AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Win some... lose some

18th October 1986
Page 29
Page 29, 18th October 1986 — Win some... lose some
Close
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?

• William Whorlow, sacked by Montgomery Transport after he rolled his artic over on a motorway slip road, has been awarded 22,847 compensation for unfair dismissal by a

Stranraer industrial tribunal.

Whorlow claimed he had been driving at 32km/h (20mph) and indicated that the camber of the road might be at fault. He said that a traffic policeman had referred to the slow roll" which occurred at speeds between 29-35kmih (18-22mph).

The police informed the company that Whorlow's tachograph chart showed speeds in excess of %km/h (35mph). The company was satisfied the only explanation was driver negligence and they felt they had no alternative but to dismiss him.

Though holding that Whorlow was 50% to blame, the tribunal ruled that his dismissal was unfair. It said that he had 21 years service and for him to be summarily dismissed by his local transport manager in such a pre-emptory fashion ran contrary to good industrial relations.

The company had taken the fact of the accident without making any further enquiry. It had accepted information from the police about the alleged speed when the chart did not appear to show average speeds significantly in excess of 561(m/h (35mph).

Whorlow was entitled to have a representative to assist him but he was not given that opportunity. Instead, an extreme long range' decision was taken in Northern Ireland and transmitted down the line to Montgomery Transport in Stranraer. • A tipper driver, who twice managed to turn his vehicle over while discharging his load, has lost his claim for compensation for unfair dismissal against his former employers, Patersons of Greenockhill.

The Coatbridge-based company told a Glasgow industrial tribunal that the driver, James Grant, was one of 20 em ployed. In the last 21/2 years they had only had two instances of vehicles tipping over and on both occasions Grant had been at the wheel and the company decided he was at fault.

The tribunal said that they were satisfied the company was reasonable in not allowing him to continue as a driver.