Dimly driver
Page 23
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Ises his claim
WER who left South Liverpool Transport after he was told he might be made redundant has lost his claim for a cy payment before a Liverpool Industrial Tribunal e roprietor of the firm, p Beechey, said in e that thedriver. ic Bredesen, had worked i from June 1973 until st 11978. It was a small ie s employing nine rs and whose fortunes ia In August 1978 it s rt of work and he g about making one r r undant.
in port manager Colin s : lained to the drivers ;o e members of the staff o, one of whom was re esen.
ans maintained that ad it quite clear that Mr es n was not being disd t that time. The pur o the warning was to ti ose concerned to seek ✓ mployment if they o do so.
B edesen claimed that he .ol that he would have to e redundant but the in I said it preferred the !n e of the firm.
e following day Mr h: was offered a confir some long-distance hich he accepted. Mr is as instructed to tell 1r: esen to forget what had been said the day before as because of this new development work was still available to him, But Mr Bredesen continued to regard himself as dismissed. At that stage .Mr Beechey envisaged the business would continue, but in fact it closed down in December, principally because of the seizure of a number of vehicles by the Inland Revenue because of a tax debt.
In its decision the Tribunal said that, firstly, there was no redundancy situation on August 31, and secondly, no dismissal of Mr Bredesen. Formal written notice was given to him and however Mr Bredesen interpreted the events of August 31, in reality they amounted to no more than a warning that there might be redundancy.
Finally, even if he had been dismissed, he was effectively offered continued work on exactly the same basis as before. That must have been a suitable offer and it was reasonable for Mr Bredesen to have refused it in the circumstances.