Reply With QuoteDoes his job involve driving? If not, what the feck has a motoring offence got to do with his ability to do his job?
And in 25 years he's never once had a speeding ticket? Really?
I'm finding it hard to believe this story.
Just asked him the question. He said the policy is clear and it results in gross misconduct and dismissal.Originally Posted by blackal
He resigned to avoid having a dismissal on his record which would impact future employment opportunities.
Brutal doesn’t even begin to summarise it.
Does his job involve driving? If not, what the feck has a motoring offence got to do with his ability to do his job?
And in 25 years he's never once had a speeding ticket? Really?
I'm finding it hard to believe this story.
Many Oil & Gas companies include driving your car on company business or even just commuting - in their HSE "Golden Rules", but I have yet to hear of them checking on compliance in respect to that - or even to have any prescribed disciplinary action that isn't open to discretion with respect to motoring offences (and I mean like Drink driving, Dangerous Driving - or worse)
His job does involve a fair bit of driving on company business. You don’t have to believe me if you don’t want.
When I started this thread little did I think a best mate of mine would have to resign from a senior role because of it.
He is 55 with mortgage paid off, good pension, savings and investments. So he isn’t going to starve. But everyone wants to go on their own terms.
He is not looking for any sympathy from me, recognises his error, will take time of to see if this is a signal to retire early and is sanguine about the whole thing.
But, imagine this happening if you are 40 years old and up to your nuts in a mortgage and dependents.
If his bosses wanted to keep him the would have found a compromise
It might seem harsh, its not as harsh as being thrown of your Motorbike 3 times though.
The last time driving of leaving me lying in the gutter.
Even if caught the punishment does not fit the crime.
https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/2...-mobile-phone/
They are usually smart enough to have discretion written into some aspects of their contracts of employment.
Company policy. Zero tolerance.
CEOs are dismissed for shagging a member of staff, and it is more frequent that you may think. No law broken, but company policy breached.
My company checks licenses every year but no idea what the policy is for points etc. I've some sympathy on a human level but there's really no excuse as I'm sure he'll have had hands free functionality plus we need zero tolerance on offences like this as on too many occasions there are fatal consequences for others (we have a friend whose husband was killed by a driver who was on his phone).
Agreed. He is not looking for any sympathy from me or anyone else, and has taken it on the chin.
I wonder how that convo went when he got home and told his bird ?
Knowing her, she will have ripped him new one.I wonder how that convo went when he got home and told his bird ?
I'm astonished how many people i see using phones when driving, especially considering the consequences.
The "lap glancers" and "cock watchers" as I refer to them seem to think that their contorted faces don't give the game away but it's obvious. The police seem to be on the look out for drivers using phones on motorways in particular, but the number of them in rush hour stop start traffic is huge.
I'm surprised too (actually I'm not, it's an ignorant superiority thing) at how many drivers of more expensive high-end cars flaunt the law when you know full well that their cars have hands free Apple Carplay and Android Auto in them so they can do everything other than dating apps and films using the car's systems, completely legally.
Its the deep intense conversations thats the danger, more than hands free.
True. And fannying around with a phone in a hands-free cradle isn’t magically safe either.
Bit of a giveaway when you look in your mirror at lights and all you can see of the driver behind is the top of their head.
Biggest give away in stationary traffic is the WhatsApp gap.
It's an idea, but looking at one electric car website today shows not a single, physical control in the car (that one would use without looking, like a heater control for example), but a massive 15" iPad-style display for absolutely everything.
Lunatic design, massive stupidity from a car manufacturer.
Some improvments are not improvments.
Most definitely. The best thing about my little Citröen is that I can control everything without taking my eyes off the road for a moment. That sensibility seems to be vanishing in favour of who can fit the biggest screen with the fanciest graphics.
One of the reasons I don't use a phone-navigator on my bikes (or car).
Aside from diverting my attention while riding/driving - Last thing I want if being stopped by plod - is for a text message to pop up on the screen as I am still winning the 'attitude test'. I think you're on your back feet then.
It's just 6 points and a £200 fine for using a mobile while driving. Are you saying they'd dismiss someone for that? Or if you were speeding and got 3 points on your licence?
