Mobile Phone Use While Driving

[Montello]

If only the Police and courts to such a firm and sensible stance.

[David_D]

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).

I haven’t read the whole thread but I don’t think it’s so much that there “should” be special treatment, it’s that there is special treatment. The main reason being they are all mates and look after each other. You only have to look at the Nat West Alison Rose case for a glaring example of that.

The second reason is that they are (probably) senior and well paid because they are regarded as valuable to the organisation’s performance. That’s why I was so surprised at the case discussed here where someone senior and well paid was effectively sacked for reasons apparently unrelated to the performance in the job. Not defending the driving offence, for the avoidance of doubt.

[blackal]

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

That info adds a different slant to the situation.


In other posts where 'discretion' is discredited - I have seen many T&C where the company will state that "..... resulting in up to and including dismissal" for what is construed as gross misconduct. That is the discretion I envisaged.

[Gyp]

One thing I have to keep reminding people of at work is that there is a difference between seniority and superiority.

Some are paid more to take greater responsibility and make harder or more impactful decisions.

It does not make them in any way better than those that are not paid as much and not required to make those decisions.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of people that confuse or conflate the two.

[Saint-Just]

The fact that it was both company car and company phone does indeed bring a different light.
But I keep believing that a heavy disciplinary sanction would have been a more reasonable issue for the company.

[deepreddave]

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.

I can see how it might if they required the employee to use a handheld phone whilst driving but suspect they don't so why would the company be liable? If using the mobile was a contributory factor then I'd expect the insurance might not pay out so the driver could be personally responsible.

[PhilipK]

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.

When I worked for a bank - pre mobile phones! - there were a number of categories of offence which were the exact same; dismissal with no exceptions, on the basis of "bringing the organisation into disrepute". Any financial impropriety (no matter how small) fell into this category, as did a number of motoring offences.

In a later life, when my employer provided consultancy services to an Oil & Gas company who were extremely conscious of their safety record, carrying a hot drink without a lid or going up or down stairs stairs without using the hand rail would be disciplinary issues, and anything more serious would result in dismissal.

Large organisations regard their employees - no matter how senior - as expendable, and tend to put their reputation ahead of their people, especially in regulated industries or CNI.

[Dave+63]

The fact that it was both company car and company phone does indeed bring a different light.
But I keep believing that a heavy disciplinary sanction would have been a more reasonable issue for the company.

It may have been but NTL’s friend chose not to risk it and resigned.

He obviously believed that he would have been dismissed had he not resigned first.

Obviously this is only one company although others have been mentioned too. It isn’t a one size fits all and other companies may have different rules.

[noTAGlove]

It may have been but NTL’s friend chose not to risk it and resigned.

He obviously believed that he would have been dismissed had he not resigned first.

Obviously this is only one company although others have been mentioned too. It isn’t a one size fits all and other companies may have different rules.

Most companies don’t inspect your driving licence each year, and if you don’t tell them, they would never know.

[Dave+63]

Most companies don’t inspect your driving licence each year, and if you don’t tell them, they would never know.

True.

[Montello]

I’m not sure why he jumped if he didn’t want to …

Maybe they wouldn’t have dismissed him, or he could have seen if there was a resolution.

Would a mobile phone offence on his track record really have impacted his chances of getting a new role?

I would think that unless his job function was dependant on not using a mobile at the wheel most potential new employers would probably over look it …

Perhaps he wanted out and this was just an excuse…

[Gyp]

Would a mobile phone offence on his track record really have impacted his chances of getting a new role?

I would think that unless his job function was dependant on not using a mobile at the wheel most potential new employers would probably over look it …

Perhaps he would prefer to answer the interview question "why did you leave your previous role?" with "I was worried that I would become stale and complacent, wanted a new challenge so left as a forcing function" or some such rather than "they dismissed me for gross misconduct and bringing the company into disrepute"

[Dave+63]

Perhaps he wanted out and this was just an excuse…

You don’t need an excuse to quit your job!

[Saint-Just]

You don’t need an excuse to quit your job!

Sometimes you do. A position comes with advantages (income security, perks) that are not easy to renounce. Looking for a job when still in work is not easy either, for many reasons, including it’s not easy to put your heart into the research and yet you know your heart is not in the current job. So a pretext is what you use to justify the decision to yourself essentially (and at home I suppose if you’re under pressure to stay).

[Montello]

Sometimes you do. A position comes with advantages (income security, perks) that are not easy to renounce. Looking for a job when still in work is not easy either, for many reasons, including it’s not easy to put your heart into the research and yet you know your heart is not in the current job. So a pretext is what you use to justify the decision to yourself essentially (and at home I suppose if you’re under pressure to stay).

Exactly, we don’t know this guy but I’ve seen people do daft stuff to change their course in life which would have been easy decisions to make but they preferred a different context.