)RIVER who was dismissed after he refused to use a
Page 7
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
vehicle on a ig journey because he was unhappy about the steering was rarded £1,141 compensation for unfair dismissal by a Birmingham lustrial Tribunal.
rhe tribunal said that the ver, Leonard Pluck, had been iployed in Mr P...1. Jones's re)val business.
rhe dismissal related to Mr rck's refusal to drive a Bedford hide belonging to Broadlock 1, another company for which Jones worked. That vehicle d small wheels, and Mr Jones ggested that was why the ;ering was heavier than noral. However, the tribunal also ard that Broadlock had been ncerned about the steering
d had sent the vehicle for ecks to be carried out by the in Bedford dealer.
Mr Pluck drove the vehicle on nuary 19 and 20. He corniined to Mr Jones that the )ering was heavy, and said at was because of inadequate rvicing. He also claimed that a vehicle had been standing e for about three weeks, and said that this, and extreme nter conditions had reduced lubrication of the grease, and d made the steering heavy.
Mr Jones agreed that Broadk's mechanics mechanics had said the hide should be serviced, and at it was suggested there ght be trouble with kingpins d bushes. Mr Pluck had been d this and the vehicle was not rviced until a fortnight after he is dismissed on January 28.
Mr Pluck drove the vehicle on rther short hauls after January and continued to complain out the steering. On January , he refused to go to London.
Jones said he warned Mr Ack twice that he would be ;missed if he continued to reae.
However, Mr Pluck maintained 3t Mr Jones had flared up beuse another driver had rersed into some chairs and des
troyed them. When Mr Pluck said he would not take the vehicle on the motorway because of the steering, Mr Jones swore at him and told him not to bother. When he asked if that meant he was being sacked Mr Jones slammed the door.
The tribunal said it preferred Mr Pluck's evidence and was sa tisfied that the dismissal was a result of Mr Jones's loss of temper and was therefore unfair. Even if Mr Jones's version was correct, it was wrong for him to insist that the van was driven on the motorway when there were doubts about its safety.
A reasonable employer would sympathise with any protest by a driver against driving a vehicle in such circumstances, and he would not regard it as a matter of dismissal.