; unfair but as breached
Page 5
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
mechanical duties, which had formed a substantial part of his job from the beginning. Brebner had been entitled to treat his refusal to continue with such work as sufficient reason for dismissal.
However, the Tribunal did not feel the correct procedures had been adopted in Cheyne's dismissal. If Brian Brebner had thought that Cheyne's conduct could lead to his dismissal on his father's return, he should have made that clear at the time, said the Tribunal.
If Cheyne had been so warned, he might have reconsidered his position. Instead, he was given a driving job and left on that job for six weeks, and another driver/mechanic was employed. ln that context it was unfair for the matter to be raised at all in April when George Brebner returned.
The Tribunal also considered that the manner of Cheyne's dismissal was unfair. They said that he had believed that he was being dismissed when, at the lime, that was not the intention. Cheyne had to telephone the firm to be assured that he was not dismissed. Further telephone calls followed, but he was never told that he had been dismissed until he received the letter of 11 April.
Natural justice required that an employee should not merely have an opportunity to state his own case in detail, but that he should know in detail what was being said against him so that he could properly put forward his own case. No such opportunity was afforded to Cheyne in this case.
Ordering Brebner to pay Cheyne compensation for unfair dismissal, the Tribunal said that they felt Cheyne had contributed substantially to his own dismissal and for that reason the amount of compensation awarded was reduced by 40 per cent to £221.40.