Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
KAJ Safe  
#1 Posted : 27 February 2012 14:24:13(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
KAJ Safe

I have an employee who works 5 night shifts within a steel stockholding warehouse - starts Monday night and finishes 3am Saturday morning. He has asked if he can take a 2nd job as a HGV driver over the weekends (contract states he must seek permission from us). We have looked at the working time directive and he has opted out but there is a minimum time between shifts being worked, which another employer may turn a blind eye to or play ignorant. If we allowed this, knowing what he does Mon-Sat etc, could we be held liable in any way if he was to have an accident in his 2nd job. My feeling are "no" we can't be held responsible but is there an arguement that we are aware of the physical strains of his main job and then given authorisation to take on a 2nd weekend job. Any thoughts.
Joebaxil  
#2 Posted : 27 February 2012 15:06:33(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Joebaxil

Hi , My feeling is yes you possibly could have a duty of care having reasonable grounds to know that the 2nd employer could " turn a blind eye" ? as he has already accepted this I presume A reasonable person as in the 2nd employer should know that having already worked the hours at first job the likelihood of an undesired event would inevitably increase ? So how far would your duty of care extend , the question would surely be asked , so I would deny permission especially knowing if the extra work burden could have an negative effect at the first place of work . I have been wrong before on various times and would happily be corrected another . and yes economic necessity forces us to work especially in current climate, so how far then would the risk be willingly accepted ? J
HSSnail  
#3 Posted : 27 February 2012 15:46:25(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
HSSnail

Look at it from a slightly different angle. The work in steel stockholders is often very physical, and can need high levels of concentration for use of lifting equipment etc so this employee comes into work tired on a Monday morning and starts "dropping steel girders all over the place" (an yes for Hancock fans I know that was a building site) how would you react? Its a real difficult one to deal with I know as the employee could just as easily come into work after playing football all weekend and be just as tired. Anyone who knows Salts Village near Bradford may know the story abut Titus Salts who built the village for his Mill Workers. Anyone caught working in their garden on a Sunday was sacked as they obviously not worked hard enough during the week if they had that much energy left! Ah the good old days.
KAJ Safe  
#4 Posted : 27 February 2012 15:49:43(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
KAJ Safe

Ok thanks, we have rejected the request but it is good to hear other peoples opinions. thanks
Phil Grace  
#5 Posted : 29 February 2012 09:15:49(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Phil Grace

Glad you've rejected the request - just didn't sound right to me! Strictly speaking vicarious liability makes an employer responsible for the actions of their employee. Thus anything that happened whilst the employee was driving would initially be regarded as something that was the fault of them or their employer. Thus a road accident could be put down to unsafe actions of the driver e.g. poor overtaking or a fault of their employer e.g. not providing them with driver training or making them exceed their driving hours. Difficult to see how such events could track back to you. An obvious example of real vicarious liability are the tragic cases where priests have been alleged and/or found to have committed sexual abuse. Up until recently case law had established that an employer could not be held vicariously liable for the criminal acts of their employees. However, two recent cases have the clarified this. If you are interested look up: Weddall - care home manager attacked by an employee who was drunk and came back to work to attack his superior Wallbank - a manager attacked at work by a junior employee Hope that helps Phil
TDS1984  
#6 Posted : 29 February 2012 09:21:41(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
TDS1984

I'm not really sure your employee would actually be able to get much driving in, as drivers hours rules would scupper his plans pretty sharply, taking into account daily and weekly rest periods. As you mention he and his 2nd employer could be untruthful in the event of his tachograph charts being checked but it would quickly catch them up I suspect.
Ron Hunter  
#7 Posted : 29 February 2012 13:07:00(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ron Hunter

My understanding is that the employer can only refuse permission where second jobs are expressly forbidden by form of employment Contract. I am aware of other Contracts where the employee is required to communicate other employment, but more as a matter of courtesy. I'm not sure where vicarious liability would arise, particularly where the onus is entirely with the employee to opt-out of the Working Time Regulations?
Steveeckersley  
#8 Posted : 29 February 2012 13:49:18(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Steveeckersley

