AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Dismissed fairly for leaving a vehicle unsafe

25th November 2010
Page 26
Page 26, 25th November 2010 — Dismissed fairly for leaving a vehicle unsafe
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?

Weston Recovery Services (WRS) dismissed an employee because he left a vehicle in an unsafe condition. He had borrowed a mini-bus for a fishing trip to France. On returning the vehicle, he failed to check its condition. The rear step was missing and the seats were insecure, making it unsafe. The company held a disciplinary meeting at which the employee was dismissed without notice for gross misconduct. His subsequent appeal was dismissed.

The employee took claims of unfair dismissal and breach of contract to an employment tribunal. The tribunal found that although the conduct was serious misconduct, it was not gross misconduct so that the dismissal was unfair. The claimant was awarded compensation of £2,118.

WRS appealed to the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT). The EAT separated out the breach of contract and unfair dismissal arguments. It asked itself whether the dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses that an employer could make and decided it did. The EAT upheld the appeal, holding that the dismissal was fair as it was in line with the Employment Rights Act 1996 and relevant case law. WRS genuinely believed, on reasonable grounds following an adequate investigation, that the claimant had committed an act of gross misconduct. The company had followed a fair procedure and its decision to dismiss its driver fell within the range of reasonable responses.

This case has wide legal significance as it emphasises that although generally employers think that only gross misconduct can make a fair dismissal, it is not necessarily the case. it is significant for the transport sector because the ruling supported an employer who took failures in vehicle defect checking very seriously, even justifying dismissal.

This is not a green light to dismiss any driver who misses a defect on a daily check, but is a useful reminder that operators are entitled to have safety procedures, and have drivers and other staff follow them, or their jobs are at risk. Words: Peter Woodhouse Peter Woodhouse is specialist transport solicitor at Stone King LLP. based in Bath. Email: pmw@stoneking.co.uk

Tags

Locations: Bath

comments powered by Disqus