• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Parcel deliverer with diabetes fined for day off for doctor visit sadly dies

DCUK NewsBot

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,059
A courier driver with diabetes who was fined by his employers for taking time off for a hospital appointment has died. The widow of Don Lane, from Dorset, says her late husband feared taking time off to get care for his condition because of £150 penalties imposed by delivery firm DPD if he did not manage to get his round covered. Don, who was 53, was fined for taking a day off to see a doctor and also missed appointments with specialists because of the pressure imposed by the company, it has been reported by The Guardian. Ruth Lane, has criticised DPD for failing to honour its "duty of care". In a statement, DPD said it was "profoundly sorry" about the charges handed out. Last summer Don collapsed twice at the wheel of his work vehicle, with one of the episodes resulting in a diabetic coma, and then was fined in July because he attended an appointment about his diabetic retinopathy. He disputed this charge saying that he had informed the company months before. Don also collapsed in September and then December as he worked through the busy Christmas period. Don, who had worked for DPD for 19 years, sadly died on 4 January at the Royal Bournemouth Hospital. As well as Ruth, he has left behind a 22-year-old son. Speaking to The Guardian, Ruth said: "There was a constant threat of a fine. They had to deliver the parcels to tight slots and the pressure to get them done was huge. He was putting the company before his own health. He wasn't able to do his parcels first and make the hospital appointments, so he would cancel on the day. "He collapsed in January 2017 and they knew that because they collected his van. It was after that Don cancelled three appointments. DPD had a duty of care to make sure he got to those appointments, but they failed in it." DPD said it was "profoundly sorry" about the charge given in July but claimed there had been "confusion" about the incident. DPD said it had monitored Don's health in 2017 and that his route "was convenient for his hospital appointments". The company added: "In relation to Don's poor health at the end of December 2016 and into January 2017, we refute the claim that he was under pressure and threatened with a £150 charge." The company added that drivers "do not have to provide the service personally, and drivers have the option of providing a substitute driver in the event of sickness. Don was aware of the need to provide a substitute." Editor’s note: Employers have a requirement to make reasonable adjustments for diabetes appointments under the Equality Act 2010, and an employer should not put you in a situation either where you are disadvantaged because of your diabetes or your health is affected as a result. Picture: The Guardian

Continue reading...
 
Shame on them.
Taking advantage of a loyal employee. They don't deserve nice staff like that. BOO BOO!

Poor family
 
It's quite sad to read this (and even more sad that I don't find myself all that surprised). On the outside this company is one of the best at what they do in my dealings with them which raises the question in my head 'at what cost does the service and efficiency come'?

This could be partly to do with the industry (reminds me of City Link and some of the tales from their former staff) but I'd expect a large part is putting that all important profit on a pedestal over the employees that make it for the shareholders and upper management.
 
They were talking about this on Jeremy Vine on R2 yesterday - his wife was on and she sounded broken - I didn't listen to it all as son was in room and he started getting anxious thinking the same was going to happen to me so had to switch it over - very sad - the company declined to comment.
 
They should be FINED!
Disgrageful attitude towards frontline staff. Call me cynical but where was his union?
 
This is indeed very sad. Mr Lane's loyalty and responsibility to DPD and their Dickensian work demands have cost him his life. It raises the question as to whether we (society) have a hand in this by demanding 24-hr shopping and wanting purchases instantly. Where I live it is not unusual for Tesco and other companies to be delivering after 9.30pm, and also on late on Christmas Eve. It didn't seem as even one day had passed (Christmas Day) when delivery vans were out again. A chap from DPD called at the office last week with a parcel and was desperate to use our loo: judging by how long he took in there he must have been holding on for a long time - this is a well-known problem: never mind that the drivers don't have time to even eat and drink properly, going for hours without using the loo must wreak havoc on their systems. Hopefully the adverse publicity for DPD will begin to change things, although I doubt it - the desire for almost-instant purchase gratification will be extremely difficult to change.
 
I think you are right @Sue192 In that we share responsibility. In this instance it appears the 'gig' economy is at work again. He was not an employee, but a contractor. One that was required to wear a DPD uniform and rent a DPD liveried van from them. Hopefully the employment status of these people will soon be determined in their favour. In the meantime can I send my young nephew up chimneys?
 
Depends how arrogant their MD is, in my experience. They never make changes to benefit staff until they have to. Unions used to put that pressure on MDs to comply. Unions are unfashionable.......maybe they need to be more on-line and have forums?
 
