MORE INDUSTRY NEWS...
most recent
|
most popular
MORE TECHNICAL NEWS...
most recent
|
most popular
RELATED STORIES...
most recent
|
most popular
COMMENTED STORIES...
most recent
|
most popular


By Brad Gardner | December 15, 2009

K&S has been given until Christmas Eve to file a defence against claims it should not be able to charge drivers for damaging company vehicles.

In a case that has the potential to affect large parts of the industry, the Transport Workers Union wants the Federal Court to overturn the operator’s policy of deducting money from a driver who negligently damages a truck.

According to the TWU, a company should not be able to take an employee’s pay because insurance should cover any damage caused.

“They have to file their defence by December 24,” a TWU spokesman says.

While not mentioning a specific date, the spokesman says the case is due to be heard in February 2010.

Holding a press conference last month, TWU National Secretary Tony Sheldon said K&S’ policy must not continue or it would set a precedent for other industries.

“This is the same as a bank blaming their employees if a computer or a chair breaks and then deducting their pay to pay for it. It is totally unreasonable,” he told the media.

The union launched legal action after negotiations between the group and K&S earlier this year failed to reach a compromise.

K&S Managing Director Legh Winser previously declined to comment when contacted by ATN.


COMMENTS (5)
Comment by Unknown
posted 7 months ago
All previous comments are obviously by bosses that push drivers. K&S and most companies don't want professional drivers. They hire bosses who hire cowboy suck holes as drivers. K&S' policy, it's bulls*&t.If you are a driver and a tyre blows you must stop straight away, not move to a safe place to change the tyre. It is the reason the driver in the Melbourne tunnel stopped because he did not want to pay for any damage done to the trailer. If he moved it out of the tunnel then someone else is charged over the deaths of people.

Editor's note: comment has been edited.
Comment by 16775332
posted 7 months ago
This is to do with either pure neglect or laziness where an incident could have been easily avoided. Eg too lazy to secure the load with gates, binders or ropes. Proven to left equipment at unload reload locations. Holes in cutains and roof because they can't be bothered. What about those that run engines etc on the computer over ride to continue the journey and destroy and engine. Sure nobody wants to be on the side of the road but when is abuse abuse and liability comes into play. What share of the Insurance Excess is fair. If a driver claims to be a professional driver and are paid accordingly why shouldn't they be liable?
Comment by Unknown
posted 7 months ago
Isn't "negligently" the key word in this article? And aren't we each responsible for our own acts of negligence in life? - so, what makes this particular situation different ????? Surely the fair answer is not "an employment contract"?
Comment by 16952
posted 7 months ago
it's about time that drivers are held accountable for damage they could have avoided. We spend a lot of money and time on training and a lot of drivers do not care because we just keep paying!
Comment by 71809
posted 7 months ago
Good on you K&S...please keep going with this so that one day the slack drivers will be held accountable for the damage they do. Also the TWU needs to know that we don't live in Wonderland and that insurance does not always cover the cost of this damage particularly when the damage is less than the Insurance Excess.

Add Comment
SUBMIT COMMENT
Sunday, August 01, 2010