It may be as simple as the fact that his loads are heavier than yours are or he clogs it all the time. You don’t have to accuse him of anything. To cover yourself just raise the subject that you have noticed that he uses more fuel than you do, but ensure that you report it to the Transport Manager and not a planner. Also make sure that you ask the manager to record the fact that you brought the subject up. Keep anything personal out of it.
kcrussell25:
They can.You ever look in a supermarket and see that the same people are always on the same couple of tills? This isn’t an accident. It is deliberate so they can monitor any possible cash loss. If your on a till and money goes missing you can’t relax just because you havn’t taken it.
But tills are more tightly controlled to begin with, and there incompetence may also be to blame. There may also be circumstantial evidence of collusion, or a mixture of both dishonest and weak operators (which would justify taking action against all).
A fuel system meanwhile can simply leak.
Once they can narrow it to 2 or 3 people if they can’t be sure they would (and have in the past) sack them all. Usually in that situation the guilty one owns up. Nowadays all the tills have permanent cameras on them so theft from a till is tricky to get away with but you get my point. As mentioned employers only need probability not beyond reasonable doubt. If fuel is going it has to be 1 of the 2 so to sack both would be viewed as fair, especially if it resolved the problem when they were replaced.
I’m afraid I don’t see that at all. The situation you describe is not one where there is a probability that both men are responsible, and the possibility of collecting better evidence is not exhausted. Also, employers can do whatever they want if unchallenged, but that doesn’t always mean it is unchallengeable.
Perhaps the anecdotal evidence you have in mind is where an employer has simply given the employees their notice period and ended their employment (in situations where this is contractually allowed), which is not the same as disciplinary action and doesn’t require any proof.
Regards the question posed by OP have a word with the boss and tell him your “concerned” about the fuel use and leave it with him. What he chooses to do after that is up to him. Maybe the guy is on the take or maybe as said he can’t be bothered to fill the tank. Either way the boss can look into it and you have given yourself some valuable protection if anything comes of it and you get dragged in.
What protection is it really, if on your own logic the boss can form the view that you are “probably” responsible?
Rjan:
kcrussell25:
They can.You ever look in a supermarket and see that the same people are always on the same couple of tills? This isn’t an accident. It is deliberate so they can monitor any possible cash loss. If your on a till and money goes missing you can’t relax just because you havn’t taken it.
But tills are more tightly controlled to begin with, and there incompetence may also be to blame. There may also be circumstantial evidence of collusion, or a mixture of both dishonest and weak operators (which would justify taking action against all).
A fuel system meanwhile can simply leak.
I know tills are tightly controlled I was just attempting to provide an example. They are trained and sign a record to confirm they are happy with this training before they start. The first step before disciplinary would be to check they happy with training. If they are incompetence would not be accepted as a valid excuse.
A fuel system can leak agreed but this would show on both drivers fuel use. Plus you would hope it gets notice on a service/inspection.Once they can narrow it to 2 or 3 people if they can’t be sure they would (and have in the past) sack them all. Usually in that situation the guilty one owns up. Nowadays all the tills have permanent cameras on them so theft from a till is tricky to get away with but you get my point. As mentioned employers only need probability not beyond reasonable doubt. If fuel is going it has to be 1 of the 2 so to sack both would be viewed as fair, especially if it resolved the problem when they were replaced.
I’m afraid I don’t see that at all. The situation you describe is not one where there is a probability that both men are responsible, and the possibility of collecting better evidence is not exhausted. Also, employers can do whatever they want if unchallenged, but that doesn’t always mean it is unchallengeable.
Evidence would be checked for but if it cannot be found they proceed. It can be challenged but if done properly is sound. See the William Hill case quoted above. I think now it has been mentioned that was one of the examples used in our training.
Perhaps the anecdotal evidence you have in mind is where an employer has simply given the employees their notice period and ended their employment (in situations where this is contractually allowed), which is not the same as disciplinary action and doesn’t require any proof.
No they are taken through the disciplinary process and dismissed on suspicion of theft.
Regards the question posed by OP have a word with the boss and tell him your “concerned” about the fuel use and leave it with him. What he chooses to do after that is up to him. Maybe the guy is on the take or maybe as said he can’t be bothered to fill the tank. Either way the boss can look into it and you have given yourself some valuable protection if anything comes of it and you get dragged in.
What protection is it really, if on your own logic the boss can form the view that you are “probably” responsible?
