On what date was the company made aware of your alledged non wearing of the seatbelt 
no idea yet i was working on 18th and 19th and 20th nothing said to me those days the letter says they are confirming a meeting has been aranged but that was the first i had heard of it so i have no idea about this till sat when post arrived.
Davey Boy:
no idea yet i was working on 18th and 19th and 20th nothing said to me those days the letter says they are confirming a meeting has been aranged but that was the first i had heard of it so i have no idea about this till sat when post arrived.
My question, and probably one of the first that you union rep will ask, is - Why was the driver not verbally questioned about this on his return to base
This is usually the first move that an employer will do and is perfectly acceptable as part of an investigation - a witness is not required for this.
A simple question such as - Did you do ‘X’ on such a date & time - would be quite normal, to which your answer would be either yes, no or don’t know/cannot remember.
yes i agree with you there rog totally would be reasoanble to ask on the allaged day but nothing was said or the next day or the day after and i even saw my opps manager on the fri to get my holidays singed off nothing said then either.
do you think they missed a trick not asking on the day makes the meeting a bit silly 2 weeks after the alleged offence happened with no comunication inbetween 
Davey Boy:
yes i agree with you there rog totally would be reasoanble to ask on the allaged day but nothing was said or the next day or the day after and i even saw my opps manager on the fri to get my holidays singed off nothing said then either.do you think they missed a trick not asking on the day makes the meeting a bit silly 2 weeks after the alleged offence happened with no comunication inbetween
MAKE SURE YOU MENTION THIS TO YOUR UNION REP 
thanks rog will do tomorrow , u think it might help?
Davey Boy:
thanks rog will do tomorrow , u think it might help?
There is a ‘reasonable’ time frame for a question like this to be asked.
Look at it this way - would it be reasonable to ask you about an incident that happened 10 months ago when the company were aware of it 9 months ago - as I said, a ‘reasonable’ time frame
The earlier a questioned is asked then the fresher in the mind it is - to ask ‘later’ when it could have been asked ‘earlier’ would be likely deemed ‘unfair’
PS - you have a PM (Private Message) - top of page
Ski:
Kenny1975:
Deny everything, you always wear a seat beltI’m guessing you have been invited to an informal interview that is classed as the ‘investigation’ of the incident that may lead to formal disciplinary action being instigated. If this is the case and you deny everything before knowing what the evidence your employers are sitting on you could talk yourself into a disciplinary for Gross Misconduct that would quite possibly lead to you loosing your job.
It never ceases to amaze me how quick people are to offer ‘sound’ advice or criticism on something they read on here without knowing the full facts. I mentioned a case of a smoker in my initial post - and then certain (the usual culprits) posters have a go. The fact is that in the initial investigation the driver denied that he had ever or would ever smoke in the vehicle (illegal and the vehicle operator is legally obliged to ensure that it does not happen). Had this driver put his hands up, admitted that he had smoked and then promised not to digress again an informal warning would have been the end of the matter.
However, those of you that actually know anything about employment law (not what their mate told them down the pub) will understand the importance that an employer puts on trust, especially in this industry - and to have an employee lie through their back teeth despite irrefutable evidence will damage that trust irrevocably and in this particular case led to a disciplinary hearing where the allegations of breaking the law by smoking in a defined workplace, and not being truthful when questioned during the initial investigation were to be answered.
My advice to you is to be perfectly honest when questioned, if you didn’t wear the seatbelt on the occasion that they question you about then admit it and give any mitigating reasons if there any. If it then went to a full formal disciplinary hearing you would probably not be dismissed for a single occurrence, although you may receive a formal reprimand such as a verbal or written warning. If you were dismissed at such a hearing for a single occurence then an employment tribunal may well be worth a go!
And sure as eggs is eggs i would offer him the exact opposite advice. I would tell him to say nothing at all, its just an investigation. You really expect him to incriminate himself? If he is asked if he was not wearing a seatbelt on such and such a date he should reply what evidence do you have to say i was not, and take it from there.
Interesting to note your one way version of trust. In this scenario i would expect any DECENT employer to say we have had a report/or seen you not wearing a seat belt. Would you please make sure its worn at all times. Investigations, disciplinaries !! Jesus christ its a seatbelt.
Ski:
The fact is that in the initial investigation the driver denied that he had ever or would ever smoke in the vehicle (illegal and the vehicle operator is legally obliged to ensure that it does not happen). Had this driver put his hands up, admitted that he had smoked and then promised not to digress again an informal warning would have been the end of the matter.
Yeah RIGHT OH 
…so how did the driver know that then?? …if he had psychic powers or the ability to read minds or predict the future he certainly wouldn’t of been driving one of your lorries would he!!!
if i was called in the office for an “investigation” for something petty like smoking in the cab or not wearing a seatbelt ,i’d assume in this climate that i’d either be getting the sack or a severe reprimand…SO…IMO most drivers aren’t gonna hold their hands up to anything unless caught red handed …are they■■? 
Davey Boy:
'…Will they present their evidence towards me before the diciplinary meeting ?
Maybe if ‘they’ have spare time to hand or if anyone in administration really gives a [zb], but probably not if they’re not asked …why would they do work that hasn’t been requested or is obligated by legislation?
