Home Menu Search

Staff that fail to provide personal safe-driving data could face legal action

8 May 2009

Employees who fail to comply with their employer’s best practice approach to occupational road risk management could find themselves in court, says a legal expert and adviser to Driving for Better Business campaign backer Fleet Support Group.

Many companies have highlighted that they are meeting vehement employee protests when asking for personal information and vehicle data - particularly in relation to privately-owned vehicles driven on business - when introducing at-work driving safety measures.

Some organisations using Fleet Support Group’s RiskMaster occupational road risk management have introduced their own ‘get tough’ policies in a bid to ensure employees sign-up to obtain a Permit to Drive. They include:

  • WHSmith and the OyezStraker Group refusing to pay mileage expenses
  • The Labour Party banning employees from driving on business
  • Other organisations refusing drivers’ permission to hire a car

However, employees who continue to evade their employer’s safe driving policies and procedures could find themselves charged under the 1974 Health and Safety at Work Act if they are involved in a crash.

Section seven of the 1974 Health and Safety at Work Act says that all employees have a duty while at work to:

  • Take reasonable care for the health and safety of themselves and others who may be affected by their acts or omissions at work
  • Co-operate with their employer or any other person, so far as is necessary, to enable their employer or other person to perform or comply with any requirement or duty imposed under a relevant statutory provision

Kevin Basnett, a specialist employment lawyer and partner in west country-based Goughs Solicitors and an adviser to FSG, said: “Individual members of staff have an obligation to keep themselves safe.

“Staff who have been consistently asked by their employer to comply with reasonable requests for information to enable them to meet their best practice compliance obligations and are then involved in a crash, perhaps because they are using a mobile phone, could be prosecuted under the Act.”

Prosecutions can be carried out in either a Magistrates’ Court or the Crown Court. Employees found guilty under the Act in a Magistrates’ Court could be punished with a maximum £5,000 fine or 12 months jail or both. In the Crown Court the maximum sentence is two years jail, an unlimited fine or both.

Fleet Support Group chairman Geoffrey Bray said: “Opposition to measures to improve road safety among at-work drivers must be overcome. We need to change some employees’ attitudes towards road safety. Compliance with all company policies and procedures should be written into employment contracts.”

Mr Basnett added: “The legislation is something that companies are not using in a bid to ensure that employees provide the required information. However, it is a law businesses should use to ensure compliance.

“Boards of directors should ask themselves who is running the company; they or their employees? Firms must explain the rationale behind the safe driving measures they want to introduce and firmly regulate the process involved. If employees still fail to conform then more drastic steps should be taken including disciplinary measures.”

Some of the biggest employee protests have come at heavily unionised employers, but the TUC backs occupational road risk management.

A TUC advice document says: “Work-related road safety must be a higher priority for employers and be integrated into employers’ arrangements for managing health and safety at work. Employers need to control work-related road risks and by doing so could save hundreds of lives every year.”

Public service trade union Unison overcame concerns through a series of meetings and regular communications and has successfully introduced RiskMaster.

Ian Smith, who introduced the initiative at Unison and is also now an adviser to FSG, said: “The TUC view is important because many businesses are unionised. Employees should be reminded of the TUC view and the fact that the union they belong to is affiliated to the TUC which supports occupational road risk management.”

Related news, events and information

Local union officials stand in way of public sector safe driving focus

9 December 2009 – Demand from local authorities for help in managing their at-work drivers is rising but resistance is being met...

Companies sleepwalk into cash crisis as they fail to appreciate cost of road crashes

12 December 2008 – Road traffic crashes in Britain costbillions of poundslast year with much of the cost borne by businesses in...

Driving for Better Business partner takes ‘Permit to Drive’ message to Labour Party conference

22 August 2008 – Employees at the Labour Party now have to qualify for a 'Permit to Drive' from managers before they are allowed...

Safety failings cost businesses hundreds of thousands of pounds

6 June 2010 – Cutting costs is often a priority for fleet decision makers, but new analysis by Fleet Support Group shows how...

Prison looms for senior staff in breach of health and safety rules under new law

12 June 2009 – There are likely to be more convictions for breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act following the...

New law means jail for managers who ignore health and safety rules

28 November 2008 – Rogue company directors and managers - including fleet operators - that turn a blind eye to occupational road...


16 June 2008 – Any employer with employees who drive - even just occasionally - for work purposes is responsible for their...

The Metropolitan Police supports Driving for Better Business Campaign.

15 October 2010 – A failure by employers and drivers to comply with at-work driving legislation can prove a nightmare resulting...


16 June 2008 – Employees driving their own cars on business are a potential health and safety timebomb for employers, says...