1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236 
smissal justified,
Page 19
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ulli method f 0 LTHOUGH David Bratt and Sons (Haulage) Ltd of Cheadle mime had shown they had a justifiable reason for sacking one r their drivers, the company's method of doing so had made the ismissal unfair.
This was the Manchester .d trial Tribunal's decision he they awarded the driver tn med. Arthur Smith, £322 )m ensation for unfair disis I. They reduced the cornm ation by 50 per cent as ie felt that Mr Smith had m ributed to his own dish al by failing to give an '1 uate reason for refusing rk overtime.
11 e Tribunal were told that Er mith had been employed y e company since August )7 , and that he was disiis ed on March 23, 1979.
ng 1978 he was off work )1. ome 20 weeks following a ea attack, and on his return ompany gave him a tipper ) drive instead of a flat in rd r that he would not have 3 do any lifting.
On Friday March 23, Mr mi h was told by the wages letik that he would be req uired to do some tipping work on the Saturday morning, but Mr Smith said he did not intend to work on that Saturday.
Mr Bratt claimed that Mr Smith had said that he did not want to earn more than £35 per week since he would have to pay more money to his wife in maintenance.
The Tribunal said that the company had shown it had a justifiable reason for dismissal in that Mr Smith had refused to work overtime when given a lawful order to do so and had failed to give an adequate reason for that refusal.
However, the dismissal itself was given over the telephone, and there had never been any previous warning, either oral or written, to Mr Smith that if he failed to work the required overtime which was part of his contract of employment he would be dismissed. Furthermore, the Tribunal felt that as Mr Bratt was dealing with an employee with over four years service he should have arranged a meeting with Mr Smith on the Saturday morning to have a full discussion with him about the matter before dismissing him a summary manner.