dinosteveus1:
ROG:
Any news on a tribunal or anything to do with your former job?
Cannot comment - still ongoing
Flippin eck, why is it taking this long? Have you got a Solicitor and or a Union Official if you are in a Union.
do you have a date for the tribunal hearing?sorry if I’m being nosey, just tell me to naff off if I am
Union EXPERT is onto it and this IS how long it takes - any quicker and something will get missed which could cause probs - can’t expand further at this stage…
ROG:
dinosteveus1:
ROG:
Any news on a tribunal or anything to do with your former job?
Cannot comment - still ongoing
Flippin eck, why is it taking this long? Have you got a Solicitor and or a Union Official if you are in a Union.
do you have a date for the tribunal hearing?sorry if I’m being nosey, just tell me to naff off if I am
Union EXPERT is onto it and this IS how long it takes - any quicker and something will get missed which could cause probs - can’t expand further at this stage…
At least you have an expert on the case. I used to be a TGWU Official many moons ago. I needed an expert when I went to an Industrial tribunal. I ‘won’ with his help. I hope you do.
ROG:
Well, that looks like me out of instructing from 10 Sept 2009 unless I can get some work within the next year
Ive just been informed by the people at skillsforlogistics that I am ‘stuffed’
The criteria set down for instructing the DRIVER CPC module 3 (on-road training) requires me to have written proof of experience.
My 2 former LGV instructor employers will not do it and I cannot get details of former trainees as witnesses as their details come under DATA Protection.Anyone any ideas
I think the Skills for Logistics have given you some duff info.
For the initial driver cpc that you refer to (module 3) there is no qualifications or evidencing needed to instruct trainees to pass these tests.
The only proof of experiance required is for instructors who are doing “periodic Training” (35 hours)
If you are a DSA registered instructor this would be enough
burnie1:
I think the Skills for Logistics have given you some duff info.For the initial driver cpc that you refer to (module 3) there is no qualifications or evidencing needed to instruct trainees to pass these tests.
The only proof of experiance required is for instructors who are doing “periodic Training” (35 hours)
If you are a DSA registered instructor this would be enough
I specifically asked about Module 3 the on-road training and the answer was specific - anyone doing Driver CPC module training MUST have this evidence - as module 3 is only for the initial driver cpc then they cannot have got confused.
I am not, and am unlikely to ever be, a DSA LGV registered instructor.
From the skillsforlogistics site…
What qualifications do trainers need to be able to deliver
training?
Annex 1 Section 5 of the Directive details the conditions; these
include:“Instructors must provide certification showing a knowledge of both the subject matter and teaching methods”
“With regard to practical training, instructors must provide certification of experience as professional drivers or similar driving experience such as that of driving instructors for heavy vehicles.”
Skills for logistics have nothing to do with the initial drivers cpc that module 3 is part of.
The DSA have given the job of accrediting and policing the periodic training
Because the the initial CPC is test based the DSA are not bothered how individuals develop their skills and knowledge to pass these tests.
Because the periodic training is just attendence the Skills for Logistics are responsible in ensuring the quality of the training. Evidencing instructor experiance is part of the criteria for accreditation to help with the quality issue.
It does go to show that the Skills for Logistics need to get their act together if they misleading people due to a lack of understanding on their part.
If the Skills for Logistics did not have this job to do then the organisation would not be finacialy viable.
Trainers & Training schools for the INITIAL Driver CPC do NOT require anything more than what they have already in regard to teaching the theory and on-road modules (1 & 3)
Modules 2 (senarios) & 4 (half hour of practical/tell me stuff such as roping/sheeting) can also be taught without any further accreditation as they are not under the PERIODIC (ongoing) remit.
I would imagine that module 2 is going to learnt like the theory questions are now.
Module 4 is a bit more tricky as it would require a training school to have equipment to train on.
I enquired with the skillsforlogistics people whether I would need any sort of extra accreditation as an instructor to deliver licence aquisition training for the on-road module 3 part of the new INITIAL LGV Driver CPC starting on Sept 10 2009.
They said yes.
The skillsforlogistics contact was incorrect with their information 
burnie1 has it spot on 
burnie1:
Skills for logistics have nothing to do with the initial drivers cpc that module 3 is part of.The DSA have given the job of accrediting and policing the periodic training
Because the the initial CPC is test based the DSA are not bothered how individuals develop their skills and knowledge to pass these tests.
Because the periodic training is just attendence the Skills for Logistics are responsible in ensuring the quality of the training. Evidencing instructor experience is part of the criteria for accreditation to help with the quality issue.
It does go to show that the Skills for Logistics need to get their act together if they misleading people due to a lack of understanding on their part.
If the Skills for Logistics did not have this job to do then the organisation would not be finacialy viable.
This was confirmed today by a phone call I made to the DSA.
EDIT - and now I finally get the true answer from skillsforlogistics who, it seems, got their Periodic cpc mixed up with their Initial cpc
As the initial CPC and licence acquisition are tests, there is not approval system for the training providers who are training people to obtain a licence and initial CPC. Training providers need to train people to a sufficient standard so they are able to pass the tests.
Periodic Training is attendance and not testing. JAUPT are responsible for approving and quality assuring periodic training, and part of the approval criteria is evidencing the qualifications or experience of the trainers who are delivering the periodic training.
How did the tribunal go or is it ongoing ?
last time i spoke to him im sure he said the 9th december (that date rings a bell for some reason and its no ones birthday that i know)
i hope he does ok and comes out the other side better for it, and sticks it up em’ so to speak.
good luck rog
ET is on Dec 8 & 9.
Cannot say more until after that date.
good luck with the ET
i was diciplined durring 2007-8 not driver related but for whistleblowing
10 months suspension and i represented myself and i won the right to be found not guilty
I asked the ET tribunal for the right to be tested on a lie detector as I pointed out that all this could be avoided but they said that they were not permissable in a UK court - go figure…
ROG:
I asked the ET tribunal for the right to be tested on a lie detector as I pointed out that all this could be avoided but they said that they were not permissable in a UK court - go figure…
That’s because they’re not actually very accurate ROG. 
Lucy:
ROG:
I asked the ET tribunal for the right to be tested on a lie detector as I pointed out that all this could be avoided but they said that they were not permissable in a UK court - go figure…That’s because they’re not actually very accurate ROG.
Apparently if they score at the top or bottom end they are so I’ve been informed by the UK experts on this - it is if they score in the mid range that the results are not conclusive.
I’m not around much now due to Family stuff but Good luck for next week Rog 
dinosteveus1:
I’m not around much now due to Family stuff but Good luck for next week Rog
Just want justice - nothing more.
THE VERDICT - legally lost but morally won 
COMMENTS PLEASE…
Sacked for putting to much oil in the lorry? When you said many months ago it was regarding a lorry that wasn’t the first thing to pop into my mind, in fact that never popped into my mind
Are you able to explain how this whole situation became (PM if you want) you been driving for many years i assume so not as though you dont know how to check oil etc/how much.
Was the truck written off because of an overfill did it explode or something:?:
Sounds petty if they sacked you for that.
They must of wanted you gone if they sacked you for that.
what a bummer sorry to hear that rog.
ROG:
THE VERDICT - legally lost but morally wonCOMMENTS PLEASE…
“Morally won” doesn’t pay the bills I’m afraid. 
Sorry Rog, I don’t know what to say.
Do you think this will affect you getting work in the future?
