Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Philby'
please may Phil be excused on the grounds that he is very busy but bored!
signed....
his dad
On a more serious note, and a little disjointed....
if a company decides that it is not resoponsible for the costs of travel to/from work, reasonable, and makes no exception for when that travel means travelling to sites other than base, unreasonable, on the grounds that you are travlling to/from work wherever that may be, despite disparities in distance and accessability...
how can it possibly try and impose a no duty of care for the same journeys'...thinking of the lonely site and no-one wanting to take responsibility as an out of hours contact/emergency response etc scenario...
I've advised from a regulatory side but to no discernable effect, although I'm not party to the company, staff, managers and what and how this was put...mi mucker is adamant that this is what the co. are trying to impose...though have not put in writing, so I cannot see how they could enforce...and there would be no defence
PS, and this is not an doctors excuse, 'I have a friend', this isn't my industry but a quite obviously construction related one...on the legal side!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Gilly Margrave
Philby,
If it's construction related tell you friend to join UCAAT - or you could speak to a mutual friend who used to work in construction.
Gilly
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bill Parkinson
An employer is not likely to take responsibility to pay expenses to and from home to the normal work base as technically they are not at work until they arrive at that workbase.
However, (this is where it can get interesting) travelling to another place at the behest of the employer falls into working time and also if they are using their own personal car the PUWER regs kick in as well (so their car must be fit for purpose and the employer is required to check such things as competence of the driver etc.). Also Occupational Road Risk issues come into play in that where this occurs the employer should be assessing these risks to ensure that they are not asking the employee to drive and work excessive hours as should they become involved in an incident the employer may be dragged into the ensuing investigation and litigation aspects.
Also in the case of a road traffic accident the police will undertake as part of the investigation whether the person was "at work" and may pass information to the relevant enforcing authority if required (under the concordats signed between them).
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Philby'
Thanks Gilly,
she probably would like some advice but wont join a union....
its more of a surveoyor/searches/legal type thing for a team of legal bods and part of a building management, construction, refurbishment, utilities firm....whats realy daft is that the physical workers, construction and maintenece teams have vans layed on where they are picked up at home, so its accepted that they are covered. She has a company 4X4 (needed, I've seen some of the sites!)
...she has never given me a good reason for not joining a union except she believes that the breaking of the unions in the 80's, due to their percieved disruption in the 70's, was a good thing....my retort is that, when in the motor trade we were kept busy, despite no car sales or maintenance, by repossessing miners cars. NOT an enviable nor an enjoyable task, and not one we often achieved...'we couldn't reposses the car boss as the police stopped us at roadblocks and suspected we were realy flying pickets'...I kid you not!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Philby'
Bill,
thanks, this and many other bits of info have I given but to no avail...as I said, they haven't put this in writing and are 'advising' orally of their 'policy'. I have said that this would be impossible to defend but, in the real world, fear plays a factor...
Philby
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David A Jones
Would the company concerned take responsibility for such expenses etc if an employee had to visit a site after they had been to their normal place of work?
If so, 'work to rule', turn up at your normal place of work and then go to the site - may result in less work getting done in a day and then the company coming to a sensible compromise.
Many companies now require that the mileage one would normally have undertaking attending the office is deducted from the mileage of a direct visit to another site - i.e. the individual is compensated for any additional expense over and abopve their normal daily travel to work expenses.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Philby'
David,
that's the policy we operate here and have also suggested, I should really have told you all that I ahd done already but I am notoriously slow, and dyslexic, so you'll have to forgivew me...I still don't understand their thinking but basically...they have been told that reimbursement for travell, food etc if within 'the region', very west West Yorks, is the responsibility of that person. It is the line they have drawn in the sand as to difference between travelling to from work/close sites and sites around the county/country....
As they supply a company car and the fuel card I don't think this is the issue, its the 'once its five o'clock you don't work for us/your on your own time' attitude...
I've covered all the lone working issues, violence/abduction/breakdown/falling down holes/emergency contacts/regular and routoine status calls/codewords and personal protection.
My angle really is persuading her that no matter what they say, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on, don't sign anything, (and if afraid of pointing out the errors of their way, let them go on thinking they're right)
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Philby'
I am really sorry for that last posting...abismal spelling...but before anyone has a go and suggestts spellchecker...how is a dyslexic suppossed to tell the right word from all the options?
dont come up as donut as first choice and thats the US spelling and I cant repeat what I put for cant usually...wall ris is petty gud, unsuallity I donut van got di rite wurd..Ronnie Barker RIP...
its been a hard day and thats when it gets worse...you should have seen my diploma exam sheets...
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Stupendous Man
What does the employment contract say?
If place of employment is limited to one site, the responsibility will be different to a contract giving 'any site' as base.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Fred Pratley
Hi,
forgive the ignorance, but company motor + fuel card?
What costs are being incurred?
Fred
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Philby'
The issues not the cost...its the loneworking and not taking responsibility for it...However, as I said, no ones put anything in writing, just strongly intimating that after five pm, or before eight am, safety is personal responsibility...I haven't seen the contract of employment, and I'm begining to doubt there is one, but when instructed to be somewhere, by a set time, and to leave when the job is done, then they are contracted....
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Philby'
....whoops, posted that instead of previewed....
to carry out the role this person has to attend sites, be that greenfield, brownfield, property conversions, demolitions or construction. Most of the time this is meeting known people ie contractors, local authority planning inspectors, owners etc. Some times this is going to the unknown, alone and that is Jo's, and others, concern....
The update is that one of the senior partners was not happy with the sitaution, and is looking into it, this was before I anonymously put my beak in!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Fred Pratley
Hi,
Pleased someone appears to be taking an interest.
The lone meeting with unknown persons etc bit reminded me - might be worth your friend talking with www.suzylamplugh.org.
Trust this helps, Fred
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Philby'
Fred,
yes, the suzy lamplugh trust...I've noticed that on other threads, it is a useful source and one that we reference here...
as an aside, it would appear that the whole issue arose from one of the staff making outragous claims for mileage, (opted out of company car scheme to buy a car of his choice...not a BMW, so some sense) and tried to increase his perk...the issue escalated until one of the directors made a blanket statement in a fit of pique, from there the whole 'you work 9-5, no costs, no responsibility' arose and everybody sulked with everyone else!
one of the directors identified that there was genuine ill-feeling brewing, investigated and realised the omission...cause and effect
....Jo's now awaiting the directors response
thanks for all the advice, and to those that also emailed direct, and sorry for populating a thread with an issue that was brought about by bad m'ment
Philby'
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.