AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Driver § redundancy claim fails

14th March 1975, Page 19
14th March 1975
Page 19
Page 19, 14th March 1975 — Driver § redundancy claim fails
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

Keywords : Truck Driver, Labor

A LORRY DRIVER, Mr Albert Simpson, formerly employed by Smith's of Eccles Ltd, failed in an application for redundancy payment before the Manchester Industrial Tribunal last week.

Mr M. Durant (representing Mr Simpson) of the United Road Transport Union, said that because of a decrease in local work he had been asked to undertake work in connection with tanker vehicles. This he was not prepared to do and although general haulage work was also available he had been told by Smith's that they knew that he would not do this.

Mr Durant argued that in the absence of any specific wording in the contract of employment, Simpson's employment had always been that of a local driver. To ask him to do either general haulage or tanker driving was to ask him to do a type of work for which he was not employed. In consequence, his dismissal was on the grounds of redundancy. The union had an agreement with the local branch of British Road Services regarding sectional redundancy.

Mr Donald Parkin, Smith's transport manager, said that owing to a reorgani7ation of traffic there was less local work available. Simpson had been offered work ' to Birmingham, with which he was familiar having done it some years ago. When he declined this he was offered single-shift tanker driving and given seven days. to make up his mind. He declined to do either and was therefore dismissed. Since then the company had engaged three additional tanker drivers and four general haulage drivers.

On behalf of the company, Mr Jonathan Lawton submitted that Simpson was employed as a lorry driver and was, in that capacity, reasonably expected to do any work of that nature. The work offered was not "alternative" work in the legal sense, but just another part of the work. Dismissing the application, the Tribunal chairman said they did not feel that the BRS agreement was relevant. Mr Simpson had been employed as a driver and not as a particular sort of driver. Although they had some sympathy with him they were of the unanimous opinion that he had not been dismissed because of redundancy.


comments powered by Disqus