allowed annual leave but not sick pay.

His role involves moving pallets of soft drinks and loading and unloading them.

A few months ago he was asked to pick up a pallet but as it was not balanced properly due to the way it was originally placed he dropped it when trying to pick it up.

It was reported to the Manager who asked him to complete an incident report and asked what happened during the incident, at no point was he informed that he has a warning or anything just a discussion about the accident.

A few days later he was retested on the Reach forklift and was allowed to use the machine again.

On Monday he was driving the Reach Forklift again and a trainee was also driving a forklift,

the trainee was in front of him but did not honk his horn to let him know that he was coming, as he was meant to do,

as my partner briefly turned around to check that no pallets fell,

he hit his Reach forklift into the trainees but no damage was caused.

He was taken off the Reach and asked to complete an incident record again and placed on another machine.

On Tuesday he was called into the office to discuss the incident,

he was then informed that he has a Final Written Warning.

My partner informed them that he didn't know that he even had a first warning and was told that the first incident was placed on his record but he was never informed of this.

I am sure that this is not the correct way to do these meetings.

Please could someone advise and does he have any rights?

You can be put on a final warning without going through the previous. IT depends on the severity of the incident.

The agency is his employer and should be doing the warnings.

however with less than a year's service and a breach of safety - he's not much realistic hope of having the decision changed. Many places would have just let go and got a replacement in.

Thanks for the information.

My partner has been working for the same employer for nearly a year but is an agency worker as a Forklift Operator. He is allowed annual leave but not sick pay. His role involves moving pallets of soft drinks and loading and unloading them. A few months ago he was asked to pick up a pallet but as it was not balanced properly due to the way it was originally placed he dropped it when trying to pick it up. It was reported to the Manager who asked him to complete an incident report and asked what happened during the incident, at no point was he informed that he has a warning or anything just a discussion about the accident. A few days later he was retested on the Reach forklift and was allowed to use the machine again.

 

On Monday he was driving the Reach Forklift again and a trainee was also driving a forklift, the trainee was in front of him but did not honk his horn to let him know that he was coming, as he was meant to do, and as my partner briefly turned around to check that no pallets fell, he hit his Reach forklift into the trainees but no damage was caused. He was taken off the Reach and asked to complete an incident record again and placed on another machine. On Tuesday he was called into the office to discuss the incident, he was then informed that he has a Final Written Warning. My partner informed them that he didn't know that he even had a first warning and was told that the first incident was placed on his record but he was never informed of this.

 

I am sure that this is not the correct way to do these meetings. Please could someone advise and does he have any rights?

The End user has a duty of care towards him

But the question I believe you are asking is if he has a contract?

It would depend on the circumstances of his employment.

The Court have found in favour of some and sadly not in others

If it is not too late he could point out they have a duty of care towards him and treat him fairly.

A Duty of Care is much easier to prove.

The End user has a duty of care towards him

 

.

The EMPLOYER has a duty of care

And it really won't come into play here if he is the one causing accidents! Please stop giving false hope, it does not help.

A Duty of Care comes into play irrespective one is guilty or not

A Duty of Care means one must follow the Principles of Natural Justice

A Duty of Care means one should only be punished in proportion to the crime committed

I can go on and on but the point is clear; there is always a Duty of Care

Duty of care & natural justice are 2 distinct topics that shouldn't be conflated.

Duty of care and punishment being proportionate to the offence and its circumstances : again 2 distinct topics.

What of the duty of care to all employees if an employee is posing a risk to them by their forklift driving .... duty of care then becomes a 2-edged sword ......

If an employer acts lawfully & reasonably, they'll be able to state they have balanced their duties of care ......

 

If an employer acts lawfully & reasonably, they'll be able to state they have balanced their duties of care ......

So a duty of care exist

We might debate if they have balanced it or not

I believe they also have to follow the Principle of Natural Justice

Of course a duty of care exists between an employer and employee (it is a relationship where such can be presumed, under

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donoghue_v_Stevenson

However, I'm not sure you understand the implications.

For a start, duty of care is relevant to negligence (where the key components are duty of care, breach of that duty, harm resulting and applicable defences (including contributory negligence), and that isn't always relevant to disciplinary proceedings.

Who are you claiming has been negligent?

In addition : multiple duties of care exist. That doesn't mean the employer has to ignore the one to all their employees to favour the one to an individual.

Stating "duty of care" (while misunderstanding what the means and implies!) doesn't help the OP.

So a duty of care exist

 

We might debate if they have balanced it or not

 

I believe they also have to follow the Principle of Natural Justice

They have a duty of care to ALL workers.

"Don't employ the guy who uses a forklift as a weapon" seems pretty damn high up that list. Hurt feelings will never top that!

Frankly, he was extremely lucky to get a final warning. But since he did there is no legal action that he can take anyway. There is no breach of a duty of care to the employee.

And all that aside, you really need to improve your appreciation of natural justice and duty of care. Disciplining someone for being the cause of an accident which causes damage, and which could have resulted in injury, is never going to be a breach of either.

 

"Don't employ the guy who uses a forklift as a weapon" seems pretty damn high up that list. Hurt feelings will never top that!

I believe here is where the problem is!

The company who investigated found the guy to be negligent and/or careless hence the warning.

Until we have strong evidence not available to the company we can't fault their findings.

Unfortunately, you have decided that it is a deliberate act!

There is clearly no evidence to support your position

Your whole argument was based on a wrong premise, it is bound to fail.

Since it was a hasty conclusion, I can safely say your whole argument is faulty

We would never get a reasonable debate as your premise is wrong.

Not hasty. An employer doesnt need to find 100% one way or the other.

I believe here is where the problem is!

 

The company who investigated found the guy to be negligent and/or careless hence the warning.

 

Until we have strong evidence not available to the company we can't fault their findings.

 

Unfortunately, you have decided that it is a deliberate act!

 

There is clearly no evidence to support your position

 

Your whole argument was based on a wrong premise, it is bound to fail.

 

Since it was a hasty conclusion, I can safely say your whole argument is faulty

 

We would never get a reasonable debate as your premise is wrong.

And I can safely say that you are speaking through an orifice. It is absolute obvious that Emmzzi was speaking ironically in response to your absurd claims that an employer should not issue a disciplinary warning because they have a duty of care, when the employee has caused an accident that has resulted in damage and which may have caused injury. He was lucky he wasn't sacked. I'd say that that was more than enough "duty of care" and few employers would have been so lenient.