At my firm we all signed a Contract of Employment on starting.
About 5 yrs later they brought out a new revised version which included charging drivers for damage.
I, and a couple of others refused to sign it, and made it crystal clear why.
Nothing happened until recently and they are now deducting money from some driver’s wages, one of which who did not sign the new contract, and who sustained damage which was unavoidable,.agreed by a compliance type guy, (after an enquiry )who has now left.
It was trailer damage done by a overhanging thick hidden tree branch, which was backed up by photo evidence of the location of the incident, clearly showing the impact was unavoidable.
In this case what does the law say about this?
Is this legal?
My understanding is if changes are given to you, even if you refuse to sign then after a certain period of time, possibly 13 weeks, the changes come into effect regardless and by carrying on working there its deemed you have accepted the new terms. I could be wrong but that’s how its been explained to me before. If you’re a member I suggest contacting a union or CAB for proper advice
As the above unless you put a grievance letter in as failure to agree and working under protest and they then have carried out the due process. Bet they didn’t put it in.
In the hope i might annoy the usual suspects i’ll just slip in the word Union here 
.
Robroy (glad you didn’t sign this ■■■■■■■■ either 
), i can’t see how they can deduct wages from someone who hasn’t agreed to having them deducted, and i have a feeling that they are treading on ground likely to prove expensive for them if the driver concerned jacks in and goes for a constructive dismissal claiming theft of wages he was entitled to.
If i was he, and yes i assume he isn’t in the union, then i’d try calling ACAS first, asap, and see what they have to say on the matter.
I haven’t come across this issue before, on some car transporter operations they pay you a damage free bonus, not as part of wages but as a bonus, this can be lost, in parts, due to er damage obviously.
robroy:
At my firm we all signed a Contract of Employment on starting.
About 5 yrs later they brought out a new revised version which included charging drivers for damage.
I, and a couple of others refused to sign it, and made it crystal clear why.
Nothing happened until recently and they are now deducting money from some driver’s wages, one of which who did not sign the new contract, and who sustained damage which was unavoidable,.agreed by a compliance type guy, (after an enquiry )who has now left.
It was trailer damage done by a overhanging thick hidden tree branch, which was backed up by photo evidence of the location of the incident, clearly showing the impact was unavoidable.
In this case what does the law say about this?
Is this legal?
Refusing to sign a new/changed employment contract does not mean you are not bound by its terms. Quite the contrary in fact. If you do not submit a formal grievance in writing within a reasonable time period then from a legal standpoint you are deemed to have implied acceptance of the new or amended terms of employment if you continue to work for the company. Just saying verbally to your manager that don’t accept the changes is not sufficient for any recourse. It has to be a formal grievance which the company has to act upon and respond to with their decision. If the company does not uphold your grievance then you choice is either to continue to work for them whereby you are deemed to have accepted the new or amended terms of employment, or, you resign and you take them to court for constructive dismissal.
Had that issue with a firm, contract said they could deduct money for damage " with the employees consent" and a mutual amount. When topic came up in general discussion I stated they would never have my consent, other guys signed consent form.
After awhile gaffer asked me to pay for a minor damage incident and I refused and I quote form official website.
Rules for making deductions from your pay. Your employer is not allowed to make a deduction from your pay or wages unless: it is required or allowed by law, for example National Insurance, income tax or student loan repayments.
google.co.uk/url?sa=t&sourc … W_GFe-INWQ
I was under impression any deduction from your wage that is not agreed is illegal.
Insurance is for paying damage,no matter how good a driver you are accidents happen!
Phone unite and get some free advice if I was him.
Yorkielad:
I was under impression any deduction from your wage that is not agreed is illegal.
Insurance is for paying damage,no matter how good a driver you are accidents happen!
Phone unite and get some free advice if I was him.
But as has already been mentioned, by continuing to work he may well be deemed to have accepted the new terms. Insurance is only required to cover other parties’ damage, not your own. It’s not at all unusual in Transport for operators to cover their own damage themselves - either 100% or subject to large (several thousand pounds) excess.
Yorkielad:
I was under impression any deduction from your wage that is not agreed is illegal.
Insurance is for paying damage,no matter how good a driver you are accidents happen!
Phone unite and get some free advice if I was him.
If the employer feels they have good case then they could claim the money through the Small Claims Court, however, they probably wont because they could well lose the case. The Court could decide that their terms of employment are unreasonable and that unless the employee caused the damage deliberately then it is up to the employer to bear the cost as a normal business expense.
That’s my view on this matter, call their bluff and see what they do.
If he hasn’t signed anything they cannot just change your terms and conditions as they like,every company in the land would if this was the case.
The simple answer is for the driver to thieve as much as he can from the employer, e.g.by syphoning diesel out of the vehicle tank, stealing from the load etc until he has made the money back, with a bit on top for his trouble. 