By the very nature of your policy stating the person needs to seek permission indicates some liability!
Ron Hunter  
#9 Posted : 29 February 2012 15:33:49(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ron Hunter

Not sure waht you're driving at Steve, no-one mentioned anything about any "policy" up to now.
Joebaxil  
#10 Posted : 29 February 2012 16:41:47(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Joebaxil

Hi guys I think we are talking specifically here about a contract which states permission to be sought firstly. secondly there surely would be a conflict of safety in this specific situation in decision making and recall at the very least . We have seen Buncefield attributing factors of shift work / fatigue . even if we take away the vicarious element which would really be irrelevant here I think . A duty of care established " who then is our neighbour " refers to , "someone so closely connected and through proximity to give a reasonable person the foresight to know loss would occur" . this would lead me to believe yes I do have a duty ? Wouldn't this question be asked in the investigation process which after all is what we are trying to avoid, accidents.the fact is there is no matter how big or small there still is a duty owed . And in this specific circumstance I think we all agree that letting someone work these patterns is not a safe system of working. Just my thoughts of how I understand this . J
alexmccreadie13  
#11 Posted : 29 February 2012 16:49:52(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
alexmccreadie13

I had it put to me very nicely by a Traffic Policeman allbeit 20 years ago. If you work through the week you cant then drive at the weekend as someone has already stated it counts towards your rest breaks. He let me off by the way as my tachographs were well managed. Ta Alex
johnmurray  
#12 Posted : 29 February 2012 17:07:08(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
johnmurray

TDS1984 wrote:
I'm not really sure your employee would actually be able to get much driving in, as drivers hours rules would scupper his plans pretty sharply, taking into account daily and weekly rest periods. As you mention he and his 2nd employer could be untruthful in the event of his tachograph charts being checked but it would quickly catch them up I suspect.
Not many tacho charts about now. Digital tachos'. The plug-in digital tacho licence logs, and reports, driving hours and breaks automatically. Difficult to see how he/she could legally manage lgv driving as a second job.
TDS1984  
#13 Posted : 01 March 2012 09:22:01(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
TDS1984

More around than you think, also as not every one is familiar with the intricacies of drivers hours and the forms of tachograph records, so I thought I'd keep it simple. But I'll concede you are technically correct John.
paul.skyrme  
#14 Posted : 01 March 2012 22:32:58(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
paul.skyrme

Not my area, but, I was drawn to this as I was working with client's employee this week who had a vehicle with a Tacho, neither myself or the clients guy knew the vehicle had a tacho! We were <20 miles from his base at any time. Specialist vehicle on maintenance (tower lift). One of the guys who manages the tacho's for the rest of their fleet seemed to think that a tacho should have been used, I'm not so sure. This is not the point. I checked this document out: http://www.businesslink....hograph_hours_1111_3.pdf On pg43 of the pdf, there seems to be a paragraph that applies directly to this question. 3rd up from the bottom of the page: "Transport undertakings must also show that they have taken all reasonable steps to avoid the contravention. Employers also have a defence if they can prove that the driver was involved in other driving jobs that the employer could not reasonably have known about. Where it is found that an undertaking has failed in its obligations, prosecution may be considered against the undertaking for a driver’s offence." Any use? This is the converse of the argument, thus proving that it would not be allowed?
johnmurray  
#15 Posted : 02 March 2012 00:12:21(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
johnmurray

As far as I can see the persons main employer can allow the second job as it doesn't imperil their work. What they are worried about is that it may impart some liability upon them, knowing the second job has work-time limits. The potential driver has problems as it is possible he/she may fall foul of the driving hours regulations, the period known as Minimum Daily Rest (11 hours) (or 9 hours in certain conditions)...bearing in mind he/she stops work at 0300z on Saturday.....
steveclark  
#16 Posted : 03 March 2012 01:18:46(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
steveclark

Surely the answer is fairly straight forward. Make it a requirement as a part of agreeing to other work that he agrees to you notifying the other employer of his working hours; you have then shown due diligence and passed the matter to the other employer. In any case the other posts are quite correct, it's very unlikely that his drivers hours would allow it legally.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.