disciplinary hearing tomorrow, please help!!

[shazmy]

I work in public transport and i am on a final warning because of my 'driving standards' however because of the nature of the work we do have minor accidents now and again..........anyway the mirror on my vehicle hit a wall while i was monouvering to make space for another large vehicle to pass..........this is normally a minor incident as the mirror was replaced straight away, i had a meeting with the manager yesterday and they have suspended me on full pay and i have a disciplinary hearing tomorrow........need some advice.....can they sack me for this? i have been with the co 10years and the other warnings i have had (1 was unavoidable but they said it was 50/50 so i got a warning, the other because my vehicle slipped in the snow) were only in the last 3 months.

 

i really need the job i have young children and mortgages and bills to pay and i am the main breadwinner

[MrShed]

This would appear to be a hearing under the competency rules. Ultimately, I do think that they may be able to justify a dismissal on these grounds on paper, based upon the quantity of incidents.

 

However, ultimately the important thing for you here isnt neccessarily the company actions during the hearings themselves, but between them. Since your first incident, has there been any form of training or re-training in this aspect? Have you been given specific targets/goals to meet to resolve the alleged performance issue?

[WLG]

All seems a bit harsh to me.What was the time between all 3 incident ? As I understand it and the way the company I work for does things,is if you get a warning wether it be verbal or wriiten then the warning would only stand for a certain length of time.

[MrShed]

WLG - it states in the OP that these incidents have been within 3 months - not enough time usually for a warning to drop off your record.

 

Whilst it may seem a bit harsh, what has to be understood here is that at least on paper, the main job role is driving, and there have been three incidences of "negligent" driving. Hence, the company have some justification (at least on paper) of potential dismissal under competency grounds (notwithstanding mitigating circumstances).

 

However, in the case of competency, the employer has to show that they have performed every reasonable measure in assisting the employee in resolving the competency issues - hence the question regarding training etc.

[godpikachu]

id like to know if a warning for the vehicle slipping in snow is actually justifyable, as it is a hazard that all drivers would have to face no matter their level of driving skill, and is sometimes unavoidable, especially in heavy snow.

 

I mean during the recent snowy weather, bus services in many areas were suspended due to the showfall, in some areas the snowfall was barely more than an inch!.If they were sending him out in snowy weather and he slipped on snow/ice, does that mean he is responsible for controlling the weather now?, if so, is there any chance that he can stop it raining over my house as i have washing i need to get dry?.

[MrShed]

Ultimately, as we do not know the specific circumstances surrounding that incident, we cannot wholly comment on whether the disciplinary in that situation was justified or not.

 

However, what we certainly cannot do is say that carte blanche snow on road = zero driver control, and so we cannot say that snow on road = definite no question to answer.

 

I am not saying there WAS, but that we have insufficient information to make an informed decision on that particular incident.

 

In the absence of such information, and therefore in the absence of information that would lead us to believe that disciplinary was unfair or unjustified, I think it is safer for the OP if we assume at this stage that the disciplinary WAS fair, take the two prior warnings as dead and buried and look at thesituation as it stands now.

[godpikachu]

Ultimately, as we do not know the specific circumstances surrounding that incident, we cannot wholly comment on whether the disciplinary in that situation was justified or not.

 

However, what we certainly cannot do is say that carte blanche snow on road = zero driver control, and so we cannot say that snow on road = definite no question to answer.

 

I am not saying there WAS, but that we have insufficient information to make an informed decision on that particular incident.

 

In the absence of such information, and therefore in the absence of information that would lead us to believe that disciplinary was unfair or unjustified, I think it is safer for the OP if we assume at this stage that the disciplinary WAS fair, take the two prior warnings as dead and buried and look at thesituation as it stands now.

 

 

Well, based on the fact that the are basing this disciplinary on capability issues, which he has had warnings for in the past, were the previous warnings justified at all?.

