Hearsay sack is no dismissal
Page 20
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A DRIVER would be justified in refusing to take out an unroadworthy vehicle, ruled a Leeds industrial tribunal — but it still dismissed an application for compensation for unfair dismissal by a driver who walked out after refusing to take out a vehicle he alleged was unfit.
In its decision, the tribunal said that the driver concerned, S. G. Taylor, had wrongly assumed his vehicle, operated by R. Bedford Trading as Bedford's Transport, was in the same condition as when he had last driven it 10 days before.
Mr Taylor became dissatisfied with the condition of his vehicle on April 1. There had been fuel blockages and problems with the brakes, and the vehicle was subsequently off the road for repair for a week.
On his return to the garage, he left the vehicle in the yard and went home without giving any reason. He later wrote to Mr Bedford, saying he was taking a week off and would return when his vehicle was fit for use again.
He reported for work on April 24, when he was asked to take the vehicle to Bolton and refused. Although Mr Taylor said it was because it was unroadworthy, the tribunal was satisfied that he failed to give a reason at the time.
Under cross-examination, Mr Taylor admitted that the engine might have appeared not to be firing properly when he backed the vehicle out, because it had only just been started. The tribunal felt, therefore, that there was no reason for him to have assumed that it was in an unroadworthy condition.
Mr Taylor left without saying why he was leaving work and subsequently failed to return.
In evidence, he said brother, who also works the firm, had said that Da Bedford had said he was missed. But Mr Bedford s that he could not remem exactly what was said, thot he thought it was to the eff that his father was consider dismissing the applicant.
For Bedford, Stephen Ki bright said there had been action on the part of 1 operator that could construed as a dismissal. should not have been assumed on the strength of conversation with a th party. The tribunal said it was a unanimous view that I • request to Mr Taylor to dr the vehicle was a reasona one, and that when he left place of work that morning repudiated his contract employment. Therefore th had been no dismissal.