1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240 
'Gross misconduct verdict on driver
Page 20
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A DRIVER cannot pick and choose the loads he is prepared to take out. To refuse to take out a load is a breach of the terms of his Contract of Employment.
Manchester Industrial fribunal said this when 'inding that Stephen Gar3ide, a driver dismissed by 3reenfield & Co Ltd, had committed "gross misconduct" in -efusing to take a load to Nrorthampton.
Mr Garside was required to ieliver goods locally, and to icotland, London and Northampton, working a fiveday week with voluntary overtime. Within a month of starting he began to come in for work late.
Despite being told vehicles must not be used for private purposes he breached this rule on three occasions; in one instance taking his loaded vehicle home, detaching the tractive unit for private use and leaving the trailer on rough ground.
Because of the weight of the load it took three of the company's employees three hours to reconnect the trailer; another time Mr Garside's vehicle broke down and he was told to wait for a fitter but instead went home leaving the vehicle unattended.
There had also been complaints that he had claimed living-out allowances when in fact returning home and that he had refused to take out some loads. Verbal warnings were given about his conduct and when he refused to take a load to Northampton on May 24, 1977, he was given a week's notice.
Mr Garside claimed he had been unfairly dismissed as he had not received two verbal and one written warning.
He refused to take out the load because it was his turn for a London trip. It was a matter of principal and not just money, he said.