AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Dismissal procedure reasonable

13th April 1989, Page 113
13th April 1989
Page 113
Page 113, 13th April 1989 — Dismissal procedure reasonable
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?

V Astill v Total Oil

1. TOTAL OIL (GB) Ltd had not acted unreasonably in deciding to dismiss an accident-prone driver, decided a Nottingham industrial tribunal, even though the drafting of the warning letters the company had issued had not been ideal.

The tribunal was told that V Astill had been employed at the company's Colwick depot for almost six years. He had had a disastrous record, having been involved in ntne incidents or accidents, and been issued with seven warnings; three verbal and four written.

Astill claimed that he had a run of bad luck. He was dismissed after an incident where he braked suddenly, jack-knifing his vehicle, which ran off the road. The company concluded that he had beein driving too fast in bad weather and, in view of a previous final warning, they felt that Astill had to be dismis

sed. Astill's appeals against that decision were dismissed by higher management.

For Astill, it was argued there had been mitigating circumstances in relation to each of the incidents and that the company's procedure in relation to the warning letter had been defective.

Rejecting Astill's claim for unfair dismissal, the tribunal said that both the verbal and written warnings were more in the nature of admonishments than separate progressive steps in a normal disciplinary procedure. They did not specify any further disciplinary action in the event of repetition, nor the duration of the warning.

However, the procedure relating to the dismissal itself was reasonable enough. Astill was represented and he had every opportunity of saying all that he wanted to say. The decision to dismiss was a considered decision, and not an arbitrary or precipitate one. In addition, there was a full hearing of both appeals. While the tribunal had sympathy with Astill, the unanimous decision was that the company had not been unreasonable.

Tags


comments powered by Disqus