Is this right or what?

Last Friday one of the lads at work was allowed to take the works van home after he'd worked the Saturday morning in Nottingham on a De-Stack of some cabins. On the Sunday he went out on the lash in the works van, he went home and had a argument with his missus so he jumped into the van and went out on the lash again, on his way back home he smashed the works van up, he was over the limit as you can imagine.

On Monday they suspended him after he'd got let out of the police station, Tuesday thay sacked him so that was the end of it as we thought, low and behold yesterday the depot manager set him back on bearing in mind what he's done, there is a rule for us and a rule for him, in our contract it says if you are off sick you must phone in and cover yourself, a few weeks ago this lad went missing after another argument with his missus, no one heard anything from him for over a week, when he started back nothing was said to him. I said to the depot manager yesterday you've created a vacum now because how can you dismiss anyone now if they do anything wrong after you've reinstated a drink driver?

Now a condition of our job is you have to have a driving licence so you can go out on service calls, anyone who applies for a job must have a driving licence, now he's not got a licence now but they won't set anyone on without a licence, I enquired about a job for a lad who lives across the road from me on Monday before I heard about this, the manager said has he got a licence? I said yeah provisional he's taking lessons at the moment, the manager said no he needs a full licence. One lad who started last year with an agency got a full time job with our firm on the understanding he passes his test, he spent loads of money on lessons having 2 a week just so he could pass his test and keep his job, he passed it after 3 attempts.

Sorry for the rant folks but this has really got our backs up at work

[Xaccers]

Its up to the employer to enforce parts of the contract or not, and if they don't, it's up to the employee to do them for breach of contract.
For instance, say your day is 6 hours, and your contract states you get paid time and a half for any work done over this, and you work 2 extra hours.
Now if your employer refuses to pay you the overtime, then you're likely to sue them for breach of contract.
However, lets say your contract has an acceptable usage policy for the internet that says no viewing pr0n sites or you'll be sacked, but you go and look at some anyway.
Your employer however doesn't sack you, now you're not likely to try and sue them for breach of contract in that situation are you?

The situation you've described does however mean that unless they re-itterate that drink driving and losing your licence will lose you your job, you can go out and lose your licence and they can't sack you, otherwise they'd be discriminating against you.

[AndyCambs]

I would have thought it difficult to sack someone on the spot. I'm sure you would have to go through the normal disciplinary stages - verbal and two written warnings first before dismissal.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by AndyCambs

I would have thought it difficult to sack someone on the spot. I'm sure you would have to go through the normal disciplinary stages - verbal and two written warnings first before dismissal.

Not sure if they have to if it's gross misconduct which smashing up the company van while over the limit normally would be.

[punky]

he was probably taken back in to work as he has only been arrested/charged. Before the company can sack him for drink-driving they'd need to wait for the courts to find him guilty... Otherwise they are being predjucial.

[Jules]

I just wonder what use he is going to be to the firm once he is banned

[punky]

He should still have his license until his court appearance, I think.

[hatedbythemail]

Originally Posted by punky

he was probably taken back in to work as he has only been arrested/charged. Before the company can sack him for drink-driving they'd need to wait for the courts to find him guilty... Otherwise they are being predjucial.

on the dui yes but he was responsible for the works van.........

[danielf]

Originally Posted by hatedbythemail

on the dui yes but he was responsible for the works van.........

True, but smashing up a works van in itself is not (necessarily) ground for dismissal is it? I would think they'd put him on (unpaid) leave while the matter is investigated.

[hatedbythemail]

Originally Posted by danielf

True, but smashing up a works van in itself is not (necessarily) ground for dismissal is it?

it's not grounds for promotion

[danielf]

Originally Posted by hatedbythemail

it's not grounds for promotion

I suppose it does depend on the job, but I think it's fair to say that it is not encouraged, normally.

[Lord Nikon]

If they wanted him gone they would have him on several counts

1) Gross misconduct - using a company vehicle other than for company use - most of the time business insurance only covers the vehicle when used for the purpose of business.

2) Gross misconduct - If he was drunk in charge of the vehicle, even if he was technically "working" at the time (for insurance purposes) then he would be firable for being at work drunk

3) His week off work without notifying them would be grounds for dismissal.

I am assuming that the company is to do with portakabins? from the first post - I would exercise caution dealing with him on the grounds of questionable sobriety at work, since a mistake in judgment while moving a cabin can result in lethal consequences...

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Not sure if they have to if it's gross misconduct which smashing up the company van while over the limit normally would be.

They sacked him under gross misconduct.

---------- Post added at 11:43 ---------- Previous post was at 11:42 ----------

Originally Posted by punky

He should still have his license until his court appearance, I think.

Which is today and he's been banned for 18 months and been given a £700 fine.

---------- Post added at 11:46 ---------- Previous post was at 11:43 ----------

Originally Posted by Lord Nixon

I am assuming that the company is to do with portakabins? from the first post - I would exercise caution dealing with him on the grounds of questionable sobriety at work, since a mistake in judgment while moving a cabin can result in lethal consequences...
__________________

Which he's been caught drinking on the job also, only last week the forman asked if he'd been drinking? He replied no, the forman then said what's this bottle of Vodka doing in the van? Your the only one who's been out in it?

Make of that what you will.

[bopdude]

Sounds like a lot of lee way (?) has been given, maybe there have been talks behind the scenes with the employer, if the guy is going through a rough patch at home, I know from experience ( as do others ) how much home life troubles can affect you at work, long story short, he sounds like I was a few years back whilst going through my divorce. Instead of getting digs in, maybe see if there's anything you can do for the guy, I know which one I would have preferred

[punky]

Originally Posted by Nidge

Which is today and he's been banned for 18 months and been given a £700 fine.

Blimey, that was a bit lively. I gotta move to where you are if the courts aren't that busy then.

I can only then. Unless there is some legal loophole/law he is able to exploit.

Being fired would violate his human rights? (j/k but I wouldn't be suprised if it does happen one day )