Just saw your post.
Yes I totally agree too.
They need protecting too!
 
ickihun said:
Disgrageful attitude towards frontline staff. Call me cynical but where was his union?
Click to expand...

You're not being cynical. I highly doubt there is a union to call on - most of these drivers are technically self employed. It's a horrendous spiralling problem that isn't being satisfactorily addressed by government. There is room to be self employed legitimately in this country and do well. But by definition being accountable to the company and not themselves these people are not self employed. The gig economy is rotten.

It's been going on for so long now and is only getting worse as the companies involved learn new ways to squeeze the staff. See this article last year which provided a glimpse into the issues at DPD. They are taking the reputation hit for this right now but I'd bet this is at least industry wide.

Part of it is the expense and the willingness to jump on the cheapest offers for services. Who wouldn't get a service a bit cheaper if they could, right? You'd be mad to pay the extra that would go towards a salaried, properly employed worker. I think there are some exceptions in this industry (Royal Mail and UPS though I could be wrong).
 
Very shameful! Man’s inhumanity to his kind. May he rest in peace!
 
Employment law manipulators it seems.
Have always been inadequate as of why unions are needed and will always be needed. Thousands involved in unions, like an insurance policy in case you need employment right support.

Maybe an existing union needs to branch off?
 
My Libre sensors come via DPD (when I can afford them) perhaps Abbott should boycott them?
 
The company added that drivers "do not have to provide the service personally, and drivers have the option of providing a substitute driver in the event of sickness. Don was aware of the need to provide a substitute."

This is the bit that really shocked me! As if for some reason having a bully-boy arrangement like this makes their behaviour ok!! How on earth was he - or anyone else for that matter - supposed to find a substitute, and how much time would they need to find that person, and how much would it cost them, how much notice of impending illness should they give, etc. etc.

I'm surprised that these practices have not already been outlawed.


edit: typos
 
I work very independently and wouldn't dream of asking someone to 'fill in' for me. How many spare people are they who you can stick on your insurance and trust with your livelihood?
What a ridiculous clause in this day and age.
As if 'spare' people are just hanging around to help.

Or is it just me?
 
Well. They were one man down alright after that. They should have gave duty of care, idiots! What is this???? The 3rd world?
 
Corporate manslaughter. An example needs to be set here
 
Presumably the drivers know each other and swap shifts to cover absences. They use company vehicles so they would have company insurance.
 
This is complicated on very many levels.

  1. DPD are hiring people as self employed contractors. On that basis they are being very clear about some of the issues of "disguised employment". If you are self employed and providing a service then one thing you have to be able to do is supply an acceptable substitute if you cannot provide the service at any point. This is a big issue for IT contractors who are under great pressure to stop being contractors; their clients are under great pressure to treat them as employees (but ONLY for tax purposes) and deduct PAYE before the contractor is paid. A big battle ground at the moment for people trying to contract for the Civil Service. Requiring someone to provide a substitute is one of the key tests to decide if you are self employed under IR35.

    If you are truly self employed then you should either be able to provide an acceptable substitute, or accept any penalty you have previously agreed as part of your contract.

  2. However, if you are self employed and providing a service you should have flexibility in the way you provide the service. DPD are on shaky ground here because allegedly you have to work to their precise directions and wear their uniform. This tends to indicate that you are an employee.

  3. Either way, the moral issue is that DPD are not paying enough for the contractors to budget for unplanned days off including for sickness or injury.
    In IT the contractor rates are higher than the permanent employee rates specifically to provide a buffer for sickness and holidays. A contractor should also carry insurance for third party liability and if there isn't a reliable substitute should really have insurance against unforeseen absence. This costs more and the contract rate should reflect this. DPD are trying to pay minimum wage or less AND avoid all responsibility for sickness and holidays.

  4. One enormous thing that nobody seems to have mentioned so far; Don Lane should NOT have been driving. He had already collapsed at the wheel due to his diabetes and by all accounts he had poor control (which over time led to his tragic death). He should have notified the DVLA and his insurance and almost certainly he would have had his licence suspended because he was not safe to drive. I say again that he collapsed when driving. He could easily have killed somebody. DPD were also aware of this.

    So the full picture seems to be of someone who felt forced to ignore his health and also drive illegally to keep on earning. I would be interested to know if DPD are in any way liable for employing a contractor driver

Bottom line is that people should not be trapped in a contract which forces them to behave against their own best interest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…