Doesn't make sense to me unless he's a driving instructor! Not doubting what you are saying just that it seems like a policy that would leave them with a massive recruitment bill each year if enforced in that way!
Seems harsh but then so is the penalty for those who lose their lives in accidents caused by mobile use.
I don’t have to look or interact with the screen in my car either, it has a head up display and a competent voice control system, but most of the time where I set things before a journey is where they stay.
Ultimately, whatever the interface in your vehicle, it’s up to the driver to use it sensibly, safely and legally. No need for phone use at all, mine is turned off for the duration of work journeys in accordance with my employers policy.
With you here, something not correct if he is a valued employee.
There are ALWAYS options if you are wanted by the employer.
Last edited by Mj2k; 16th March 2024 at 22:45.
I agree. I'd never buy a car which had all the heater/aircon controls on a flat screen even. No way can you adjust them without looking down.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
We live near a busy small traffic island the amount of drivers using their phones is ludicrous, most offenders seem to be older vans and the young girls.
MY BMW X3 has HUD which is fantastic as you never have to take your eyes off the road, also with speech recognition it’s brilliant. I think all vehicles should have HUD as standard.
Just Google gross misconduct mobile phone driving, and you’ll be surprised. If you are dismissed for gross misconduct you won’t get a reference and hence another job, hence the reason he resigned to preserve his ability to have a standard company reference.
An example.
https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/fleet-ma...raction-policy
Network Rail’s distraction policy also specifies that drivers must stop to change any setting on their sat-nav systems.
“It’s zero tolerance,” says Paul Young, business support manager – road fleet, at Network Rail. “We have life-saving rules and another one is that you never use a mobile phone in any way while driving.
“No hands-free, nothing. If we find anybody doing it then we treat it as gross misconduct straightaway.”
BT will consider disciplinary action against any employee who uses a hand-operated electronic device while driving. At Ocado, punishment is up to, and including, dismissal.
Plenty of other examples if you Google.
Is it that surprising not to have a speeding ticket in 25 years? Really?
My initial thought was that something doesn't add up with this story. Gross misconduct...no chance.
However, having read up on it...larger companies in particular may well have a policy like this. They will also have a mobile phone policy which will highlight this clearly.
The issue is that when an employee is driving their car (even driving is not a main part of their job) the employer can be held liable for any incident. For example, if any investigation finds that the employee was making a work call or whatever. Bit of a stretch but I get it. A few articles online about this is anyone is interested.
I think an appeal on any dismissal would still have a decent chance of succeeding if he only 'touched' his phone, regardless of what contract or policy says...however sounds like NTLs friend didn't want to stick around to find out.
Threads like this do well to remind us all not to slip up and just follow the rules.
It may be that there exist those more adept at mobile device usage whilst driving, and that these people could make a case for safe useage; unfortunately the overwhelming presence on our roads of people who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a car never mind a mobile phone at the same time mean that zero tolerance is the only safe legislation.
We have all seen them. It is frightening.
The link 'appears' to be referring to driving while on company business in a company vehicle, but I may have missed the relevant sentence. Pretty sure it doesn't mention private car.
Now - that seems a reasonable policy, but I think any sensible company would allow discretion. Otherwise their stance could seriously affect their business.
I don’t think you understand. An business can enforce their specific policies including gross misconduct for mobile phone use whilst driving.
If you don’t like it, then you have to go through all the hassle and expense of an employment tribunal to claim unfair dismissal.
Do companies still give references? These days I thought they just confirm that you worked there?
https://www.jpclaw.co.uk/latest/my-e...rence-can-they
Any reference for an employee must be “true, fair and accurate” but what does that mean in reality? Unfortunately for some employees, it means that if they were dismissed for gross misconduct then there is every possibility that their former employer will confirm this when responding to a reference request as it is factually correct.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Whilst an employer may classify anything as gross misconduct and a sackable offence, a potential new employer may not see it as such.
Most of the example given for precedent involve someone driving for a living, in which case the GM offence makes perfect sense.
I can believe the example given, as to avoid any sort of "rules for us, rules for them", a company would extend those rules to management, to lead by example so to speak. I know that for instance in the rail industry, drug and booze testing was compulsory for drivers and the tests were extended to most (all?) personnel.
