I’ve never…
Quite grasped the concept of suspended on full pay. Something detrimental has occurred that your directly involved in and you’re then sat at home getting the full monty. It doesn’t make sense and seems like money for nothing.
yourhavingalarf:
I’ve never…Quite grasped the concept of suspended on full pay. Something detrimental has occurred that your directly involved in and you’re then sat at home getting the full monty. It doesn’t make sense and seems like money for nothing.
I see it as innocent until proven guilty in action. AFAIK these days you can’t just sack someone on the spot without following due process otherwise the lawyers that specialise in such things will pick it apart in court and get a nice pay-out for them and their hard done by client.
dozy:
The only driver I know who’s hit a bridge
That surprises me given you were a company man for Stobbies.
njl:
yourhavingalarf:
I’ve never…Quite grasped the concept of suspended on full pay. Something detrimental has occurred that your directly involved in and you’re then sat at home getting the full monty. It doesn’t make sense and seems like money for nothing.
I see it as innocent until proven guilty in action. AFAIK these days you can’t just sack someone on the spot without following due process otherwise the lawyers that specialise in such things will pick it apart in court and get a nice pay-out for them and their hard done by client.
I get that…
To a point. As a driver, I’ve always felt guilty even when nothing’s gone wrong. I was under the impression they can just let you go inside of two years with a weeks notice.
It’s obviously a tried and tested practice because it’s been going for decades.
yourhavingalarf:
njl:
yourhavingalarf:
I’ve never…Quite grasped the concept of suspended on full pay. Something detrimental has occurred that your directly involved in and you’re then sat at home getting the full monty. It doesn’t make sense and seems like money for nothing.
I see it as innocent until proven guilty in action. AFAIK these days you can’t just sack someone on the spot without following due process otherwise the lawyers that specialise in such things will pick it apart in court and get a nice pay-out for them and their hard done by client.
I get that…
To a point. As a driver, I’ve always felt guilty even when nothing’s gone wrong. I was under the impression they can just let you go inside of two years with a weeks notice.
It’s obviously a tried and tested practice because it’s been going for decades.
Suspension without pay may be possible.
"Summary dismissal
This is when you dismiss someone instantly without notice or pay in lieu of notice, usually because of gross misconduct (for example theft, fraud, violence).
Tribunals may rule a summary dismissal as ‘procedurally unfair’ - you can only suspend someone without pay if their contract says you can do this. If it does not, you should suspend the employee on full pay and investigate the circumstances."
gov.uk/dismiss-staff/fair-dismissals
Some reasons for dismissal are automatically unfair, and you can claim whenever, but otherwise you need to employed for 2 yrs to claim unfair dismissal.
Mention there of obeying your own rules in the Contract Of Employment.
Ta for that…
Frangles. Most of my employment never involved signing contracts anyway lol.
Agencies just stop calling if you ■■■■ up.
yourhavingalarf:
Ta for that…Frangles. Most of my employment never involved signing contracts anyway lol.
Agencies just stop calling if you [zb] up.
I did several years with a “verbal contract”: You do what I tell you to do.
Bit like some marriages too! 
njl:
yourhavingalarf:
I’ve never…Quite grasped the concept of suspended on full pay. Something detrimental has occurred that your directly involved in and you’re then sat at home getting the full monty. It doesn’t make sense and seems like money for nothing.
I see it as innocent until proven guilty in action. AFAIK these days you can’t just sack someone on the spot without following due process otherwise the lawyers that specialise in such things will pick it apart in court and get a nice pay-out for them and their hard done by client.
If the collision happening and the driver’s fault are a matter of fact not argument then summary dismissal is generally the default option.
I know of a driver who was actually sacked while he was recovering from his injuries in hospital for rolling an artic down an embankment on the A5 on the Nuneaton to Holyhead run.
dozy:
Zac_A:
Should’ve gone to Specsavers…
At least now he’ll have plenty of time on his hands for a string of opticians appointmentsEven if the company hadn’t binned him, the TC would have/will give him a (minimum) six-week holiday from driving wagons.
The only driver I know who’s hit a bridge was suspended on full pay , pending a investigation , then was given a final written warning after investigation , never appeared before t/c or was sacked , and his reason for hitting bridge was he thought it would go
Just depends where you work
Well, anyone who wants to take a lead from you and crack on taking chances thinking “it’s no big deal” is free to do so, but for the record, my post is based on “knowing” more than one driver in the north east who has had a bridge strike, and seeing what that does to his operator.
“Suspended on full pay” normally includes “pending a disciplinary hearing”.
Paying you while you’re waiting is just a practicality for them to avoid hassle, same as giving you a right of appeal if you are dismissed (a tick-box piece of window dressing) .
It’s true that when you have less than two years in you can be easily “let go” for any reason. Loads of evidence for that from countless solicitors websites.
yourhavingalarf:
Pennineman:
They even had an extra clue !0
Nope…
Can’t see what you’re on about.
I agree, all these photoshopped images, fake warning signs and cross bars in to confuse a mere driver.