Sacking upheld by Manchester court
Page 16
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE SACKING of a driver by R. T. Leech and Sons for using his vehicle to travel to and from his home without permission, has been held to be fair by a Manchester industrial tribunal.
The tribunal rejected a claim for compensation for unfair dismissal by the driver concerned, Ian Wolfenden. Mr Wolfenden claimed that he had had permission from the transport manager to use his vehicle for private purposes. In any event, he did not consider travel between his home and the company's depot to be in this category.
For the company it was said that Mr Wolfenden had been previously warned about using its vehicles for private purposes. He was summarily dismissed after other employees reported seeing him go home in his vehicle.
Though the transport manager could authorise drivers to take vehicles home after late
duty or in readiness for an early start the next morning, he had no authority to allow the private use of vehicles, as such use would jeopardise the company's insurance cover.
In its decision the tribunal said that the company was open to criticism for failing to issue written terms of employment. Nor did it publish in writing the rules it required its employees to comply with.
However, the tribunal was satisfied that Mr Wolfenden had been adequately warned so that he knew full well that if he was caught again using the company's vehicles for private purposes, he would be dismissed.
It rejected the suggestion that the use of the vehicle to get to work and home again without permission did not amount to using it for private purposes. It also rejected Mr Wolfenden's evidence that the transport manager had given him permission to use the vehicle on the occasions concerned.
Maybe because his own car was out of action, Mr Wolfenden had risked the unauthorised use of the company's vehicle, the tribunal believed.
It was satisfied that the allegations were made known to Mr Wolfenden and that he was given an opportunity to state his case before being dismissed. It was an indication of the unreliability of his evidence that Mr Wolfenden had not said at that interview that he had permission to use the vehicle if he genuinely believed that to be the case.
As a result, the tribunal was satisfied that the company had made sufficient investigation into the matter and further enquiries were unnecessary.
Summary dismissal was a reasonable response properly open to a responsible employer in such circumstances, the tribunal considered.