Another reason to boycott LIDL

[maxcherry]

How is this thread still going on? It makes no sense unless CTC is throwing a free for all 'Slander whoever and whatever' you want month

[TonyR]

FWIW, he pleaded guilty, so the case never went to a jury.

Not only that but the prosecution evidence will not have been heard, only the admission and mitigation in the guilty plea. I know of another case where a bus driver pleaded guilty to running over and killing a cyclist. The Court was told in his guilty plea that he had been under pressure with a new route he was unfamiliar with and the accident was a momentary lapse. He was sentenced on that basis. The Court never got to see the prosecution in cab camera evidence showing him not watching the road but talking with a passenger for 20s before the crash.

As for Frys being prosecuted I doubt it'll happen. I can't think of any cyclist death where the operator has been prosecuted despite some wire egregious behaviour. And as we all know in the minds of the police, CPS and Courts cyclist injury and death is just an unfortunate consequence of motoring.

[TonyR]

How is this thread still going on? It makes no sense unless CTC is throwing a free for all 'Slander whoever and whatever' you want month

I think you mean libel. And it's only libel if its untrue. Everything I've written (and AFAICS everything else in this thread) is backed up by evidence from the Court case and conviction or standard industry expectations. So there is no libel.

But why are you so keen to stifle the debate about the causes of and responsibilities for the deaths of two cyclists? Do you have some undeclared link with Lidl?

[Graham]

. . . despite some wire egregious behaviour.

what.

[Edwards]

I am curious to know exactly how Lidl could audit the hours worked by a driver for a sub contractor?

[thirdcrank]

...Not only that but the prosecution evidence will not have been heard, only the admission and mitigation in the guilty plea. ...

I don't think that this bit is right. In the event of a guilty plea, although witnesses are not normally called, the prosecution gives a speech outlining all the main evidence in the case; this is particularly important with regard to the sentencing guidelines. The prosecution is also responsible for providing information about the defendant's antecedents eg convictions. Victim impact statements are also read, although there's some doubt about the effect they have. Before a custodial sentence can be imposed, the court also has to have a report from the probation service on the suitability of the defendant for different types of sentence. It's only when all that info has been given that the defence get their go. They can wax lyrical, of course, and cynical claims of remorse are one of my bugbears here, but I don't think anybody is sentenced in the Crown Court without the evidence in the case being aired.

[Vorpal]

I am curious to know exactly how Lidl could audit the hours worked by a driver for a sub contractor?

They can ask to see employee records, driver logbooks, number of working hours paid, etc.

Very often there is a contractual clause that requires a subcontractor to produce such documents upon request.

Some companies even have policies and procedure requiring such audits. I work for a company that requires HSE audits for suppliers of critical parts & services.

We don't usually examine large numbers of employee records. Instead, we ensure that there is a system regulating such things as safe working hours, ergonomincs, training & certification, permit to work, safe lifting, etc. then, we follow a few document trails, selected at random to ensure that they do what their procedures say.

If a company makes a habit of overworking their employees, or violating legal requirements it will rapidly become apparent. they will be given some opportunity for improvement before they are removed form the approved supplier list.

It is not a process that is likely to uncover an single instance of violation, but that sort of thing is seldom a one-off.

Also, it is possible to do more in-depth examinations. This often occurs after a violation or non-comformance has occurred. I would say that in this case, it would be justified.

Boycotting Lidl, probably won't do anything. Writing to them and asking them to take action, on the hand, might have some effect.

[Mick F]

Who else do Fry's deliver for other than Lidl's?
Should all the other companies they deliver to stop using them?
Should Fry's go out of business?

[TonyR]

. . . despite some wire egregious behaviour.

what.

That's automatic speeling collection for you. Quite egregious:wink:

[Nanook]

As I retired Health and Safety Advisor I can categorically state that Lidl has a duty in law to check the safety performance of their contractors. Look here http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg368.pdf
and tell me that Lidl had no responsibility for the safety standards of their carrier.

[Mick F]

........... but who else do Fry's deliver for?
If you blame Lidl, you must blame the other companies too.

Can one bad driver put a whole company out of business?

[Edwards]

As I retired Health and Safety Advisor I can categorically state that Lidl has a duty in law to check the safety performance of their contractors. Look here http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg368.pdf
and tell me that Lidl had no responsibility for the safety standards of their carrier.

I have read the linked leaflet and could see no mention of auditing individual employees of sub contractors. Provided it has been agreed that Lidl do not have the expertise in the transport of goods and supervision of the drivers.
It can be agreed that the area of expertise is the responsibility of the transport company and the supervision of their drivers (unless agency) is not the direct responsibility of Lidl.

Their duty of care is to agree to procedures not directly enforce them as they do not have the expertise nor competence in the field of transport.

The above is my opinion and not a basis for a legal argument.

[Vorpal]

They don't need expertise in transport.

But they have a duty of care to ensure that their subcontractors do have that expertise.

They just need to ask questions like: what do they do to ensure that drivers meet the legal requirements for working hours? Or what HSE training do they provide to employees? Or what written policies do they have to cover driver tiredness?

They also don't have to audit. It may be enough, in some cases to know that a subcontractor has a 3rd party certification (e.g. ISO 9000) and has provided their procedures.

Lidl don't have to supervise the drivers, just ensure that they are adequately supervised.

[TonyR]

I have read the linked leaflet and could see no mention of auditing individual employees of sub contractors. Provided it has been agreed that Lidl do not have the expertise in the transport of goods and supervision of the drivers.
It can be agreed that the area of expertise is the responsibility of the transport company and the supervision of their drivers (unless agency) is not the direct responsibility of Lidl.

Their duty of care is to agree to procedures not directly enforce them as they do not have the expertise nor competence in the field of transport.

The above is my opinion and not a basis for a legal argument.

I'm amazed at how you can read that into the document. Nelson's Eye really is strong here.

[TrevA]

Perhaps we should boycott Asda too ?

A few years ago, a lorry driver working for an Asda sub-contractor ran down a cyclist from behind on the A50 south of Derby. He was found to be over his hours and excessively tired.