1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188 
Why operators should welcome the Driver CPC
Page 28
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
AS AN employment law specialist of some 10 years' experience, whose practice has a particular focus on the road transport industry, it was with great interest that I read the item in your 5 October edition entitled New I ,G1/ drivers will have to pay Pr CPCs.
While technically transport lawyer James Backhouse is correct in stating that a specific clause would need to he inserted into a new driver's contract of employment reserving the right for their employer to claw hack training costs before any such deductions could be made from their final salary. I do have some concerns as to how such advice sits as a matter of both good employment and operator practice.
My initial thoughts are that such deductions are often challenged in the courts or tribunals by aggrieved ex-employees, and the cost of fighting such proceedings often outweighs the amount the employer is seeking to claim.Also, it is worth bearing in mind that the employer is likely to end up bearing their own costs in defending such proceedings.This means that the only people who will win are the lawyers.
But my main concern is that if the incorporation of such provisions in driverscontracts were to become commonplace. what sort of signals would this send out to new drivers seeking employment? What would it say about how drivers are valued as employees, or about operators' attitudes to
compulsory training requirements generally? Ultimately this may deter drivers entering the industry at all at a time when operators are having difficulty attracting new blood.
Given that the new Driver CPC does represent a compulsory training requirement,1 wonder whether I am alone in thinking that all good operators ought to be welcoming it as part of their ongoing commitment to training. Especially when it will have an undoubted commercial benelit to their business as well as the industry generallyby attracting new drivers, helping existing drivers achieve improved levels of professionalism and road safety. and reducing fuel consumption and emissions through better driving techniques.
I would he interested to hear what other readers think.
Julian Cox Partner and head of road transport group Hextalls LIP London