AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Driver not inferior'

8th August 1981, Page 9
8th August 1981
Page 9
Page 9, 8th August 1981 — Driver not inferior'
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?

ANSPORT supervisor has been awarded over £2,800 in cornsation after a Leicester industrial Tribunal decided he had been irly selected for redundancy by Trust House Forte Supplies Ltd.

e tribunal heard how Mr w was employed at the kley depot along with six ers and also acted as a relief er, but it became necessary educe the workforce to cut S.

te in 1980, Mr Shaw was ind in a road accident and durhis lengthy absence the de puty manager and his assistant found they were able to share the supervisory duties and the firm concluded they no longer needed a transport supervisor.

In its decision, the tribunal said that since Mr Shaw's dismissal, the company had employed a driver on a casual basis so only the supervisory function of Mr Shaw's job was no longer required.

The company said Mr Shaw was not as efficient as other drivers, but the tribunal would not accept that Mr Shaw's failure to phone the company after getting stuck in a snow drift justified the conclusion he was "inferior".

Neither did the tribunal consider the theft of a box of tools while in Mr Shaw's possession, sufficient reason for redundancy.

The company also took account of an accident in which Mr Shaw had been involved, though it admitted it had no idea if he was at fault.

The tribunal was not satisfied the company acted reasonably in ruling out Mr Shaw's continued employment as a driver and could not see any reasonable ground for believing that his return to driving from his position as supervisor would cause trouble among other drivers.

The company admitted it has given no consideration to Mr Shavs.i's employment in another capacity, but he had given evidence that he would have been willing to accept another posi fon, clerical post or one in the warehouse.

Trust House Forte, said the tribunal, seemed to think that in reminding Mr Shaw of his rights under grievance procedures it was complying with the normal requirements of consultation.

There was a total failure of any attempt at consultation with Mr Shaw about his position or future and the tribunal regarded that failure as a very serious one. Mr Shaw was given no opportunity to answer the complaints against him.

Tags

People: Shaw

comments powered by Disqus