Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Steve
Safety reps have asked me to provide taxis for a number of staff to get to work in the morning because the company has amended its rosters leading to earlier starts for employees.
The reps justification is that because it’ll be too early for public transport, they’ll have to drive with the associated hazards of icy roads early in the morning. If they haven’t a car, they are concerned that we are putting them in a position of danger of mugging, threat, by forcing them to walk through town and city streets in the early hours (0400-0500hrs).
How far does my duty of care extend in respect of getting to work. I am conscious that the previous rosters allowed for buses and trains to be used.
Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By SteveD-M
Providing taxis etc could be seen as a taxable benefit...If you are I would look into that first.
The obligation for you would be to provide information, instruction and training for the individuals to help them 'cope' with the identified risk...?
Although I would struggle with this as it is not a workplace activity.
Going any further than trying to be a good corporate citizen and providing some helpful guidance would be legal suicide and cost a fortune.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Steve
My personal view is also that it’s a ‘non runner’.
I just have in my mind a concern that because we as an employer have altered the working time arrangements, we’ve introduced a ‘hazard’ that formally didn’t exist.
I just need to clarify my understanding that travelling to and from work, is not part of the employers ‘business’?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
Steve
H&S reps - don't you just love them. By way of an example, LUL provide staff taxis for early and late starts for employees. These are pre-booked and a timetable is provided with times and runs. I know of no tax implications for staff travel.
The DoC concept is a tricky one. If, for example, you were asking staff to go through town centres late at night where they could be subject to revellers (particularly if wearing staff uniform) there may be a case, otherwise any injury through using their own transport would apply equally if they were using public or private hire transport.
With hindsight the staff rostering parameters should have been discussed with staff and their representatives to ensure that this type of situation does not arise. I suggest making arrangements retrospectively is going to be fraught with problems, it sounds like a compromise will have to be sought. Some companies never learn!
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By SteveD-M
The employment contract should allow you to complete the time change without anything other than the general consultation. This is an employment law issue.
The item about increasing the hazard - firstly I am assuming that this has been brought up as part of the consultation process as an objection? If so where is the risk assessment that shows it?
The duty of care is to others who may be affected by your business activities, which, in the case of driving, means all other road users.
They are not driving for part of your business, unless I have this wrong? It is just getting to work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Kevin Brown
Are you in the process of consulting the Safety Rep (I'm assuming it is a Safety Rep) about the rota changes (under the provisions of the SRSC Regs)? Or has the company introduced the new rotas already without consultation?
Your Company needs to tread carefully, if employees who can't drive are unable to cope with the new rotas you may also fall foul of employment laws. As an H & S bod this aspect isn't within your remit but being expansive in your interpretation of Duty of Care might mitigate some of the fall-out if the company's changed Terms and Conditions unilaterally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob Shillabeer
This is not a direct H&S issue, it's more for personnel to manage. It is change of employment issue and not a safety related one. What if the employee lives several hundred miles from the office, I do I leave home at 0530 and drive ten miles to the nearest mainline station to catch a train at 0609 to arrive in the office by 0830. That is my problem not my employers so why would I expect my employer to provide anything like transport so that I can avoid the risk (if it exists) of being mugged, What at 0530 in the morning!!! Normally at this time of day the local paper shop isn't even open let alone a mugger lying in wait to mug someone who may just come along. Personnally I think this is just another way for the reps to raise an objection to the proposal because they don't like it and are trying anything to get it changed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By ScotsAM
What if the taxi is involved in an accident with the employee in it?
As for driving on icy roads, doesn't their driving license prove they are a competent driver?
I do agree that there may be a moral duty of care but I doubt there is any legal issue there as long as the employee contract allows for shift change and consultation takes place before the change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Steve Cartwright
Employer has no duty of care with regards to how an employee gets from their home to the workplace.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Adrian Clifton
Just be aware that if an employee is unable to travel to/from work due to a lack of transport available at the new start/finish times, they may be able to claim 'Constructive Dismissal' which could prove to be costly.
Adrian
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Peter Taylor14
Duty of care does not commence until employee is at work, in this instance
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Steve
Thanks to all for the responses, which generally mirror my own view on the matter. To clarify, the proposed changes went through formal consultation, where the issue was raised.
My view is simply that employees agree a contract of employment, to fulfil certain tasks for their employer. How they get to work is really up to them. The duty of care starts when the employee signs on duty. Whether that is morally right is another debate, and future case law may expand current thinking.
I’m interested in this ‘constructive dismissal’ dimension that was raised by Adrian. How far does the DOC stretch??
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
Steve
A 'duty of care' is a nebulous concept and in reality it does not exist in law. Furthermore, a DoC has various guises and the best known is associated with the tort of negligence. Case law will provide a better insight, but for the record negligence is determined by three factors as held in Caparo v Dickman [1990] a HL ruling:
1) where there is reasonable foreseeability of loss or damage to a party caused
by the act or omission of another;
(2) where there is a close and direct relationship between the parties (legal
proximity); and
(3) where it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care (the public policy
criterion) upon the party that has caused reasonably foreseeable loss or damage to
the other party.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.