Tribunal rules dial the-sack out of order
Page 18
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A DRIVER'S dismissal was unfair because it was given by telephone although his employer had good reason to sack him. That was the verdict of Manchester Industrial Tribunal when it awarded driver Anthony Castle f/126 compensation against Surrey-based Precision Equipment Transport Services Ltd.
Mr Castle said he was dismissed after a spar in his vehicle had broken resulting in damage to a machine. He claimed that all the spars required attention but that they were not his responsibility.
The company claimed that the dismissal was the culmination of many months of unsatisfactory conduct. Mr Castle had previously been given two written warnings and several verbally. There had been criticism of his driving after minor accidents and the company were not happy about his methods of keeping log sheets.
Mr Castle admitted that on one occasion he had refused to undertake a journey to Ireland. He said that was because the company would not pay him sufficiently and that he would have gone if additional expenses had been included.
The tribunal said it was obvious that an implied term of his contract of employment was that he should have undertaken the journey, and the reason put forward for refusing was not acceptable.
On August 22 Mr Castle carried photocopying machines to the Lake District. On arrival at Preston he discovered one of the machines to be damaged because a spar to which the holding ties were attached was broken.
He reported this and was told to return the vehicle to the depot. The company's complaint related not so much to the damaged machine — although it was said that the vehicle had been incorrectly loaded — but that Mr Castle had returned the vehicle with two other machines in the same position, thus risking further damage.
The Tribunal felt that therein lay the real reason for dismissing Mr Castle. However, they felt the dismissal was unfair because it was given by telephone. A statement by the driver's mate on the vehicle was not given to Mr Castle. He was not asked to give any explanation of the situation and he was not informed of any right of appeal against his dismissal.