Watch your back ends
Page 60
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
by Les Oldridge. TEng (CEI) MIMI, AMIRTE
A FAIR AMOUNT of legislation passed in recent years is aimed at making commercial vehicles more readily seen both by day and by night. Reflectors, additional lamps, reflective rear markings and marker boards for protruding loads are all examples of devices now required by law to make vehicles more conspicuous. In this " markings" series I will review the law concerning this subject, and examine each of the requirements in turn.
The law relating to reflective rear markings is contained in the Motor Vehicles (Rear Markings) Regulations 1970 (as amended). The Regulations require that all goods vehicles over 3 tons unladen weight and all trailers over 1 ton unladen weight be fitted with reflective rear markings except for following vehicles trailers caravans under 2 tons unladen weight; agricultural vehicles; industrial tractors; works trucks or trailers; vehicles in unfinished condition travelling to a works for completion or to a place where they are to be stored or displayed for sale; tractor portions of artics; broken down vehicles being towed in consequence of breakdowns; engineering plant; trailers drawn by PSV; fire engines, vehicles designed for servicing or controlling aircraft; car transporters which can carry two or more motor vehicles or two or more boats; vehicles travelling to a place for export; vehicles visiting this country from overseas; vehicles of the armed services; vehicles first used before January 1, 1940; vehicles for tar spraying or trailers used for the production of asphalt, bituminous or tar macadam.
There are two types of markings; type A (my description) alternating red fluorescent and yellow reflective diagonal strips; and type B—a central yellow reflective panel overprinted with the words "Long Vehicle" and having a red fluorescent surround. Motor vehicles under 13 metres long (just under 42ft Sin) and trailers which in combination do not exceed 11 metres (just under 36ft lin) must be fitted with type A markings fitted horizontally. Where the construction of the vehicle makes this impossible then markings like type A, but fixed vertically, may be used. Vehicles over 13 metres long must carry the "Long Vehicle" markings. Trailer combinations between 11 metres and 13 metres may fit either type of markings.
Durable parts
Markings must be in the form of durable plates stamped with the mark BS AU 152. Markers painted directly on the vehicle
will not comply with the regulations. The lower edge of the markings must be horizontal and between 400mm (lft 31in) and 1700mm (just under 5ft 7in) from the ground whether the vehicle is laden or unladen. In those cases where two markers are used they must both be at the same height from the ground, in line with each other and each the same distance from the centre of the vehicle and as close to its edge as possible. Single markings must be centred on the vehicle.
Where a load obscures reflective markings the markings may be fitted on the rear of the load, The markings must be maintained in a clean and efficient condition so that they are clearly visible. There is a special dispensation for vehicles being loaded or unloaded, when, for example, the tailboard obscures them
Whichever method is adopted by the chairman of the Tribunal that decision is merely informative; the actual Tribunal decision is given in writing and will be marked with the date upon which that decision is entered in the Tribunal's register. Any consideration of an appeal must be taken within the time limit which runs from the date that the decision is recorded as having been entered.
Following the abolition of the National Industrial Relations Court, which had the duties of an appeal court so far as the decisions of Tribunals were concerned, appeals had to go to a division of the High Court. The immediate effect of that was to make the cost of appeals so great that, for employers at least, the circumstances in which an appeal might properly be considered were limited by economic factures.
The new Act, the Employment Protection Act, recreates an appeal court which is as accessible to the parties as is the Tribunal, Those sections of the new Act have not yet been brought into effect but it is probable that they will be within the fairly near future, particularly as it is clearly consistent with the general intention of this legislation that the appeal Tribunal should be accessible as the regional Tribunal.
In conclusion therefore, reviewing the two articles, we can say this. The provisions relating to unfair dismissal and the subsequent reference of cases to the Tribunals reflect the trend of modern legislation to impose upon management and those responsible for the welfare of employees fairly strict guide-lines how their affairs shall be conducted in the form of legislation. As we saw, dismissal is not difficult provided that not only are the grounds for the dismissal fair but also that the manner in which the dismissal is carried out itself fair.
It follows from this that, as I have already said, the Tribunal will not be prejudiced against any employer but will, as it is entitled to do, expect the employer to have conducted himself in relation to the employee in a proper manner. If the employer has done so arid if the employer puts to the Tribunal in a clear manner the evidence that is necessary to assist the Tribunal to form the view that the employer has acted in a responsible manner the Tribunal will find that the dismissal was fair.
The employer will only lose his case if the reason for the dismissal was invalid or if the method in which he set about terminating the employee's contract was in itself unfair and if that is so then he, the employer, can hardly complain that the Tribunal was prejudiced against him.
The only imbalance that arises under the present legislation flows from the difficult question regarding costs. The fact that there is no provision for awarding costs against an unsuccessful employee or against an unsuccessful employer results from the anxiety of those creating the legislation that employees should not be inhibited from making claims because the employer could utilise a greater financial resource with a view to winning the case. It is clear that this situation can be criticised and equally the reasoning behind that legislative view is understandable. And it is not at all easy, if not impossible, to arrive at a situation in which employees who bring cases merely to cause trouble can be checked without damaging the right of employees generally to bring cases to the Tribunal.
An employee who does not have a good case will not succeed. Additionally, the Tribunals have an important decision enabling them to reduce the amount of any award by the extent an employee has contributed to his dismissal. In appropriate cases they can, and do, find a contribution of 100 per cent.
It seems probable that the legislation that we now have will remain with us for very many years subject only to those amendments which follow naturally from changes in attitudes towards employment. Management must accept this fact and must now reappraise its internal attitude to create a managementemployee relationship that reflects the current legislation.