Tribunal rejects driver's 'sexist' claim
Page 20
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• A Nottingham Industrial Tribunal has rejected a claim that Les Wilson Haulage sexually discriminated against Pauline Palmer by failing to employ her as a Class I lorry driver, accepting that the company's reason was her lack of competence in reversing articulated vehicles.
Palmer had worked for the company on a casual basis since June 1986, but on only 10 of the 60 days on which she had worked for them had she driven articulated vehicles.
In January 1987 she asked to be considered for a Class I driving vacancy. She said that during her interview the company referred to her "maternal instincts", and she was told that she was not sufficiently competent in reversing artics.
It was accepted that this was the first time that her abilities in that respect had been questioned.
The company gave evidence of two complaints from customers: one following an incident when Palmer's vehicle jackknifed while reversing, fracturing the airline, and about an incident in the yard when she failed to park a trailer correctly, with the result that it ran backwards when disconnected, dropped onto its landing legs which were not extended, and again damaged the airline. Palmer was unable to recall the latter incident. It was also said that she had difficulty reversing into the yard through a 10m gate or into narrow spaces when the yard was full.
The tribunal said it was concerned that none of those matters had been put to Palmer previously, but it bore in mind that she was a casual employee working for the company as a relief driver. The company maintained that it had offered her a job as a Class III driver with little difference in pay, something that Palmer denied. The tribunal said that Palmer was extremely upset by what had happened at her interview, and she might have thought that she was not being made any such offer.
Nonetheless, the fact that the company believed they were offering her Class III work — with the ability to go onto Class I work as and when the occasion arose — and the fact that they had employed her on a casual basis since June 1986, was not evidence that they were discriminating against her on grounds of sex: rather the reverse.