1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136 
Bonus should be paid
Page 27
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• Though holding that Intercity Transport & Trading had not been unreasonable in sacking lorry driver E Campbell for allegedly interfering with his tachograph, a Manchester Industrial Tribunal decided that the company had been wrong to refuse to pay him a bonus of The company considered that Campbell had tampered with the needle of his tachograph so that it recorded a lower speed than was actually being driven. The company felt that it was entitled not to pay the bonus because Campbell had had a written warning following previous occasions when the tachograph had allegedly been interferred with. On 11 October another driver reported that the tachograph had a faulty stylus, giving a lower trace, indicating that it had been tampered with. The recordings showed a speed of some 6Iun/h lower than the actual speed. Enquiries revealed that the last person to drive the vehicle concerned has been Campbell, and that before Campbell's drive the tachograph had been checked and found to be correct. The vehicle was examined by experts. The stylus had been bent, which could not have happened accidently. Campbell denied he had tampered with the tachograph. He also denied receiving a letter sent to employees stating that they would lose their bonus if they exceeded speed limits. The tribunal felt that Campbell had been fairly dismissed because there had been a full investigation of the circumstances. However, refusal to pay the bonus was contrary to the provisions of the 1986 Wages Act because no evidence had been produced to show that Campbell had speeded on previous occasions, or that the company's employees had received the letter relating to speeding. Such a deduction of bonus was not an original term of the contract of employment, and there was no evidence that Campbell had been handed a copy of the letter.