AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Tribunal says HGV 1 work is beyond driver

19th November 1987, Page 100
19th November 1987
Page 100
Page 100, 19th November 1987 — Tribunal says HGV 1 work is beyond driver
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?

F Thorpe v G W Sisson & Son

• The dismissal of a Class 1 HGV driver, on the grounds of health, by Sherburn-in-Elmet haulier G W Sisson & Son Ltd, has been held to be fair by a Leeds Industrial Tribunal.

The Tribunal was told that the company had dismissed F Thorpe because of his poor attendance record, on the grounds that he was incapable of performing the work he was employed to do owing to ill health.

Thorpe had had a series of operations on his knees and suffered from osteo-arthritis. He had been away from work 27 weeks in 1980, 27 weeks in 1982, 13 weeks in 1984 and five weeks in 1985. At the time of his dismissal, in February, he had been off work for 38 weeks and his doctor was unable to say when he would be fit to return to HGV driving, The company was having difficulty covering for him and management decided that it could not continue to employ him.

For Thorpe, it was argued that there was a sufficiency of light work he could have been offered, namely the driving of a boicvan on a contract with Terry's. It was claimed that his union activities had played a part in his dismissal. The company did not consider that the Terry's contract was lighter work Although there was no roping and sheeting, it involved driving a 32-tonne artic and there were 40 cages of chocolates to be loaded and unloaded. It denied there was any truth in the allegation that Thorpe's trade union activities had played a part in the dismissal decision.

Rejecting Thorpe's claim he had been unfairly dismissed, the Tribunal said there was no evidence of any ulterior motive on the part of the company. The Tribunal considered that Thorpe had been treated with a great deal of consideration by the company. It was only after the company received the doctor's letter, which was unable to say when Thorpe was likely to return to work and when he was likely to be fit again, that it finally decided it had waited long enough.

The Tribunal was satisfied that the alternative work suggested was not "light work". It was still Class I work and it was beyond Thorpe's capability at the time, bearing in mind the safety aspect. Neither was that contract sufficient to keep him fully employed. The company had not been unreasonable.

Tags

Organisations: Leeds Industrial Tribunal

comments powered by Disqus