Length of service redundancy is fair
Page 21
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
1EJECTING lorry driver Mr A. J. Jenkins' claim that his company lad unfairly selected him for redundancy, a Birmingham Industrial fribunal ruled that Specialised industrial Deliveries Limited were in nder to take into account the service of drivers with another corn)any.
In its decision, the Tribunal ;aid Mr Jenkins, one of 70 driv)rs, had been employed by the ;ompany since January, 1977. gever before had Specialised Inlustrial Deliveries had to make edundancies and its main ;oncern was to act fairly.
Managing director Mr Griffiths lad explained to his drivers that iue to a decrease in work some vould have to be made reduniant, and there was a discussion about the criteria for selection.
About eleven of the drivers lad previously been employed )y Metal Castings Ltd. SID had aken them on after that com)any had made them redundant.
It was agreed that the ;elections for redundancy would )e on the basis of service not mly with Specialised Industrial )eliveries but also with Metal ;astings, and four drivers, in:luding Mr Jenkins, were chosen m that principle.
Mr Jenkins was given £600 re dundancy payment, plus five weeks' pay in lieu of notice. He complained that some drivers who had joined the company after January, 1977, had nevertheless been kept on.
The Tribunal ruled that as no redundancy precedents existed, the discussion and the verbal agreement arrived at between management and the two representatives of the workforce was legitimate.
The agreed procedure was that length of service should be determined not only by the employment period with Specialised Industrial Deliveries but also with Metal Castings. The management had taken great care to select those with the shortest services.
The Tribunal found that SID had acted fairly and in accordance with the verbal agreement.