I admit I have not worded that well. My view is if someone comes to me with a problem is the “whistle blower.” Someone who says something after I go to them is making excuses- my PERSONAL VIEW for clarity. It may not be protection in the literal sense but bringing it up gives an impression that you are not the problem.
Or may be Chainsaw is stealing fuel in order to make this foreigner pay for being Polish and making 5 grand more then him. Seriously dude if you really think he steals fuel go straight to TM. Everything else is a bit racy jealous. I’ve always topped up the fuel tanks and never had problems, its 2016 not 1976. My former colleague never top up the fuel tanks, this made difference of about 30 US gallons each night.Do you think I stole the fuel…
Lock the fuel cap and keep the key. That way he can’t steal any.
The extra 5k would be because the other driver is on nights most likely
sent from my Lumia 950XL using tapatalk for windows 10 mobile
tachograph:
CHAINSAW:
I am currently day driving and I suspect the Night man is stealing fuel do I grass him up in case they try to blame me?What makes you suspect he’s stealing fuel ?
This is question that needs answering, 2 drivers on 1 truck only 1 fueling up how can you tell he’s stealing
mick.mh2racing:
There’s a famous case with William Hill, the bookmakers. £10k went missing from the safe and 3 people had access to the safe. William Hill sacked all 3 and eventually won at tribunal when they were challenged. It set a famous precedent and that’s why "beyond reasonable doubt’ is used in courts of law but ’ on the balance of probability’ for employment matters.
No it’s not fair but it’s true pm yes they could sack 2 people for the same thing.
I couldn’t find that case but there’s the aptly named Monie v Coral Racing Ltd (1981), and Frames Snooker Centre v Boyce (1992). Both involved substantial thefts from safes by at least one of a small group of managers.
It certainly establishes that an employer can have a reason to dismiss a group of employees, but there still has to be reasonable grounds to believe that a member of the dismissed group is responsible for misconduct, and reasonable avenues of investigation must be exhausted.
I don’t think those situations are comparable, without more, to a loss of fuel. It’s just common sense that, in a small firm 30 years ago, deciding between two managers in a position of trust, one of whom must be responsible for a flagrant theft of grand and intolerable proportions, would have been a hard problem which could only be resolved by replacing both.
With fuel, the scale of loss is probably modest, there is no certainty as to the cause being misconduct, or of any defined group being responsible for that misconduct, and there are usually more steps which can be taken to control the problem or implicate an individual.
To illustrate the other extreme to the safe thefts, the employer can’t just drop a fiver in the works car park, say it’s gone missing, and lock out the entire workforce.
Rjan:
mick.mh2racing:
There’s a famous case with William Hill, the bookmakers. £10k went missing from the safe and 3 people had access to the safe. William Hill sacked all 3 and eventually won at tribunal when they were challenged. It set a famous precedent and that’s why "beyond reasonable doubt’ is used in courts of law but ’ on the balance of probability’ for employment matters.
No it’s not fair but it’s true pm yes they could sack 2 people for the same thing.I couldn’t find that case but there’s the aptly named Monie v Coral Racing Ltd (1981), and Frames Snooker Centre v Boyce (1992). Both involved substantial thefts from safes by at least one of a small group of managers.
It certainly establishes that an employer can have a reason to dismiss a group of employees, but there still has to be reasonable grounds to believe that a member of the dismissed group is responsible for misconduct, and reasonable avenues of investigation must be exhausted.
I don’t think those situations are comparable, without more, to a loss of fuel. It’s just common sense that, in a small firm 30 years ago, deciding between two managers in a position of trust, one of whom must be responsible for a flagrant theft of grand and intolerable proportions, would have been a hard problem which could only be resolved by replacing both.
With fuel, the scale of loss is probably modest, there is no certainty as to the cause being misconduct, or of any defined group being responsible for that misconduct, and there are usually more steps which can be taken to control the problem or implicate an individual.
To illustrate the other extreme to the safe thefts, the employer can’t just drop a fiver in the works car park, say it’s gone missing, and lock out the entire workforce.
I can’t find reference to it either but I’ve had it pointed out by ACAS on numerous training courses I’ve been on and the key phrase is “beyond reasonable doubt”. I do take your point that an employer must be able to prove that they’ve taken all steps to determine who was responsible. In the William Hill case an employment tribunal agreed that the Bookmakers had taken every step to determine which of the three was responsible but had been unable to so to dismiss all three was fair.
