Employer Requires Employees Use Own Vehicles

Donna Banker · March 2004

I need HR laws or regs and can't seem to find what I am looking for.

We have always required our branch employees to bring the evening teller work to the Main Bank each evening so Proof will have it first thing in the morning. One day a week the supervisor on duty is required to bring over the work due to the two tellers scheduled with him (one is under 21 and one is a pregnant employee - another section to my request for info). The supervisor is refusing to bring the work to the Main Bank (10 miles) because it is in the opposite direction from his home and it will delay the time he gets home. He is salary but on the clock. We pay for the time he or any other employee takes to come to the Main Bank and also pay for mileage. Is it unreasonable - or legal - for us to require that it is part of their job duties to bring the work to the Main Bank?

Each employee uses his/her personal vehicle for transportation of the work - hence the paying of mileage. The pregnant employee also is refusing to transport the work since a few months ago (before pregnancy) she was in an accident while going to the Post Office to pick up the branch's mail, and the bank would not pay her deductible for the fender bender. Again is it reasonable or legal for us to require employees use their personal vehicles for going to the post office, transporting work, etc.? We have never had anyone else refuse to do this and I have been here 30 years.

If the employer requires employees use their own vehicles for these purposes, is any extra insurance required either from the employer or employee?

Thanks for your assistance.

Hunter1 · March 2004

Yes, you can require (unless state law prohibits it) employees to do errands with their own vehicles. As long as you pay them for their time and its part of their job responsibilities. Ever see an ad for a paper route or pizza delivery person: 'must have reliable transportation'? Your employees are being insubordinate if they refuse to do what their supervisor tells them to do and should be subject to fairly major discipline.
You should require that employees provide proof of insurance if they use their own cars, but I think a lot of employers don't do that.

Pork · March 2004

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 03-04-04 AT 03:59PM (CST)[/font][br][br]DONNA BANKER: As a customer of banking and a watcher of stock markets, I am for one appalled at a bank using it's ees and their personal vehicles to accomplish bank work!!! Not only is your banking enterprise making money off of every penny put in the bank, but for 30 years the bank has also put the squeeze on it's employees for additional resources on which to make even more money and make the numerouse VICE-PRESIDENTS/PERSIDENTS/BRANCH MANAGERS ETC. EVEN MORE MONEY. If you have put up with that kinda HOG WASH for 30 years be proud of your dedication and enjoy your job security.

Not only pay for the milage but also the time to get from one branch to whereever. A true EXEMPT employee should be made to continue work after hours and travel in his personal vehicle for the compensation for his position of power is in his salary. As an EXEMPT person my self, I am never off duty, but if I use my personal vehicle to accomplish company work the company is more than willing to pay for my expense, regardless of my status. When we use a NON-EXEMPT to accomplish company work he/she gets paid for every minute and every mile travelled on our behalf and I, the watch dawg for the labor force, make sure they are protected and never abused.

PORK

Donna Banker · March 2004

Pork, we are a small rural bank and I do payroll. Believe me, no one here is getting rich at the expense of the employees required to use their own vehicles. I am pretty high up on the food chain here(exempt), and I use my vehicle for bank errands sometimes and am paid mileage just like everyone else. We do follow all the labor laws, and if you read my post clearly you would see that is not the issue. We still give Chrismas bonuses each year, generous raises, a generous contribution to our profit sharing plan each year, and have picnics, anniversary bonuses for employees, etc. The bank is not a bad taskmaster, nor is it "putting the squeeze on its employees".

I know this person is being insubordinate, but we want to deal with that issue separately. We just wanted to make sure we were not overlooking some legal aspect of employees using personal vehicles for bank errands.

Thank you all for your assistance. I don't post too often but read daily and feel this is an excellent site for information and advice.

