Night out at home
Page 4
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
WILLIAMS Bros (W a I es) Ltd had not acted unreason
ably in sacking a driver they believed had made a false claim for overnight subsistence money, said a Shrewsbury Industrial Tribunal, when they rejected a claim for unfair dismissal from driver Edward Dyke.
Evidence was given that the company had reason to believe that last October Dyke was not at a customer's premises when he should have been. A week later he was given the choice of taking a multi-drop load that afternoon to the East Midlands, with an overnight stay, or of leaving the next morning. He chose to leave that afternoon and he could there fore claim £14.50 overnight subsistence. That evening the company instructed a trainee manager, a Mr Hulme, to go to Ellesmere where Dyke lived, to find out whether his vehicle was parked there. Dyke's vehicle was seen by Hulme and his wife parked at Ellesmere Cattle Market at about 22:00 hrs.
When Dyke returned to the depot, his attention was drawn to his tachograph chart, which stated that he had finished work at a place called Tong on the day in question. Dyke insisted that he had stayed overnight at Tong, despite being told that his vehicle had been observed at Ellesmere. He was dismissed for gross misconduct, a decision upheld on appeal when Dyke changed his story.
The Tribunal said it was true that Dyke had not been represented at either the dismissal or the appeal hearing. He was not an official shop steward, but he was an elected union representative and if he had wanted representation he could have asked for it. Though Dyke said he had mentioned a witness at both hearings, the Tribunal had no hesitation in accepting that the depot manager was entitled to believe the evidence of Hulme and his wife and of the tachograph chart.