Perhaps remember that Prior Planning Prevents ■■■■-Poor Performance …and that’s prior Planning and not necessarily prior judging, (ie ‘all suits are muppets’, etc) scheming, conniving, lying or worrying.
if it needs stars it’s not allowed. however you can say ■■■■ 
colingl
Davey Boy:
i unserstand what your saying but sometimes i wear my belt sometimes i dont the alleged offence happened on feb18th the letter inviting me to the investigation interview was dated 25th one week later the interview is either tomorow or tues union getting back to me … i will go along and say as far as i know i was wearing my belt i honestly cant remember … you should have asked me on the day or nearer the time hard to remember what you done evr day esp when u been off away from work ,Will they present there evidence towards me before disaplinay meeting ?
thanks
i think you should find out what they have on you first before saying anything.
Davey Boy:
i unserstand what your saying but sometimes i wear my belt sometimes i dont the alleged offence happened on feb18th the letter inviting me to the investigation interview was dated 25th one week later the interview is either tomorow or tues union getting back to me … i will go along and say as far as i know i was wearing my belt i honestly cant remember … you should have asked me on the day or nearer the time hard to remember what you done evr day esp when u been off away from work ,Will they present there evidence towards me before disaplinay meeting ?
thanks
I think if you go in and say this your employers next response will be " then you do admit that you do drive without the seatbelt but you just can’t remember for sure whether you were wearing it or not on the day in question ". Kind of offering to be the hangman for your own execution.
Simple answer is wear it, it is there for your protection despite what the vocal minority say about " I know someone who would be dead if he was wearing a seatbelt ", utter claptrap.
Willy Gofar:
Simple answer is wear it, it is there for your protection despite what the vocal minority say about " I know someone who would be dead if he was wearing a seatbelt ", utter claptrap.
And even though you have a friend who’s life was saved through wearing one somehow i have reservations about hitting something so hard that could possibly throw me through a windscreen and being saved by a belt.
You know, the comments on this and threads lead me to one conclusion.
“petty things” like wearing a seatbelt? Like smoking in the cab? Like speeding?
The fact is that all of these are illegal and ANY employer has a legal duty to ensure that do not happen.
Oh, and the conclusion I reached…
No wonder this country is going to the dogs and many companies are quite happy to employ ‘foreign’ workers despite there being a glut of unemployed ‘natives’. It wasn’t me guv, and if it was the union will try to dig me out of trouble.
All I attempted to do was give this guy some advise that would save his job, but then you lot clearly know better…?
Goodbye.
well he hasn’t posted what the outcome is/was is that good or bad
Ski:
You know, the comments on this and threads lead me to one conclusion.“petty things” like wearing a seatbelt? Like smoking in the cab? Like speeding?
The fact is that all of these are illegal and ANY employer has a legal duty to ensure that do not happen.
Oh, and the conclusion I reached…
No wonder this country is going to the dogs and many companies are quite happy to employ ‘foreign’ workers despite there being a glut of unemployed ‘natives’. It wasn’t me guv, and if it was the union will try to dig me out of trouble.
All I attempted to do was give this guy some advise that would save his job, but then you lot clearly know better…?
Goodbye.
Hey its always good to get an insight into how both sides see things and react. Personally i’ve a little more backbone than to say ‘goodbye’ to everything i don’t see eye to eye with. No ones saying you’re wrong. Just about now you’ll be feeling how the guy felt who left you rather than face a disciplinary?!!!
hi the meeting is tomorrow at 3 so will update acordinally …
Davey Boy:
hi the meeting is tomorrow at 3 so will update acordinally …
If they say things at that meeting that you don’t like then tell them to ‘Belt-up’ - sorry 
could not resist…
good luck with the meeting just remember don’t say anything until they show you what they have against you
Ski:
You know, the comments on this and threads lead me to one conclusion.“petty things” like wearing a seatbelt? Like smoking in the cab? Like speeding?
The fact is that all of these are illegal and ANY employer has a legal duty to ensure that do not happen.
why??..if the driver doesn’t want to wear a seatbelt or forgets,what business is it of yours??..if he gets stopped by the police or has an accident then surely it is on his watch…not yours??
Ski:
No wonder this country is going to the dogs and many companies are quite happy to employ ‘foreign’ workers despite there being a glut of unemployed ‘natives’. It wasn’t me guv, and if it was the union will try to dig me out of trouble.
i fail to see what thats got to do with smoking in your cab and not wearing a seatbelt??..yes this country HAS gone to the dogs a lot due to weak and in the same breath controlling government and that has taken away ANY common sense from the apparently stupid population and created this ■■■■■,namby pamby health and safety cant do this and cant do that situation that we now find ourselves in…where minority groups are able to dictate what the majority do…truckers are arrested for defending their OWN property,people are fined by traffic wardens for smoking in their OWN vans,you cant eat this,that or the other cause of the fictious Obesity epidemic.*(probably going off on a tangent but had to say it)
its got NOTHING to do with “company responsibility”…its ■■■■■■■ meddling,thats what it is
Ski:
All I attempted to do was give this guy some advise that would save his job, but then you lot clearly know better…?Goodbye.
its not a case of “knowing better” either…its called debate where some people agree and others disagree.
see ya
BTW mate,good luck with your investigation …just hope your company doesn’t read these forums