BLACK - hooking and unhooking procedure

[Jessielou]

You aren’t the transport manager. You aren’t the employer. You’re his misses not his mum or his employer. Tell him to find another job.

Oh ffs just do one

[richielte]

100% won’t win any case against them. They followed the rules and dismissed him.
Wasting his time trying to take them for unfair dismissal as won’t win.
IF he does take them the employment tribunal will take ages and rule in favour of the company as they did nothing wrong.
Yes it may seam harsh but that’s TWO incidents in FIVE months, to bigger risk for them to employ.

How do we know they followed the rules?
Did they induct him, asseess him, retrain him after the incident?
These are all things we dont know and in a lot of cases, the companies take the easy option

[Jodyne]

100% won’t win any case against them. They followed the rules and dismissed him.
Wasting his time trying to take them for unfair dismissal as won’t win.
IF he does take them the employment tribunal will take ages and rule in favour of the company as they did nothing wrong.
Yes it may seam harsh but that’s TWO incidents in FIVE months, to bigger risk for them to employ.

How do we know they followed the rules?
Did they induct him, asseess him, retrain him after the incident?
These are all things we dont know and in a lot of cases, the companies take the easy option

they not have to do any of them… The rules of dismissal are simple… he was on a warning, then dismissed.
They legaly sacked him, that’s his the employment tribunal will look at it.
It happen to me, wasted so much time taking them to court for unfair dismissal… court said “you were dismissed fairly, it was harsh but they followed the rules and did nothing wrong”

[richielte]

100% won’t win any case against them. They followed the rules and dismissed him.
Wasting his time trying to take them for unfair dismissal as won’t win.
IF he does take them the employment tribunal will take ages and rule in favour of the company as they did nothing wrong.
Yes it may seam harsh but that’s TWO incidents in FIVE months, to bigger risk for them to employ.

How do we know they followed the rules?
Did they induct him, asseess him, retrain him after the incident?
These are all things we dont know and in a lot of cases, the companies take the easy option

they not have to do any of them… The rules of dismissal are simple… he was on a warning, then dismissed.
They legaly sacked him, that’s his the employment tribunal will look at it.
It happen to me, wasted so much time taking them to court for unfair dismissal… court said “you were dismissed fairly, it was harsh but they followed the rules and did nothing wrong”

Under the HASAWA 1974 a company has a legal obligation to make sure all employees are trained in what they do. After the first incident, training should have been given, and if it hasn't been, then how can they sack him
I'm not saying he has a chance, but a lot of companies do tale the p*ss with their responsibilities as a employer, so check it out.

[markdoter]

Sorry I would have dismissed on first occasion as they have a training process to follow and if the driver had done this there would have been no problem
BLACK
Brakes
Legs
Air
Clip
Kingpin

Number plate?

I too use BLANK - clip is covered by Kingpin

[Mowis.Dean]

The biggest question I can't see if anyone has answered is what training has the company given him both prior and post incident. As much as I agree it shouldn't happen, things do. If u wanted to take this via unfair dismissal that is the key point. After all may have learnt in a different type of combo or a long time ago

he has had the training, he holds a class one

[Andelle]

He needs to find a more suitable job

[Joneton]

Very fair. Given a chance then same again so gone.

[chrgensCC]

First one obviously didn't tug test properly. Second one shows ongoing carelessness. Sorry we've all messed up and he'd have got away with the second of it wasn't for the more serious first.

[richielte]

What's the induction procedure and is a driver assessment carried out on the initial start and maybe yearly?
Was training given after the first incident?
I suspect there maybe holes in the company's policies and procedures, so I'd dig a little deeper if the above don't or didn't happen!

[joejo1nder]

First and foremost the important qualifier is has he worked there more than 2 yrs. If it's less than two any appeal/action is pointless.
Second of all has he appealled the decision for dismissal????
Finally... It sounds fair, he hasn't secured the load on two occasions. But the question I would raise any health and safety reason or company process that might lead to said incident.

[AndryUrman]

Most companies use a sign off process and follow BLACK so they will always use a dsop against him

[Krower]

Sounds like he should stick to rigid vehicles

[Karlharson]

How long has he worked for the company?

[milligorci]

Depends, What was he thinking about other than what he should have been doing. Has he or is got some underlying mental health issues?. If so then yes

[kinnive]

Every company I have been with will see dropping a trailer or failing to hook a trailer correctly as gross misconduct.

[Jodyne]

How do we know they followed the rules?
Did they induct him, asseess him, retrain him after the incident?
These are all things we dont know and in a lot of cases, the companies take the easy option

they not have to do any of them… The rules of dismissal are simple… he was on a warning, then dismissed.
They legaly sacked him, that’s his the employment tribunal will look at it.
It happen to me, wasted so much time taking them to court for unfair dismissal… court said “you were dismissed fairly, it was harsh but they followed the rules and did nothing wrong”

Under the HASAWA 1974 a company has a legal obligation to make sure all employees are trained in what they do. After the first incident, training should have been given, and if it hasn't been, then how can they sack him
I'm not saying he has a chance, but a lot of companies do tale the p*ss with their responsibilities as a employer, so check it out.

did he not pass a hgv 1 test then? As on that they train you to couple up!

