'Urgent load' sac
Page 9
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
IN A MAJORITY decision a Manchester Industrial Tribunal have upheld the dismissal of a driver by James Nuttall (Transport) Ltd, after he had failed to report to the transport manager he was unable to complete the delivery of an urgent load within the time specified. The Tribunal rejected a claim for compensation for unfair dismissal by the driver concerned, Malcolm Jeffrey.
The Tribunal said that on March 9, Mr Jeffrey was instructed to deliver material to an important customer as a matter of urgency the same day. Mr Jeffrey was aware of the urgency and he anticipated arriving at the customers' premises at about 8 pm.
He left the depot around 3pm and at 8 pm the company's mechanic received a phone call from Mr Jeffrey to say the
vehicle's oil gauge was not registering though he had checked the oil level as correct.
Mr Jeffrey was instructed to continue with care. He did not contact the transport manager at home to say he had been delayed and that he was unable to deliver that night as arranged.
At about 7.30 am on March 10 the customer phoned Nuttalls to say that the goods had not been received and in fact Mr Jeffrey delivered them at about 9 am. He phoned the transport manager to say that he had been sent to the wrong factory but he made no mention of having been delayed by the vehicle.
The customer's manager phoned at 10.30 am to say that Mr Jeffrey had explained his late arrival by saying that he was not aware of the urgency of the load.
As a result the customer concerned ceased to employ Nuttells. Knowing this, the transport manager interviewed Mr Jeffrey on March 11 and it was only at that stage that he blamed his vehicle. The mechanic confirmed Mr Jeffrey's phone call.
However, the transport manager did not wait until after the vehicle had been examined before deciding not to accept Mr Jeffrey's explanation and to dismiss him.
The majority opinion of the Tribunal was that the company had carried out sufficient reasonable investigations into the matter before deciding to dismiss.
They felt the transport manager was entitled to reject Mr Jeffrey's late explanation as untrue.
The minority view was that the transport manager should have waited until the vehicle was examined before deciding to dismiss.