Is this contract term reasonable?

[CLX]

The section under 'Deductions' about the potential cost of damage. It's for a lorry driver. Thoughts?


Thanks in advance.

[Jasandjules]

Reasonable in what way?

No-one has to agree to it.

[Peter911]

As a layman, I would say it is.

[CLX]

Jasandjules said:

Reasonable in what way?

No-one has to agree to it.

It's for a new job my son has. He's concerned about potentially big costs.

Are you saying he could simply not agree to this term and ask them to remove it?

[Muzzer79]

I assume you’re referring to the damage part?

In my experience, drivers usually receive a bonus for not damaging the equipment, not penalties for (arguably inevitable) bumps.

Also, it specifies “deemed to be your own fault”
Deemed by whom? This could be a problem as anything could be pinned on the driver.

Plenty of driving jobs out there…..

[CLX]

Muzzer79 said:

I assume you’re referring to the damage part?

In my experience, drivers usually receive a bonus for not damaging the equipment, not penalties for (arguably inevitable) bumps.

Also, it specifies “deemed to be your own fault”
Deemed by whom? This could be a problem as anything could be pinned on the driver.

Plenty of driving jobs out there…..

Thanks. Yes. the damage bit. Problem is he's already started this job and quite likes it. He's just been given his contract to sign.

[Macneil]

I would ask for it to be removed and if not seek other work. Speaks volumes about the attitude of the employer.
What will happen if he clips a mirror, or some rookie stacker driver puts a dent in the body? And how does a lorry driver end up owing his employer money?

It's just wear and tear on the vehicle and the company ought to be budgeting for that. Where I worked they were very tolerant of good drivers having the odd mishap but persistent liabilities soon got the sack.

[CLX]

Macneil said:

I would ask for it to be removed and if not seek other work. Speaks volumes about the attitude of the employer.
What will happen if he clips a mirror, or some rookie stacker driver puts a dent in the body? And how does a lorry driver end up owing his employer money?

It's just wear and tear on the vehicle and the company ought to be budgeting for that. Where I worked they were very tolerant of good drivers having the odd mishap but persistent liabilities soon got the sack.

Thanks, that's kind of what I was thinking

[onetwothreefour]

I think there’s a mistake in that damage sentence. (“Of” doesn’t make sense).

I know nothing about the industry but a reasonable employer shouldn’t get defensive when asked about their contract. Also bear in mind that the company may have had that contract written for them years ago and no one really understands what it means or why it’s written that way, and it has never been relied upon, or it might be a sentence that every driver in the firm has had used against them - might be worth chatting with another driver to see what they say about it?

If no one has ever noticed it and people get minor dings and the company has never done anything about it, he might want to take the risk that that is established practice. If everyone says that it’s regularly used, then I’d suggest he queries it , offers to strike it out and sign the amended version (with the strike out initialled) in the interests of time. Or, he could ask for it to be clarified in writing. And amended to make sense and be more reasonable.

[CLX]

onetwothreefour said:

I think there’s a mistake in that damage sentence. (“Of” doesn’t make sense).

I know nothing about the industry but a reasonable employer shouldn’t get defensive when asked about their contract. Also bear in mind that the company may have had that contract written for them years ago and no one really understands what it means or why it’s written that way, and it has never been relied upon, or it might be a sentence that every driver in the firm has had used against them - might be worth chatting with another driver to see what they say about it?

If no one has ever noticed it and people get minor dings and the company has never done anything about it, he might want to take the risk that that is established practice. If everyone says that it’s regularly used, then I’d suggest he queries it , offers to strike it out and sign the amended version (with the strike out initialled) in the interests of time. Or, he could ask for it to be clarified in writing. And amended to make sense and be more reasonable.

Thanks. Useful ideas. There are a few other grammatical errors throughout actually!

[Neddy Sea Goon]

I'd want to know the size of the insurance excess before agreeing to that Claude

[CLX]

Neddy Sea Goon said:

I'd want to know the size of the insurance excess before agreeing to that Claude

Good point

[snuffy]

Forget the fact that we are talking about a lorry here.