I’m not suggesting that dismissal of any or all parties is the first step, my comment was just to illustrate that proving a theft beyond reasonable doubt isn’t necessary when dealing with an employment tribunal.
Food for thought?
Hi guys thanks for the replies, decided to put it into Managers hands up to him if he does anything.
Nothing to do with being Polish, I have Polish friends, I am just fed up with the commercial immigrants whose supporters say how hard working they are etc. well in my opinion that is ■■■■■■■■ and the majority do the job poorly and are simply taking jobs from a generation of our youth and causing havoc with our countries schools and NHS ETC.
CHAINSAW:
well in my opinion that is [zb] and the majority do the job poorly and are simply taking jobs from a generation of our youth and causing havoc with our countries schools and NHS ETC.
Sorry mate but thats ■■■■■■■■.
I needed work done to my house. Exterior painted, two new rear doors fitted, staircase filled in so it can be carpeted, roof fixed and ceiling repaired. I called umpteen companies and of the guys I called -
1 - SIX of them didn’t want to come out to quote the job. “take pictures and send them to me”. Sorry guys, you cant be bothered to come out and see it then it tells me a lot about you
2 - Four of them said they’d get back to me with quotes and I have’nt heard from them since
3 - Five didn’t turn up despite me calling them the day before to confirm
4 - Four of them acted like they could’nt be bothered and me asking them questions was a hindrence
5 - One of them gave a quote scribbled on a piece of scrap paper!
6 - One of them wanted £1500 to paint the exterier walls. A grand and a ■■■■■■■ half! I live in a two story terraced house
7- Five of them turned up late (one of them an hour and a half) of which three didnt even apologise
Apart from one other, the only one’s who were keen, decent and saw it through from coming out to quote, listening to me with my questions and requests and followed through with a decent quote were the Poles and the Lithuanians. Plus there quotes were by far the most competitive. I got a polish joiner to fit my rear door and I explained to him I had to keep the dogs in all day because the door was being replaced and could he be as quick as possible. He said no problem and worked right through his lunch break to do it!
Blaming the foreigners for the countries problems is an easy and handy excuse. Based on my experience this last two months with workmen, Its the British work ethic that’s causing the majority of the problems. I never had ANY issues whatsoever with the foreigners. I’m not saying the influx has’nt maybe contributed in some small way but its far from the biggest cause some people like to portray.
Well Snowman you are entitled to your opinion from your own experiences as am I. A mate of mine was working for a Pole builder who has just been fined 16k for dodgy gas work he was not trained to do, don’t you ever wonder why and how they can do it so much cheaper than the British yet still afford to live the same lifestyle here?
There are plenty of dodgy British people doing dodgy work as well. Im not saying they are all perfect. Im well aware plenty come over here with bad intentions. All im saying is that to place the blame for the UKs job problems at the feet of Poles etc is narrow minded, blinkered and wrong.
Dodgy polish workers did not make around 70% of the companies I had to deal with be unreliable,uninterested or rude. Had they bothered to turn up and quote or see it through I might have chose them to do the work, depending on attitudes etc (I never always only go for the cheapest. I go with impressions of the workers as well) but I never got the chance. Polish workers didnt make them unreliable, they did that all on their own.
Blaming foreigners is too easy but some people are so blinkered they think take the foreigners away and everything will come up rosy. But from what ive seen with my own two eyes, take foreigners out of the equation and ive still got a rotten back door, a staircase I cant carpet and a quote for a grand a half to paint a house.
Sure some of them may be cheap because they dont follow all the rules and regulations but its far from all of them and dont try to convince me every british national is whiter than white, fully registered and there are no dodgy ones among them. Plenty poles do great work, are fully registered, pay tax here, work hard and are STILL cheaper with better work ethics and standards
Although the fact you felt the need to tell us the other driver was Polish “if that helps with our answers” in your original post kind of makes me think its pointless trying to explain any of this to you
CHAINSAW:
Hi guys thanks for the replies, decided to put it into Managers hands up to him if he does anything.
Nothing to do with being Polish, I have Polish friends, I am just fed up with the commercial immigrants whose supporters say how hard working they are etc. well in my opinion that is [zb] and the majority do the job poorly and are simply taking jobs from a generation of our youth and causing havoc with our countries schools and NHS ETC.