I know we dont have full information available and your question about retraining/assesment being carried out is a valid point, and should quite rightly be taken into consideration, but, if the warnings he has had previously are not valid or justifyable, then it brings up the issue of wether the latest incident, which the OP describes as a fairly "normal" occurance, should actually warrant the potential loss of employment.

 

As the OP says, he has been with the company for 10 years, so its fair to say he has a decent amount of driving experience, so he isnt likely to commit "schoolboy" errors, but to me it seems to be a little suspicious that all of a sudden they have decided to start moaning about capability and pulling him up on little things that are usually overlooked.

 

To me, this smacks of them just simply wanting rid of him and are trying to get him out via the trumped up disciplinary route.

[WLG]

MrShed - my apoligies i did not read the post correctly?

 

shazmy - I am a little confused though,when you say you are on a final written,do you mean you have already received a final written or is that what you are expecting to receive after your hearing tomorrow?

 

Also when did the employer write to you to explain the details of your disciplinary , reason for the disciplinary,time, date etc?

Edited March 3, 2009 by WLG

[MrShed]

 

To me, this smacks of them just simply wanting rid of him and are trying to get him out via the trumped up disciplinary route.

 

Thats an amazing assumption to jump to on the information given.

[godpikachu]

Thats an amazing assumption to jump to on the information given.

 

 

Its certainly not within the realms of impossibility though is it?.

Theres been a glut of stories of people being laid off or sacked for flimsy reasons of late, not only on here but everywhere.

The truth is that due to the economic downturn or whatever, places are activley looking to get rid of people, by whatever means required, in order to sav money, because at the end of the day, thats what everything boils down to.

[MrShed]

Absolutely it is not outside the realms of possibility. But we have no reason to believe this.

 

Neither is it outside of the realms of possibility that the OP has just become a shocking driver. Sorry OP, I am not saying you have at all, but just making a point.

 

People need to get out of this mindset that any and every disciplinary action by an employer is unfounded, especially on the information we are given. It is irresponsible to give people false hope and information.

 

In this specific case, what I have said is that I can see the reasoning of the employer. Ultimately, we are only getting one side of the story.

[diskmandave]

Statutory Dismissal Disciplinary Procedure requires 72 hours

notice not 24/48 as seems to be the case here.

[MrShed]

DMD, is that the case despite the fact that due to the immediate suspension I am assuming that the case is going to be along the lines of gross misconduct?

[godpikachu]

Absolutely it is not outside the realms of possibility. But we have no reason to believe this.

 

Neither is it outside of the realms of possibility that the OP has just become a shocking driver. Sorry OP, I am not saying you have at all, but just making a point.

 

People need to get out of this mindset that any and every disciplinary action by an employer is unfounded, especially on the information we are given. It is irresponsible to give people false hope and information.

 

In this specific case, what I have said is that I can see the reasoning of the employer. Ultimately, we are only getting one side of the story.

 

 

Oh yeah, i mean i never said it was definatley the case, but it is something to think about.

Like you say, it is a but suss that all of a sudden the OP seems to have forgotten 10 years of driving experience and become a terrible driver, but he might have done, like you say we dont know, but from what bit hes posted here, it does seem like his employer has got something against him in some fashion.

[MrShed]

Well, I disagree. I dont think there is anything to base that on.

 

But yes - lets be clear, I am not neccessarily siding with the employer. I just think that it is in the OPs best interests to consider all possibilities, and on the face of it there is a possibility that the procedures up until now have been fair and justified.

 

I still feel the absolute key question is any element of training etc. IF the employer is alleging incompetence/negligence, then they need to have shown that they have done what they could to resolve any alleged issue. Chances are, they havent retrained.

[godpikachu]

Well, I disagree. I dont think there is anything to base that on.

 

Well, there is per se, but cannot be proved conclusivley without furthur facts, but it is worth thinking about nontheless. Like i said, it isnt outside the realm of possibility that they are just wanting to replace an older member of staff with fresh meat, but are struggling to find a way of getting rid for the minimum amount of cost.

