Comments by Emma McAuley

Emma McAuley
Member - 9 posts

I find it a little unreasonable to suggest that HR professionals are wasting GPs' time by asking employees to see them before returning to work after an illness or injury. As an earlier poster said, HR professionals are not medically trained and therefore would be extremely foolish to make judgements on the fitness of an employee.

We always liaise between our Occupational Health advisor (part time consultant) the GP and any consultants plus the line manager when planning a return to work for an employee has been off for an extended period of time. If the absence was a week or so then this is not usually required, but where there has been a significant absence due to illness or injury, I think it would be extremely irresponsible to make a decision without the support of the GP, in case the condition was worsened by the work assigned.

For me this is less about insurance cover (although I apprecia\te the OP's concern) and more about having a culture of wellbeing and not expecting employees to return to work without medical "approval".

Emma McAuley
Member - 9 posts

I operate a fleet of 60 vehicles and we have trained all drivers in safe driving practices, although we still have some more regular offenders than others with 'minor' buumps and scrapes. We do not currently have a policy for re-charging the cost of repair although I think this would be entirely reasonable.

A company vehicle is a benefit to most, rather than an essential and I expect drivers to take good care of the vehicle we provide for them. I know that many drivers have the attitude that 'it's not my car' so do not operate with the care and attention they would for a vehicle they financed themselves.

I agree with the comments about routine scuffs and chips as these often happen without the driver even knowing about it.

Finally for Neil, have you taken advice about your excess charging policy? I should imagine that this would be direct age discriination if only drivers under the age of 21 are expected to pay the excess. I would strongly doubt that the increased payment of £200 would be justifiable business reason for doing this. Just a comment to help you avoid any potential ligitation in the future!

Emma McAuley
Member - 9 posts

Wow Colin, this seems to be quite an extreme way to manage a situation that could perceivably be resolved quite informally, which surely is always our objective? If you have some minor concerns (timekeeping, conduct, work standards) that you believe could bve rectified by the employee if they made the effort, then extending a probationary period could be exactly the right way to go.

Rather than hastily dimissing an individual whose performance could improve with a gentle nudge in the right direction, the extension lets then know in no uncertain terms that they are not currently up to scratch, whilst giving them the opportunity to make the required improvement.

I think the issue here of not informing an employee of the reason for the probationary period being extended is the one to address. I would advise Jospeh's daughter to put her question in writing to her employer, so that she starts an audit trail of her trying to address any concerns that they may have.

Emma McAuley
Member - 9 posts

My understanding is that no one is permitted to access emails sent or received by an employee without previously expressly having notified them that this may happen.

We have recently revised our email and internet policy and have now made it explicitly clear that employees are permitted to use the Company email and internet facilities for personal use in their own time (i.e. lunch breaks) however, they should have no expectation of privacy as emails and internet usage information can be accessed by the business at any time. We also have some very spcecific guidelines on acceptable usage and content for example, on offensive, derrogatory or illegal material, which is completely prohibited at all times.

We have asked every employee to sign an acknowledgement of receiving this policy document and also have a summary of the policy that an employee agrees to abide by, whenever they enter their passowrd to access the internet or email systems.

Hope this helps

Emma McAuley
Member - 9 posts

Surely this section of the application form was voluntary. Many organisations collect information about the demographics of their employees, workers and contractors to accurately measure the way their workforce represents the local communities in which they operate. The information in this case would be collected anonymously and not paried with the application.

As this information is not relevant to the job specifically, it would be highly irregular for any employer to request this as comulsory information to be considered alongside an employment application.

Emma McAuley
Member - 9 posts

Surely the article has just used a very low level example to highlight what could potentially be a bigger issue? I worked in several bars when I was a student and often put up with some quite scandalous comments from male customers, although admittidly I was a lot younger and less wise in those days.

If other bar workers (and this happens to males too!) feel they can work in an environment where they are not subjected to degrading comments from customers, surely this can only be a good thing?

I have often experienced what appears to be a physical miracle, where a bar worker without a low cut top or face full of make up has been capable of serving me a perfectly drinkable beverage. I must dig out the details of that bar........

Emma McAuley
Member - 9 posts

I would agree about the level of ignorance (or sometimes pure arrogance) that exists surrounding this issue. After completing some initial awareness work around using mobile phones whilst driving I was amazed to hear senior managers express beliefs that it is not unsafe to text on a mobile phone whilst driving and others steadfastly claiming that they have never been distracted from giving 100% concentration to their driving whilst taking or making a call on their mobile (handsfree or not).

We have taken the "drastic" measure to prohibit all mobile phone usage whilst driving for our employees, even using handsfree devices. Although this was initially an unpopular decision, it is proving that people can manage their time better if required and also giving people the space to concentrate on driving and taking more regular breaks (as checking phone messages has proved to be a more compelling reason than being tired!!)

I know that many people have the view that there is scaremongering going on about the potential for vicarious liability for organisations where an employee causes injury or death by dangerous driving when on business. I however, do not see it as very far fetched that someone may wish to prosecute or sue an organisation who permits unsafe driving practices and then tries to pass the buck when an employee runs someone over.

Emma McAuley
Member - 9 posts

We pay for an eye test bi-annually and contribute towards the cost of glasses (£50) for 'essential users' of VDUs and company car drivers who reuqire glasses for that particular use. Every employee conducts an individual self assessment annually to identify essential users and the expense claim is signed off by the manager.

I would think that if you have a policy at all, this should apply to both permanent and temporary workers so as not to be treating the temp work less favourably. If you have no policy, then you have nothing to apply and just need to make a decision about how you wish to proceed.