its not all that bad if you do damage after all 
thejournal.ie/dhl-court-case … 8-Aug2017/
not sure how to put up the link so hope this works
Judging by the article he got them on a technicality, they used the 1st and 2nd accidents in their decision to dismiss which should have been cleared after 12 months. So good for him. How many times have you or I had the rule book quoted to you as reason enough.
Good for him I say.
Sent from my Lenovo PB1-770M using Tapatalk
I believe HR departments are supposed to know about employment legislation and deal with disciplinary affairs, so maybe somebody their should be fired for missing the technicality that this case was lost on?
The court also found that DHL did not give due consideration to imposing an alternative and more proportionate sanction on Coughlan or give him the option of contributing to the cost of the repairs to the company van necessitated by his error of judgement.
That phrase might not bode well for the more accident prone, at least in the ROI?
Employment laws are a neccesity but sometimes they are just plain stupid.
Yes they are needed to stop companies firing people for petty things but to make a company pay a driver who clearly cant drive, or doesnt try to, because they didnt go through hoops is bizarre to say the least
The-Snowman:
Employment laws are a neccesity but sometimes they are just plain stupid.
Yes they are needed to stop companies firing people for petty things but to make a company pay a driver who clearly cant drive, or doesnt try to, because they didnt go through hoops is bizarre to say the least
As you say the rules are there for a reason. The driver was sacked for an incident that in itself was not a sackable offense. They took previous warnings into account that had expired. If you start doing that where do you draw the line?
They should have sent him out with an assessor who said he did loads wrong. Then give a couple of weeks and repeat and then sack. His word against the assessor but if challenged could bring in accident history.
muckles:
I believe HR departments are supposed to know about employment legislation and deal with disciplinary affairs, so maybe somebody their should be fired for missing the technicality that this case was lost on?The court also found that DHL did not give due consideration to imposing an alternative and more proportionate sanction on Coughlan or give him the option of contributing to the cost of the repairs to the company van necessitated by his error of judgement.
That phrase might not bode well for the more accident prone, at least in the ROI?
My girlfriend works in hr, formally for a national transport company. Her role was to take notes and “advise.” However the final decision rests with the manager conducting the meeting. They are free to, and frequently did ignore her advice.
The-Snowman:
Employment laws are a neccesity but sometimes they are just plain stupid.
Yes they are needed to stop companies firing people for petty things but to make a company pay a driver who clearly cant drive, or doesnt try to, because they didnt go through hoops is bizarre to say the least
Without more information, I wouldn’t say 3 bumps in five years by someone who drives every day, and described as mere errors of judgment, is necessarily evidence that someone is unable to drive.
The court didn’t find that the employer failed to “go through hoops”, as if they endorsed the employer’s decision but for a technicality. Having heard all the evidence, they found that it simply wasn’t reasonable to dismiss in the circumstances.