 

I still feel the absolute key question is any element of training etc. IF the employer is alleging incompetence/negligence, then they need to have shown that they have done what they could to resolve any alleged issue. Chances are, they havent retrained.

 

Yeah, obviously the key questions that need to be asked of the employer are...

 

#1

If failings with the OPs working practices had been identified, was any retraining considered or offered?.

 

#2

If the answer to #1 is no, then why not?

 

#3

if the answer to #2 isnt satisfactory, what is the underlying reason behind not giving him said retraining?. After all, if somoene is working dangerously, then the employer has the obligation to ensure the saftey of both the employee and the public. If the OP poses a serious danger or is negligent in his duties in some fashion, then if there is some sort of accident and someone is injured, then the employer faces liability.

 

#4

Finally, if the employer is unable to provide suitable answers to any of the above questions, then it must be asked why the OP is being singled out after 10 years of service for disciplinary action, and have the warnings issued on previous occasions which are now being used against him actually justifyable in any way?.

If the warnings are just for petty reasons, which could have been easilly avoidable through training or mentoring in some fashion, then is the OP being set up for a fall?

 

 

All speculation like, but im sure you can see my point now.

[diskmandave]

Here are the upto date guidelines for Discipline & Grievance;

I'ld advise printing it for reference.

 

http://www.acas.org.uk/media/pdf/9/5/CP01_1.pdf

 

Good luck with it!

[shazmy]

i am replying for my husband as he is in his disciplinary meeting right now!

 

He did have a day of training school after the previous incident. the latest accident happened because he was under a lot of stress after his final written warning, he was trying to avoid a collision with another vehicle that was traveling towards his, so he manouvered and knocked the mirror off his vehicle.

 

I don't think the management have anything against him, he seems to ge on ok with everyone, but he is an older driver on a better wage......hmmmm.... we will be appealing if he gets sacked but hopefully it wont come to that.

 

i am feeling very nervous for him.

[godpikachu]

well, i just hope that his employers arent employing a sinister motive like what i have described, and will see the sense in keeping on an experienced member of staff as opposed to simply replacing him with a younger (and cheaper) employee.

 

 

sorry if i sound cynical but its becoming more and more commonplace now and i find it discusting.

[shazmy]

just to note it wasn't immediate suspension, the suspension happened on Monday, the accident happened on friday, he was still at work over the weekend.

 

Does mean they still should have suspended him for 72 hours

[godpikachu]

its 72 hours from the point of suspension.

however if the incident was serious enough to warrant a suspension then they really should have done it on friday..but wait!, that would have left them short for the weekend..oh NOES!, they might have had to pay someone overtime to cover his shifts!!!...overtime costs money!!!, cant have that!.

 

i need to stop being cynical.

[diskmandave]

its 72 hours from the point of suspension.

 

It's actually 72 hours from the point of notification of

requirement to attend a Disciplinary Interview where

dismissal is a real option.

 

The two may not be the same.

[shazmy]

Well i have been dismissed and they said they needed only to give me 48hours so i might appeal on that one 2!

 

plus they did not have records of my first formal warning........they had disappeared conveniently, anyway, i will be appealing.......didn't waste 10years of my life for this!

[godpikachu]

yep, appeal and get a form ET1 from the CAB and file for unfair dismissal.

 

what EXACT reasons were given for your dismissal?

[shazmy]

Well they said they will be sending me a letter, basically the manager who was doing the dismissing was saying it's all been blown out of poportion!

 

He said i should have radioed the company and told them i was stuck in 2 way traffic and shouldn't have tried to manouver!

 

how could i argue the unfair bit? my union want to appeal but they told me not to appeal my previous warnings (even though i wanted to)

 

i can't find any statutory legislation requiring them to give me 72 hours notice..........help!

 

and if they haven't got details of my first written warning........surely that means it doesn't exist?