Pork · March 2004

DONNA BANKER: I have again re-read your original post, my post, and your reply. It still appears from the information you provided and your basic concern was the legality and risk issue concerns are still there. When your employee (manager/supervisor/non-exempt)leaves from one location with company activity under company is at risk for any and all events. For a manager/supervisor to be on the clock for stated purposes of calculating time and $ollars owed for work accomplished, then you are admitting to a possible destruction of the EXEMPT category of the employee.

I recommend you contact your insurance carrier for liability and discuss your situation with them to discover your concerns, issues, and actions required to lower the risk factor.

For the time and pay issues, I recommend you contact your friendly Wage and Hour Division for a discussion on time and pay for these couriers. I believe you will find that the two labor persons can have any sort of physical task assigned, the company must then pay for their time, accordingly. The fact that they will clock in at there branch and clock out at the MAIN branch does not effect the time worked, travel time in this situation is also included on the clock. If there is a medical reason why they can not accomplish these task you must consider these issues and deal with them seperately.

For the manager/supervisor to refuse to travel the 10 miles in the opposite direction have him report to the President and discuss his concerns. This appears to be a performance issue and you the HR representative should not deal with that issue.

Yes, it is forum on which to post. You should not hold back, "even we old dawgs can learn new tricks".

PORK

Ethel · March 2004

I agree regarding having the right to require use of their vehicles if it is part of their job. But, you must request proof of their insurance because if this employee has an accident which is their fault and are sued, the employee's insurance would be first and the company's insurance would be secondary but still liable since employee was in "course and scope" of their job. If you allowed a driver to be out on company business without ins. or a suspended license, you add "negligence" to the liabillity claim.

The manager, particularly, is being insubordinate. How can you require his employee to do this part of job if manager is refusing.

If the accident was not the employee's fault and for whatever reason, (other driver no ins., left scene, etc.) then the Bank should have paid the deductible.

ooops! got carried away with wordy-ness.!

SMace · March 2004

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 03-05-04 AT 11:40AM (CST)[/font][br][br]It is fine to require the driving. It sounds like a reasonable business necessity to me.

Don't focus on the car requirement, I would say you can require them to take the stuff to the other bank. They can get there however they want.

I do not believe the bank should HAVE to pay the deductible. You pay mileage, which covers the costs of insurance.

The pregnant ee could have a case where her pregnancy limits her ability to drive, but it doesn't sound like the case.

I have a question for you. What do you mean exempt and on the clock? What happens if they clock out early.

Crout · March 2004

You should explain what you mean by "salary but on the clock." Is the supervisor exempt, or non-exempt? That aside...

1. The supervisor needs to be told immediately to either comply with the job expectations or look for another job.

2. The fact that the woman is pregnant has no bearing on the issue. As I understand your post, she is not saying that she cannot fufill the job expectations because of her pregnancy, she is refusing for other reasons. Again, so long as you are paying her for her time she should comply with the expectations or find another job.

3. Since you are mandating the use of personal vehicles, you should check with your insurance carrier to find out what would happen in the event of an accident.

KathiHR · March 2004

Your real issue is insubordination, & that has been well addressed. You do sound like you need some consistent policies in place. As far as having employees drive their own vehicles, its legal. We regularly have employees doing company business in their own vehicles. They are told of this in the advertisement & interview. We keep current copies of their insurance, & expiration dates are monitored monthly. If they fail to send a copy of their insurance renewal, they're suspended. If they allow their insurance to expire & conduct business on expired insurance, they're terminated. This is all in policy. They are reimbursed at the IRS allowable rate. They're also required to perform a safety check on their vehicle every month.

Also in policy is that the company pays their deductible if they're in an accident that is ruled as their fault(or no-fault in some states.) We also pay for the repairs when the damage is less than the deductible. We investigate all accidents. If we determined that they were reckless, hazardous, etc. in their driving, they would be terminated. But the company would still pay the deductible.

The company also carries an additional layer of protection called "Hired and Nonowned Auto." You can talk to your liability carrier about it. I don't know if it would be as valuable to you as it is to us - we have hundreds of employees using their own vehicles.

Kathi

Employer Requires Employees Use Own Vehicles

Comments