Microlise system Options

[busman]

Can anyone with some legal knowledge,please tell me if the Microlise "Spy in the cab" system,as some call it, can be used in a disciplinary, or does the employer have to rely on the CCTV system that is installed?.Or can the employer use 1 or both systems?
I was on the understanding that the microlise system was to check on drivers standards of driving, not wether they missed part of a route or not.Would using the Microlise system as evidence be a breach of data protection etc?
I am sitting in on a disciplinary with a driver and the manager is using evidence from the microlise system against the driver,rather than using the CCTV footage.I am not clued up on the Microlise system,other than it is a "spy in the cab".
I heard there was an agreement between the management and union that the Microlise system was not to be use din disciplinaries.However,I can't find any written local agreement between both parties, so I assume it was either hearsay or a rumou.r
Any help would be greatly appreciated.

[Advertisement]

[Jlc]

Sketchy on the details but the system is a vehicle tracker - I don't necessarily see an issue with the data being used in the manner described. Presumably during the course of employment in regards to routes/stops etc?

One presumes the employer has covered themselves by having a policy on this - how the data is collected and used?

(This thread might get more response in the flamepit)

[fedup2]

I'm pretty sure they can use whatever evidence they have to discipline a driver. I would be very surprised to learn any firm having made a pact to not use an expensive system against its drivers if the need arose.
One firm I know uses it is DHL who also uses outfacing cameras in their cabs.
I know they use it to keep drivers in check,after all,drivers mistakes reflect on their O licence.
Nowadays though its not just a cab that's tracked ,trailers often are too so theres plenty of sources to use.

This post has been edited by fedup2: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 - 11:19

[kezzy]

A lot would depend on how the contract of employment was worded.

[emanresu]

Employment is a "contract" as kezzy says. They just need balance of probabilities (51%) rather than "beyond reasonable doubt". The threat of using the system is overkill as they could take any decision they want on BoP and most likely win in a tribunal.

What is the employee supposed to have done that the company would want to get so heavy handed. Or is it just a personal vendetta.

This post has been edited by emanresu: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 - 05:18

[busman]

The driver was supposed to have missed part of a route.There is a 6 cctv camera system on the bus,1 of them facing the road ahead.The cctv could easily have been used, but the manager decided to use the microlise report instead.

[Fredd]

The driver was supposed to have missed part of a route.There is a 6 cctv camera system on the bus,1 of them facing the road ahead.The cctv could easily have been used, but the manager decided to use the microlise report instead.

I can certainly see why drivers would get upset at having their driving style continuously analysed and critiqued. However just using position information logged by the telematics system does seem to be the most obvious, simplest and even least privacy-intrusive means of showing where their truck went.

[jdh]

Presumably the driver could use the CCTV footage in his defence if he believes the telematics are wrong or there was a particular reason why he missed part of a route?

[busman]

I got the matter sorted.Firstly the driver couldn't recall missing part of the bus route.Secondly,I noticed the customer complaint was dated 2017!.I argued that the manager couldn't use it as it was a False Statement.The manager said it was a typo error,and that he would still use it in the disciplinary, but I continued to argue that the passenger was saying the bus never arrived in 2017.Obviously not, unless the passenger can see into the future.Who was right, me declaring the statement was a false account or the manager saying it wa sjust a typo error?.It obviously wouldn't stand up in court.?

[The Rookie]

The manager was right IMO (and he could just go back and get a revised statement), and if it went to court it would stand up as the witness would be there in person and explain it as a typo which the court would accept. You could use the date error to challenge the accuracy of the recollection (or their recall ability) but it's not a slam dunk.