When robroy & his mates refused to sign the change to their contract, they should have put their objections in writing to their employer & agreed to continue working under protest before seeking further advice. Like others have said, carrying on working under the new terms without a paper trail of objection can be deemed as acceptance.
Where you object, your employer could terminate your contract and offer you remployment under the new terms. You can then claim either unfair dismissal or redundancy so long as you have 1 or 2 years consecutive service respectively.
The thing is with hauliers (especially in general haulage), they know that the vast majority of their driver work force have very little to gain by putting up a proper fight - usually due to lack of service. That, plus there is usually no union presence to back them up.
Yorkielad:
If he hasn’t signed anything they cannot just change your terms and conditions as they like,every company in the land would if this was the case.
Yes they can. See my earlier post.
Harry Monk:
The simple answer is for the driver to thieve as much as he can from the employer, e.g.by syphoning diesel out of the vehicle tank, stealing from the load etc until he has made the money back, with a bit on top for his trouble.
Wise man speak great sense.
At one of my previous employers I did some extremely minor damage to the tune of around £50. Following week this was deducted from my wages.
Following week many pallets got sold…
rob22888:
When robroy & his mates refused to sign the change to their contract, they should have put their objections in writing to their employer & agreed to continue working under protest before seeking further advice. Like others have said, carrying on working under the new terms without a paper trail of objection can be deemed as acceptance.Where you object, your employer could terminate your contract and offer you remployment under the new terms. You can then claim either unfair dismissal or redundancy so long as you have 1 or 2 years consecutive service respectively.
The thing is with hauliers (especially in general haulage), they know that the vast majority of their driver work force have very little to gain by putting up a proper fight - usually due to lack of service. That, plus there is usually no union presence to back them up.
They don’t need a union Rob.
Just a new job.
I could see this from an employers point of view, being sick of carless damage and the thought process that would come to a conclusion that it would be a good idea.
In practice no, who did what when who was the last to use this that or the other, especially trailers.
Then thinking about my fellow co workers or “colleagues” as we are called, that would be coming to work for nothing several would be in deficit.
Pay just above the going rate treat your staff like grown ups, and manage the job in a robust and fair manner learn to sort the wheat from the chaff and all this silliness is not needed.
Rob K:
robroy:
At my firm we all signed a Contract of Employment on starting.
About 5 yrs later they brought out a new revised version which included charging drivers for damage.
I, and a couple of others refused to sign it, and made it crystal clear why.
Nothing happened until recently and they are now deducting money from some driver’s wages, one of which who did not sign the new contract, and who sustained damage which was unavoidable,.agreed by a compliance type guy, (after an enquiry )who has now left.
It was trailer damage done by a overhanging thick hidden tree branch, which was backed up by photo evidence of the location of the incident, clearly showing the impact was unavoidable.
In this case what does the law say about this?
Is this legal?Refusing to sign a new/changed employment contract does not mean you are not bound by its terms. Quite the contrary in fact. If you do not submit a formal grievance in writing within a reasonable time period then from a legal standpoint you are deemed to have implied acceptance of the new or amended terms of employment if you continue to work for the company. Just saying verbally to your manager that don’t accept the changes is not sufficient for any recourse. It has to be a formal grievance which the company has to act upon and respond to with their decision. If the company does not uphold your grievance then you choice is either to continue to work for them whereby you are deemed to have accepted the new or amended terms of employment, or, you resign and you take them to court for constructive dismissal.
It is possible for terms to be accepted by implication, but that doesn’t mean that they must be. If you reject the terms verbally in no uncertain language to a manager, that is just as good as rejecting them in writing. It might be different if you accept a written notice but simply fail to sign and return it, without raising any objection at all to anybody - then that might be considered implied acceptance.
And there is no “decision” for them to make on the grievance. You have simply rejected a proposed change in the terms - it would be for them to show that you declaring openly “No, I’m not having it” was an implied acceptance. The only reason you would raise a grievance is if you were asserting that the very attempt to change the terms was a shocking act which undermined the relationship - many workers might just take the view that their managers are trying their luck rather than launching an assault on their legal rights.
In an employment contract the company is obliged to offer work and you are obliged to do it. You can continue working essentially until the bosses lock you out, provided you make it clear that you are proceeding on that basis - and if they don’t lock you out, then they have folded and things go on as before, under the existing terms.
Companies do not have the right to vary the terms of an employment contract at will. Unilateral changes could well fail for “total failure of consideration”. They cannot argue that continuing to supply you with work (and pay) is consideration, because you were already entitled to that under the existing contract.
Read my post they can do anything fact
mike68:
I could see this from an employers point of view, being sick of carless damage and the thought process that would come to a conclusion that it would be a good idea.
The company can discipline you, and ultimately sack you, for truly careless damage. But it is up to them to show that the damage is careless, and not simply the cost and risk of doing business. They cannot deduct your pay simply for damage per se, unless that is a term of your contract (and even then it is likely to be subject to an implied fair and reasonable test).