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 
Driver's day off needed Ito coolout
Page 20
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A LORRY driver who refused to take out a load, left the premises and did not show up for work the following day, was unfairly dismissed, ruled a Pudsey Industrial Tribunal.
Compensation is to be agreed between the driver, R. Rushworth, and his former employers, Hardware Distributors (Yorkshire) Ltd.
The company employs six drivers to deliver goods to customers and to its own Cash and Carry outlet. The normal hours were from 8am to 4.30pm, but drivers were expected to complete their loads before returning to base.
The deliveries to the company's Cash and Carry outlet were not popular with the drivers, as they had to be made at the end of the day.
During Mr Rushworth's service there had been complaints about absenteeism and he had been given a warning. He had also been warned about an occasion when he adopted a belligerent attitude at a customer's premises.
On February 1, Mr Rushworth arrived back at the depot between 3 and 3.30pm and was told to load up for the Cash and Carry outlet. He swore, but said he would do the job and asked for a mate to help him. The transport manager refused by shrugging his shoulders and walking away, and Mr Rushworth left the depot Mr Rushworth stayed at home the following day, for what the Tribunal said was the somewhat extraordinary reason that he wanted a coolingoff period. When he reported for work he was dismissed.
The Tribunal said there was no grievance or disciplinary procedure operating and if the Code of Practice in respec disciplinary procedures N considered, the company woefully short in almost ev respect. However, the fact t there was no disciplim procedure did not necessa make a dismissal unfair.
The company argued t Mr Rushworth's conduct been "gross misconduct" tifying instant dismissal. The Tribunal did not fee could find that Mr Ru worth's conduct was "gr misconduct" justifying inst dismissal. Therefore, they si his dismissal had been unfa