I've never had a contract that said I was liable for any damage caused by me to company property, and in this case the lorry is company property.

I would not be signing a contract that said that. If it was wilful damage then it becomes a disaplinary matter of course, but that's a different thing.

[Sheepshanks]

snuffy said:

Forget the fact that we are talking about a lorry here.

I've never had a contract that said I was liable for any damage caused by me to company property, and in this case the lorry is company property.

I would not be signing a contract that said that. If it was wilful damage then it becomes a disaplinary matter of course, but that's a different thing.

I had one with a company car - was part of the drivers' handbook. Company had £1000 excess on the cars and the deal was you paid up to £500 for the first incident where the cost couldn't be recovered and £1000 for subsequent incidents, per year.

I thought it was pretty outrageous that they should expect employees to cover the cost of the excess that they'd chosen in order to save money on premiums. I refused to sign it and they said if I didn't, I couldn't drive the car and therefore wouldn't have a job. So I signed "under duress" and vowed I would never pay. A family member who at the time acted for companies in empoyment law matters said it's very dodgy asking employees to pay while at work although more debatable if "off duty".

In 17yrs with the firm I never had an at fault accident. In practice it was one those "if your face fitted" type of things - most people didn't get charged but a few did. A couple of times I had car park damage and they covered the cost without querying it.

[CLX]

snuffy said:

Forget the fact that we are talking about a lorry here.

I've never had a contract that said I was liable for any damage caused by me to company property, and in this case the lorry is company property.

I would not be signing a contract that said that. If it was wilful damage then it becomes a disaplinary matter of course, but that's a different thing.

Yes, I've never seen or heard of it before

[CLX]

Sheepshanks said:

I had one with a company car - was part of the drivers' handbook. Company had £1000 excess on the cars and the deal was you paid up to £500 for the first incident where the cost couldn't be recovered and £1000 for subsequent incidents, per year.

I thought it was pretty outrageous that they should expect employees to cover the cost of the excess that they'd chosen in order to save money on premiums. I refused to sign it and they said if I didn't, I couldn't drive the car and therefore wouldn't have a job. So I signed "under duress" and vowed I would never pay. A family member who at the time acted for companies in empoyment law matters said it's very dodgy asking employees to pay while at work although more debatable if "off duty".

In 17yrs with the firm I never had an at fault accident. In practice it was one those "if your face fitted" type of things - most people didn't get charged but a few did. A couple of times I had car park damage and they covered the cost without querying it.

I think I'll suggest he asks them about removing it. See if we get the same reaction. Thanks

[southendpier]

CLX said:

Yes, I've never seen or heard of it before

Seems a little unfair, is he the only one ever uses that vehicle? Although we ask do employees to pay for stuff they could deliberately break - eg smashing a computer monitor. No one ever does it and no claims are made but the principle is there.

Your son could show good faith, agree to it. and also to cap the cost. Per provable claim by them, quarterly @ £5 - done. Just to highlight how silly it is.

Someone once told me when negotiating contracts to always remember who has deeper pockets.

[Largechris]

Personally I wouldn't worry about it. It's just a wording they are using probably to cover themselves if the odd employee goes Tonto and starts smashing things up, or driving like an idiot.

The actual liability wouldn't be all that big, deducting from one from week or one month's wage, at which point your son would quit the job anyway. Which it won't come to.

[MYOB]

How about the section about automatically deducting the amount from his pay? Does this means if, for example, his monthly pay is £3K and he causes damages of £6K, he will work for 2 months with no salary?

If so, I’m pretty sure that’s illegal under Employment Relations law of some description.

[Largechris]

MYOB said:

How about the section about automatically deducting the amount from his pay? Does this means if, for example, his monthly pay is £3K and he causes damages of £6K, he will work for 2 months with no salary?

If so, I’m pretty sure that’s illegal under Employment Relations law of some description.

Having been through the system a couple of times, there is case law along the lines of "employees cannot generally be held responsible for the losses of the employer" which I had considered but not sure it's exactly the same as in this case.

As I say, I think the term is there more to cover wanton vandalism rather than day to day practice.