Posted By Chris Black Wazza His ban is for driving vehicles on a public road, or a road the public can reasonably expect access to which would normally exclude most places of work, essentially his right to drive the vehicles listed on his driving licence on the public highway has been taken away and the exclusions stop there. If the FLT is expected to cross the street or leave the area of your undertakings then you are legally bound to prevent him using it, apart from anything else your insurance will automatically exempt him from your cover by default. Unless the FLT is allowed on to public roads then you don't have an issue, assuming he can get to and from work OK without the car. There must be thousands of people who drive FLTs and other workplace vehicles that have never had road training or a driving licence. What happens outside the workplace is really no concern of the employer except in prescripted or extreme cases. If you have a procedure that addresses driver competency then you should already be doing all you can, if you suspect that he might be driving an FLT under the influence then that is a whole other matter affecting his employment in general terms.

Posted By David Mains DOH! If I had only waited for Chris' response I could have saved the typing!

Posted By John Murgatroyd It may be educational to check what is, and isn't, a public highway WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ROAD TRAFFIC ACT/S. Last time I checked it comprised ANYWHERE that the public had access to during the time the premises are open...ie: supermarket car parks etc. But then, the RTA has long had the term in it that a public highway is "anywhere constructed or maintained at public expense"