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 
Sort it out yourself' ribunal tells haulier
Page 19
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
INDUSTRIAL tribunal told a haulage firm to go away for a light and sort out a solution with seven drivers who were for the sack.
he Liverpool Tribunal irman told Sutton and s (St Helens) Ltd that there still room for negotiation the drivers.
he seven men, who were ,Ted with redundancy ces by Sutton subsidiary ■ mas Fleet and Sons Ltd, med at an earlier hearing t their notice of reduncy did not comply with the terms of the 1975 Employment Protection Act, Section 99 (CM, June 8).
Fleet had ceased trading after the lorry drivers' strike, which had followed a period of uneconomic trading.
At the time of the closure there were other jobs in the group for some of the redundant employees.
But rather than offer jobs to some of the seven, the company invited them all to apply for the posts. Not all did so.
A former United Road Transport Union official, J. W. Stevenson, appearing for the men, said that while employed by Thomas Fleet, they had no complaint about the wages paid to them, nor had they sought a wage increase.
He told the tribunal that his clients were aware that there were prospects for reinstatement, but not all were prepared to accept reinstatement.
The Tribunal rejected a URTU claim that it had not been consulted about the redundancies.
The chairman said he could not conduct the hearing as an appeal against that decision, and that he would consider the applications on their merit.
The court is expected to reconvene on June 28.