AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

EMPLOYER FINED FOR EMPLOYEE'S OFFENCE

23rd April 1948, Page 44
23rd April 1948
Page 44
Page 44, 23rd April 1948 — EMPLOYER FINED FOR EMPLOYEE'S OFFENCE
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?

AS a regular reader I wonder if you could obtain the

views of your readers regarding a court case in which I have ,recently been concerned. The reason for this is that all my trade acquaintances say that it is the first time they have heard of such a prosecution.

Recently I was charged, found guilty, and fined E3 for permitting an employee to drive a motor vehicle when his licence had expired two weeks before.

I claimed that when this employee was engaged. I satisfied myself that his licence was in order, and that thereafter I was not responsible if he failed to renew it. The court ruled that the employer was responsible for seeing that an employee's licence was in order at all times. " HEBRIDEs." Isle of Lewis.

[Employers are quite often summoned and fined in connection with offences committed by their employees in connection with their work, and we believe it is quite correct to say that an employer is expected,•in law, to take precautions to prevent such contraventions as that described, however unfair this may seem.—En.]

Tags


comments powered by Disqus