It is still a spectacular own goal for both the employee AND the company, because from statements about his package he was probably a highly valued top executive for the business. Since most businesses have competition, he probably could just cross the road and start afresh with great insider's knowledge. Or he has a lengthy garden leave to enjoy before crossing said road.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
Apologies if I came across condescending, but you gave the impression that you didn't believe the company policy or enforcement.LOL! I work for a huge corporate with 178,00 staff - one of many, many huge corporates I've worked for - right now. I also play a part in managing and annually reviewing the travel policy. Thanks though
I have had no management or HR experience, but I know to break any company policy at my peril, given the risk of disciplinary action and for some policies, gross misconduct leading to dismissal.
All dependent on what he company states is gross misconduct from a company policy excursion. I believe, if after a disciplinary hearing, if the employee is dismissed his/her only recourse is to an employment tribunal.
If I was my mate, I'd have fought it, especially given Kingsteppers useful input above.
Sent from my SM-X200 using Tapatalk
I've also managed many disciplinaries, and have actually just concluded one. There is in almost every case a degree of discretion in determining the outcome, taking account of specific circumstances, impact of any decision on the business, impact of an decision on the individual and the attitude/response of the individual. Nothing is ever black and white - well, rarely, anyway, and it would usually be for far more serious offences that are generally behaviour-centric.
You really shouldn't be making dogmatic statements in respect of things for which you have no experience.
A lot will depend on the approach that the company has taken in the past and any example they wish to set. If members of staff have been dismissed in the past for this reason but then a senior member of staff isn't, that won't sit well either with current staff nor those previously let go.
People seem to be saying because he was valued and good at his job special considerations should be made for him.
If your child is killed by someone on a mobile phone its no comfort that he was a business man in a suit and not a oik of the local estate,surely?
I was driving for a company 20 years ago mobiles phones had to be off in the vehicle,I agreed with it.
People have been aware a long time that it is dangerous.
If you ride a motorbike youare constanly on the look out as they are so deep in conversaation they can not see you.
Yes, I have little experience, but I can read and understand my contract of employment and company policy.
If my contract of employment or company policy states that an excursion will lead to a disciplinary hearing and gross misconduct then I tend to avoid that.
I appreciate there are nuances (e.g. investigation into bullying, or misuse of expenses) which may be not clear cut, but my mate was sent a photo of him holding the phone by the rozzers and he accepted the fine and six points.
Clear cut breach of policy without ambiguity. He would not have resigned if he had a cat in hells chance of surviving a gross misconduct disciplinary hearing.
Sent from my SM-X200 using Tapatalk
I'm genuinely surprised that some are saying there should be some form of discretion, (i.e. rules for the majority, different rules for senior/highly paid people). And where does this discretion for those 'special' people end? Driving under the influence of alcohol? Driving whilst under the influence of drugs? Driving without due care and attention? Reckless driving? Seriously injuring someone? Killing someone maybe? FFS, there's some people I wouldn't want to work for on here if they think that a company should interpret their rules differently for different people!
I worked for a bank, they issued senior people, (me included), and those with a business requirement for one with a mobile phone and the 'rules' were made very clear to everyone and were applicable to everyone - use of a company mobile phone whilst driving on business is strictly forbidden and such use will be subject to disciplinary action and dismissal. There were no if's, no but's, everyone was bound by this rule with no exceptions.
Best Regards - Peter
I'd hate to be with you when you're on your own.
I agree its what I was trying to say.
When its as clear cut as that you cant argue.
Clearly he accepts that and has accepted his fate, it seems without complaint (which shows some character).
And I can see now see why the company takes such a strict view.
My mate was driving in a company paid car and using a company paid phone. Opens up the company to massive liability claims if the outcome is a serious accident or death.
Sent from my SM-X200 using Tapatalk
In my experience, the more senior the individual the higher the expectation in terms of behaviours (not the other way around). The possibility of exercising discretion is (again, in my experience) dependent upon the nature of the offence, as you'd expect.
I'd prefer you to continue to reason your case, but it is up to you.I'll bow to your greater, all-encompassing knowledge
I apply no more than common sense, but sometimes that gets me into trouble
Sent from my SM-X200 using Tapatalk
Posting Permissions
