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
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216 
'Lump it' driver fairly sacked
Page 21
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
AN INDUSTRIAL tribunal had to look at the decision of an employer to dismiss an employee in the light of the information the employer had at the time and decide whether he had acted reasonably.
It was not for the tribunal to say whether they would have dismissed in similar circumstances.
This was said by a•Birmingham industrial tribu nal when they heard that lorry driver Philip Green had not been unfairly dismissed by the Sheldon Waste Company Ltd.
The tribunal said that although Mr Green had been given a written warning about his lack of performance but was in fact dismissed because of a complaint about his attitude from a customer, they accepted that the dismissal was the result of a combination of incidents which, put together, entitled the company to dismiss him.
Mr Green had been employed since April 1977 and in April 1978 the company was acquired by .1. H. Holland (Waste Paper) Ltd. That company changed the type of vehicle operated from van to skip vehicle to improve productivity.
Evidence was given that in the Walsall area, drivers could average eight journeys per day, whilst Mr Green only averaged three or four. His successor was at present in rfact averaging nine.
Various verbal warnings were given to Mr Green about his performance and his attention was also drawn to his unco-operative attitude to customers. On June 6 he was given a written warning about his below-average number of journeys.
The following day, a complaint was made by the Rover Car Company about remarks Mr Green made to their manager when he was asked about his next journey to pick up a skip. Mr Green said he would not be returning that day, yet usually the Rover company had three or four skips moved per day.
When Mr Green was askea. about the incident by his superior, he said, "If you don't like it you can lump it" and it was decided to dismiss him.
—Tfie tribunal said ,that employers must not only have reasonable grounds for dismissal, but the decision must be put into effect in a reasonable manner. They were satisfied there had been sufficient number of warnings to put Mr Green on his guard, and as to his general lack of performance, they concluded there was no such defect in the procedure which would entitle them to say management had acted unreasonably. In the end, a company had to act in the best interest of its business.