AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Sacking was unfair

13th April 1985, Page 8
13th April 1985
Page 8
Page 8, 13th April 1985 — Sacking was unfair
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

THE SACKING of a lorry driver by Deans of Leeds without giving him an opportunity of saying anything in his defence led to the company being ordered to pay £281 compensation for unfair dismissal.

A Leeds industrial tribunal was told that Harry Hunt had been employed as a driver for about 14 years.

There were various matters of complaint against him and he was eventually sacked as a result of two incidents.

First, he failed to spot that a wheel stud had worn to such an extent that a wheel of his lorry was at risk of coming off and second, he had inadvertently or negligently put diesel fuel in the tank of a petrolengined vehicle.

Mr Hunt was handed a letter of dismissal by the firm's manager without any formal meeting to investigate the matters complained of and he was given no opportunity to explain or say anything. Evidence was given by managing director John Rogerson that he had borne in mind the previous history of Mr Hunt. Mr Hunt had been given warnings about the misuse and occasional failure to use tachograph charts.

In August 1984, Mr Hunt had driven away from a fuel pump without disconnecting the supply pipe causing substantial damage.

In their decision, the tribunal said it seemed to them that the matters of complaint had assumed an exaggerated importance in Mr Rogerson's mind.

The tribunal reduced Mr Hunt's compensatory award by half on grounds of contributory fault.

Tags

Locations: Leeds

comments powered by Disqus