AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Like it or not, we're al in the risk business

12th September 1981
Page 24
Page 25
Page 24, 12th September 1981 — Like it or not, we're al in the risk business
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

But there are ways to weed out the inveti rate black sheep from your business right the start, as lain Sherriff explains

)W MANY of your employees n you really trust? An offen,e question you may say, beuse you know your people as ill as you know your own

But do you?

erhaps they joined you in tter times, those halcyon days plenty when financial ?.ssures were not as great and ession was just a barely icernible speck on the horizon. hen you engaged them rhaps their domestic and your siness circumstances were ferent,

3ecurity, like road safety, is an erhead too many garages igre. Theft happens to others, 3 the operator who employed vo good lads" and always had )eer with them at the end of day. They had a real family ationship and entertained the ss and his wife regularly.

)nly after three years did the erator discover he was "being d over" — and it cost him £10,000. The men were charged and found guilty. They were sacked but because the operator had failed to follow proper dismissal procedures, he had to pay compensation. He never did get the £10,000 back.

Security should be borne in mind at the first interview. Every prospective employee is a security risk, but seldom do we find this taken into consideration.

What seems more important is that they have the necessary qualifications — a time-served apprenticeship, good typing speeds, a clean hgv licence, book-keeping and wages experience, or whatever.

At that crucial first interview, get to know as much of the applicant's past as you can, and try to encourage him to talk, Try to elicit a complete breakdown of previous employers and always suspect gaps in the employment record. Only members of Equity "rest" between shows. Armed with the names of the previous employers, a phone call asking "Would you, if you could, re-employ?" needs only a yes or no. This can be followed up with a request for further information about the candidate. If there is any doubt about the best course of action, the best course of action is no action.

Drivers present the greatest potential risk. This is not to suggest in any way that drivers are more prone to dishonesty, far from it. But the driver suffers the greatest temptation; once out of the yard the vehicle, the fuel, the cargo are all his.

There are surprisingly few vehicle thefts or load pilferages, but as times get more difficult the rate is likely to rise. So beware the "inslde job".

When a prospective emplo) comes along, it is no bad thin he is introduced by somec who has been with the emplo. for a period of years. The hand is unlikely to put his job the line.

If a direct recommendat isn't available, previous, e ployers must be contacted and not only by phone. Not the first time an interviewee given the name and phc number of a previous emplo. who give a good phone rei ence.

The applicant gains the bos confidence, he gets the hi value loads and then load, . driver and "previous employE disappear.

The real answer to a charac. reference is through as ma sources as possible. A Justice the Peace, a clergyman and visit to the previous employ even a word with the local Crif prevention officer.

This may sound a lot of wo but it's nothing to the aggraN tion of losing a load and, mc than likely, contract as well.

What about traffic staff? It's old trick for a sub-contractor supply three vehicles to the pri cipal contractor and charge f four. The "bent" traffic clE passes the invoice and splits t revenue for the ghost vehic with the "subbie".

The operator who lost £10,0 and unfair dismissal compens tion suffered just that way. Or the eagle eye of an intellige senior clerk spotted they ft hired more trailers than they r quired for the tonnage movE An external auditor, who chec the books quarterly, will discc rage any similar trick being tri. again.

Other potential areas of pill rage are cash payments, pel cash floats, fuel consumptii id spares. Fuel consumption iould be checked regularly, id in any event not less than ice a week. Both the weekly id progressive consumption iould be checked. It is also ?.cessary to know the vehcile et tank content at the beginng and end of the week.

Vehicles should not be lowed to stand out with full nks and tanks should be low in el at the weekend. At £1.60 a 3lion, a loss of 30 gallons a eek means a loss of nearly ?,500 a year. This figure repretnts a lot of hours of paid work. Fast-moving parts means, in Jr terms, those used regularly

quickly to keep the vehicles the road. Too often they are )rts taken by employees for priite weekend jobs. It is essential have a stores control system hich can be spot-checked once week.

Tyre records are not a luxury, ey are an essential control. ley record the life of tyres from until they are scrapped. fres carry a serial number, and any security and cost-minded )erators highlight the number the sidewall with yellow tyre ralk so that it, in seconds, can checked against the record rd at the end of each week.

It's a simple matter to change wheel carrying a new tyre and swop it for a part-worn cover. It is lust as simple, and less costly, to keep records.

Look out for receipts for fuel and food. The receipt without an official stamp should be treated with caution if not suspicion, and it is worth checking that it was issued at a place where the employee was supposed to be at the time. Petty cash floats are also a source of temptation. To overcome this, employees could be given advance expenses — for which they should sign and subsequently account, by receipt, of course.

Taken together, these points add up to potentially lucrative circumstances for the petty thief and a potentially costly business for the employer.

Employees are not the only risk area; employers themselves have also been known to "beat the system" — after all it's h money, or is it? Back in the goo (or perhaps bad) old days In heard of one operator who di so, very profitably.

He supplied tippers to a larg building contract. He sent th vehicles in early, before the sit office was open. The runner went in the front gate, made ft the back gate, and towed th non-runners on to the site when they were scattered about th jobs.

Later in the day he drove u and checked the vehicles on th job with the agent. He was paid day rate on the basis of th number of vehicles on site.

Of course, the drivers knel what was going on and had t be paid hush money. By the employer's example, they dE signed their own "fiddles", an even when this was discovere it was impossible to dismis them. The boss now lived undE the threat of exposure.

To take another example, a rE gular quarterly visit by the loci police crime prevention officE can be no bad thing. In one cas brought to our notice, a conr pany storing domestic applicE nces was unable to trace stoc deficiencies. The officer visite the company, walked rount made notes, and advised th company on a few procedun points. The pilferage continued The officer returned at regul intervals on a walkabout, an the pilferage ceased. It appeare that his presence was enough t deter the culprits.

All this may seem to some t be taking things too far. It ma be employers are very securit conscious and employees abov suspicion. But might it not b wise to check security system — just in case?

Tags

Organisations: Equity

comments powered by Disqus