Driver 60 per cent to blame for his dismissal
Page 28
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
AN hgv driver dismissed by Econofreight Transport Ltd, of Markfield, Leicester, lodged an industrial tribunal claim for unfair dismissal. He contended that he had been sacked because he opposed company policy, was a member of a trade union and was a thorn in the company's side.
The tribunal, in its written decision, said it was not satisfied that these were the principal reasons. These it found to be a combination of conduct and capability in driving.
Analysing the evidence, the tribunal said that there had been some previous criticisms. Then, on a sliproad on Ml, he had run into the back of a vehicle; he had admitted his fault. He was interviewed, was not prepared to resign, and so was given a final warning. Said the tribunal: "We heard two rather different accounts of that interview."
And this, I think, is the kernel of the tribunal's analysis: "This decision to give a final warning rather than to dismiss seemed to mean that the firm did not consider his conduct up to that date justified dismissal; if so, what happened after that date •to make dismissal justified?"
Three calls
The tribunal was told about three phone calls made to the firm on the following Monday. The first concerned the shedding of timber from the driver's lorry two months before. As the firm knew something about this at the time of the warning, the tribunal considered it did not justify further action The police called to complain that the driver had taken his 60ft artic into Beccles, which was "stitched up," had gone down a one-way street and stopped where there was the greatest difficulty in negotiating. Drivers of such vehicles, said the police, were expected to get clearance—this had not been done. The driver admitted his mistake. The tribunal believed his account and said the matter did not seem •to justify dismissal even after a final warning.
The third call was about a lamp standard said to have been knocked down by an Econofreight vehicle in Manchester at about the time when the company had three vehicles there. The driver denied it and the tribunal considered he should be given the benefit of the doubt.
Sixty per cent
Had this man whose conduct did not justify dismissal when given a final warning done something in the next few days which made his dismissal reasonable? The tribunal thought these three incidents did not really justify serious blame. But he had made a contribution by his proved examples of bad driving, and considered him 60 per cent to blame for his dismissal, and Econofreight 40 per cent.
The Myer had found another job in four weeks and his losses to that date were put at £163. The new job meant a loss of £10 in his weekly wage. The tribunal assessed this loss continuing for 12 months and amounting to £520. With sundry additions total loss was estimated at £735, less 60 per cent. So Econofreight-40 per cent to blame—had to pay £300.
Ralph Cropper