Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Driver sacked unfairly but partly to blame

12th May 1988, Page 7
12th May 1988
Page 7
Page 7, 12th May 1988 — Driver sacked unfairly but partly to blame
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

M R Jones v Job Horton

• The dismissal of a driver by Job Horton Ltd has been held to be unfair, by a Birmingham Industrial Tribunal, because of the way that the company went about it.

The Tribunal said that driver M R Jones had been dismissed by the company because it believed that he had allowed his vehicle to become dangerously short of oil. In deciding upon dismissal as the course of action to take, the company had taken account of previous misconduct on Jones's part.

The Tribunal felt that the dismissal was unfair, despite there being a history of carelessness on Jones's part and despite the fact that he had been given a number of informal warnings. Jones had been given no opportunity of giving an explanation for his alleged conduct, which the company clearly regarded as the "last straw", or of saying anything in mitigation which might have prevented his dismissal.

The Tribunal took the view that any compensatory award to Jones ought to be substantially reduced, however, on the grounds that he had caused or contributed substantially to his own dismissal.

There was a chance, said the Tribunal, that Jones would still have been dismissed, and fairly, if the procedural matters had been in order.

The proceedings were adjourned to enable the parties to agree terms


comments powered by Disqus