microlise in cab system

[newmoses]

Can any legal buffs tell me if the Microlise "Spy in the cab" system, as some call it, can be used in a disciplinary, or does the employer have to rely on the CCTV system that is installed?.

 

I was on the understanding that the microlise syatem was to check on drivers standards of driving, not whether they missed part of a route or not.

 

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

[honeybee13]

Hello there. This sounds more like and employment issue.

 

Has the person been fined or taken to court?

 

HB

[newmoses]

The driver is being disciplined for missing part of a route.

 

 

The manager is using the mapping from the Microlise system to enact the disciplinary.

 

 

There is a 6 camera cctv system on the vehicle, including one on the dashboard reflecting on the road ahead,

 

 

so why is the cctv evidence not used in the disciplinary instead of the microlise mapping?

[honeybee13]

Thank you.

 

I've moved your thread to the Employment section, the forum guys should be along later.

 

HB

[Emmzzi]

this feels like a slightly academic debate - they need "reasonable belief" locally, not court of law standards.

 

was the route indeed missed?

[donarebun]

One of the major use of the system is to save fuel.

 

If someone is using the vehicle to visit friends along his route then that will fall under misuse of company property.

 

So to answer your question; yes.

 

Every and any evidence can be used in a disciplinary process, and to some extent in the Courts.

 

The only argument you can have is if the system is unreliable, prone to errors, not serviced etc.

 

Other than that you have little ground

[newmoses]

I managed to get the final warning overturned to a 6 month warning,due tio the fact,the driver cannot remember missing part of the route.

[BazzaS]

I managed to get the final warning overturned to a 6 month warning,due tio the fact,the driver cannot remember missing part of the route.

 

?.

"I don't remember" isn't the same as "I didn't do it".

The answer to "I don't recall" is "let's watch the footage together, and you can tell me what you now believed happened, with the benefit of viewing the footage"!

 

Was it perhaps overturned on some different ground of appeal?.

[ericsbrother]

The system is used for the purpose that the employer wishes it to be used, up to a point. If the driver has to keep the vehicle at home for example it may be considered intrusive to map the whereabouts of the vehicle before or after work as it would be at the workers discretion waht route they took to get home but if it kept in a yeard and measures all activity during the working day how that is used is up to the company. I would be making sure that things like toilet breaks are catered for though as the co cannot expect domestic customers to let the driver use their loo so a detour to a public convenience should be factored in.

[newmoses]

I found an anomoly in the statement from the passenger who was waiting for the bus that didn;t turn up(the part that was missed).The statement read "On XX of XX 2017! etc,etc...........I argued that 2017 was a year away and was deemed to be a false statement,which would not stand up in court.I think that is what swung it for me.Although the part of the route was missed out, it wasn't intentional, so the driver was given the benefit of the doubt.