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 
New depot so no back pay
Page 7
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A Christian Salvesen driver is taking the company to an industrial tribunal to claim back pay he says the company denied him after he switched depots. Edward Rowan moved from Livingston to the Evesham site when the company introduced new working systems in December 2000.
The dispute arose because he switched depots in the middle of pay negotiations. As a shop steward he was instrumental in conducting the negotiations that eventually brought the drivers several months' back pay—but he was told that as he now warted in a different depot he was no longer eligible to receive the £750 back pay.
Had he stayed at Livingston he would have received the money, the company told him.
Rowan, who has worked for Salvesen since November 1997, says there was no break in ser vice and that he has exactly the same contract as he had in Scotland. He wrote to Salvesen's chief executive, Edward Roderick, claiming that he was being unfairly treated but was told that the company's terms and conditions stated that retrospective pay increases are only paid to employees who are still working at the site at which they were negotiated.
"I've been told that even if I win the award may not cover my legal expenses if I am not awarded costs, but I don't care," he says. "I have put in several years of loyal service to the company—it's a case of getting fair treatment."
In his letter to Rowan, Roderick says the company "will always honour its legal obligations. I suggest that for the time being we let the matter rest with the Employment Tribunal and accept whatever decision they make."
The case will be heard on 22 April.