Well thats me convinced it is not the least bit racially motivated.
Still be good to no how you could tell he was taking fuel and how much was going
mac12:
Still be good to no how you could tell he was taking fuel and how much was going
Same here. What’s the scenario?
CHAINSAW:
Hi guys thanks for the replies, decided to put it into Managers hands up to him if he does anything.
Unless you was able to give your manager reasons for your suspicion that the night driver is stealing fuel you probably haven’t done yourself any favours.
I’m sure all TMs would want to know about fuel theft, but not so many would want to listen to unsubstantiated accusations against fellow workers, maybe you have sound reasons for your suspicions and conveyed those reasons to the manager, but if all you told your manager was what you’ve posted in this thread you may have marked your own card as a trouble maker.
Chainsaw
In to days society you’ve got to have proof that someone is stealing before you can go allegations to this extent, if its a simple case of your filling up and getting more mpg than the night driver either he’s thrashing the balls off the unit or he’s got a heavy right foot…
But if you have seen him lugging a Jerry can in and out the unit, there’s a heavy smell of diesel in the cab, simple case of make note of day and time… report to your line manager…
What makes you sure at all that he’s stealing… We had someone doing it my last place of work( none haulage ) … its difficult to prove unless you know how
A few yeArs ago we had 10 poles sacked for fuel theft , 1 for nicking oil ( he just got out car , walked across yard with can , filled it up and walked back and put it in car ( he was sacked but apparently couldn’t see what he’d done wrong ) , and one English lad ( seen chucking can in hedge too pick up on way home in the morning .
English lad was warned by other lads he’d get caught but didn’t heed the warnings .
The-Snowman:
CHAINSAW:
well in my opinion that is [zb] and the majority do the job poorly and are simply taking jobs from a generation of our youth and causing havoc with our countries schools and NHS ETC.Sorry mate but thats ■■■■■■■■.
I needed work done to my house. Exterior painted, two new rear doors fitted, staircase filled in so it can be carpeted, roof fixed and ceiling repaired. I called umpteen companies and of the guys I called -
1 - SIX of them didn’t want to come out to quote the job. “take pictures and send them to me”. Sorry guys, you cant be bothered to come out and see it then it tells me a lot about you
2 - Four of them said they’d get back to me with quotes and I have’nt heard from them since
3 - Five didn’t turn up despite me calling them the day before to confirm
4 - Four of them acted like they could’nt be bothered and me asking them questions was a hindrence
5 - One of them gave a quote scribbled on a piece of scrap paper!
6 - One of them wanted £1500 to paint the exterier walls. A grand and a [zb] half! I live in a two story terraced house
7- Five of them turned up late (one of them an hour and a half) of which three didnt even apologiseApart from one other, the only one’s who were keen, decent and saw it through from coming out to quote, listening to me with my questions and requests and followed through with a decent quote were the Poles and the Lithuanians. Plus there quotes were by far the most competitive. I got a polish joiner to fit my rear door and I explained to him I had to keep the dogs in all day because the door was being replaced and could he be as quick as possible. He said no problem and worked right through his lunch break to do it!
Blaming the foreigners for the countries problems is an easy and handy excuse. Based on my experience this last two months with workmen, Its the British work ethic that’s causing the majority of the problems. I never had ANY issues whatsoever with the foreigners. I’m not saying the influx has’nt maybe contributed in some small way but its far from the biggest cause some people like to portray.
I accept the general picture you paint is accurate, but at the root of the problem is not the “British work ethic” but simply your refusal to pay the market rate for a British tradesman.
And indeed, the price reflects not just the time taken to paint the house, but the time to visit jobs and quote (which paying customers have to subsidise), the time to put snags right after the work is done, travelling time, idle time, and the general costs of running a business - together with the premium income that a competent person expects to earn for this. Perhaps many have sensed your attitude to the matter, or your willingness to pay, or the combination of the two, even prior to attending.
And I certainly think you’re being unsympathetic about the lateness if you’re dealing with one man bands. It is only when a firm is large enough to have a dedicated surveyor, and you’re willing to pay good money, that you can reasonably expect him to have a fixed schedule and tight timekeeping.
The market rate for a recent migrant from a less productive country is different not because of his stronger work ethic, but because he still has a foot in a different marketplace (that of his origin). If he remains here permanently, then his income expectations will eventually level up, and if not, then he returns back home much wealthier in that marketplace.