[owenFoehn]

How do we know they followed the rules?
Did they induct him, asseess him, retrain him after the incident?
These are all things we dont know and in a lot of cases, the companies take the easy option

they not have to do any of them… The rules of dismissal are simple… he was on a warning, then dismissed.
They legaly sacked him, that’s his the employment tribunal will look at it.
It happen to me, wasted so much time taking them to court for unfair dismissal… court said “you were dismissed fairly, it was harsh but they followed the rules and did nothing wrong”

Under the HASAWA 1974 a company has a legal obligation to make sure all employees are trained in what they do. After the first incident, training should have been given, and if it hasn't been, then how can they sack him
I'm not saying he has a chance, but a lot of companies do tale the p*ss with their responsibilities as a employer, so check it out.

to be fair here, if a driver has a Class 1, they should be able to hitch and drop a trailer correctly without further training from the company.

[richielte]

they not have to do any of them… The rules of dismissal are simple… he was on a warning, then dismissed.
They legaly sacked him, that’s his the employment tribunal will look at it.
It happen to me, wasted so much time taking them to court for unfair dismissal… court said “you were dismissed fairly, it was harsh but they followed the rules and did nothing wrong”

Under the HASAWA 1974 a company has a legal obligation to make sure all employees are trained in what they do. After the first incident, training should have been given, and if it hasn't been, then how can they sack him
I'm not saying he has a chance, but a lot of companies do tale the p*ss with their responsibilities as a employer, so check it out.

to be fair here, if a driver has a Class 1, they should be able to hitch and drop a trailer correctly without further training from the company.

He caused an incident at work, so did they invest the incident or just issue a warning
I suspect the latter!
If you've ever had dealings with a TC, then you will know what they expect to have happened.
Having a licence does not mean you are competent, it just means you passed the test.
There's a big difference between passing a test, and being competent
You only need to look at the competency of some TM's

[owenFoehn]

Under the HASAWA 1974 a company has a legal obligation to make sure all employees are trained in what they do. After the first incident, training should have been given, and if it hasn't been, then how can they sack him
I'm not saying he has a chance, but a lot of companies do tale the p*ss with their responsibilities as a employer, so check it out.

to be fair here, if a driver has a Class 1, they should be able to hitch and drop a trailer correctly without further training from the company.

He caused an incident at work, so did they invest the incident or just issue a warning
I suspect the latter!
If you've ever had dealings with a TC, then you will know what they expect to have happened.
Having a licence does not mean you are competent, it just means you passed the test.
There's a big difference between passing a test, and being competent
You only need to look at the competency of some TM's

aye, sadly competence seems to be lacking in a lot of drivers; from hitching to delivering and everything in between.
Yes, we all had to learn, every day’s a learning day, but this is basic stuff!

[Bluecorn]

How do we know they followed the rules?
Did they induct him, asseess him, retrain him after the incident?
These are all things we dont know and in a lot of cases, the companies take the easy option

they not have to do any of them… The rules of dismissal are simple… he was on a warning, then dismissed.
They legaly sacked him, that’s his the employment tribunal will look at it.
It happen to me, wasted so much time taking them to court for unfair dismissal… court said “you were dismissed fairly, it was harsh but they followed the rules and did nothing wrong”

Under the HASAWA 1974 a company has a legal obligation to make sure all employees are trained in what they do. After the first incident, training should have been given, and if it hasn't been, then how can they sack him
I

Perhaps what you mean is under H&S, driver should have training BEFORE the job rather than playing catch up after the event. So many inductions include “you know what you’re doing, let’s go for tea”

[2749.rikSon]

I think this was very correct I've sacked drivers for dropping a trailer on its knees. If that had dropped on a public road someone could of been killed.

[daniom]

The biggest question I can't see if anyone has answered is what training has the company given him both prior and post incident. As much as I agree it shouldn't happen, things do. If u wanted to take this via unfair dismissal that is the key point. After all may have learnt in a different type of combo or a long time ago

he has had the training, he holds a class one

anyone who has under gone obtaining a class 1 licence will know that what they teach you doesn't cover all you need to know. You are taught to pass a test that is all. Any good employer will train and document the training inline with having a SSOW in place.

[swaintume405]

Completely fair.
I've dropped a trailer on its nose. No one else caused that accident but me.
Extremely dangerous and something that should not be happening.

Well done for owning your mistake. Too many people want to blame others

[Steinte]

Yep totally negligent I’d dismiss him as well, sorry.

[hazellon]

When hooking up and unhooking a regime system should be used and rechecked. A good practice is to do it all in the same order using BLACK and then doing a walk round recheck and count. Dont forget tugs. It doesn't go down well dropping trailers and pulling off with landing legs down. Causes lots of damage. Maybe company could do an assessment on the driver to ensure a thorough approach. Will be treated quite seriously disciplinary wise I would think especially if a second incident of a similar nature

[Petemico679]

No go onto acass web site it will give you all the information you need

why will that tell him he should have done all the basic things?

[mattorzo67]

Sorry I would have dismissed on first occasion as they have a training process to follow and if the driver had done this there would have been no problem
BLACK
Brakes
Legs
Air
Clip
Kingpin

that is a very hypocritical comment as you have NOT dismissed staff from the Sainsburys depot for doing this!!! Why lie!!! this you know I know.