AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Hauliers failed to pay redundancy

14th October 1993
Page 14
Page 14, 14th October 1993 — Hauliers failed to pay redundancy
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?

• I lumberside haulier Alan Carter has to pay £250 towards the legal expenses of a driver after failing to turn up at a hearing before a Hull industrial tribunal. Driver Roy Pearce had claimed the company owed him a redundancy payment, holiday pay and payment in lieu of notice.

He told the tribunal that he had been employed by the company as a lorry driver since March 1972. In May he was called in by Carter who told him that he had decided not to carry on with the business apart from keeping one truck for himself. Carter had said that he would see to it that he, Pearce, got every penny to which he was entitled.

Pearce had never received any money. He had written to Carter claiming a redundancy payment without ever having an answer.

The tribunal said Pearce was clearly entitled to a redundancy payment, two weeks' holiday pay, and 12 weeks' pay in lieu of notice. The tribunal did not have jurisdiction in that respect at present so if Pearce wanted to pursue that matter he would have to go to the county court.

The company was directed to pay Pearce a redundancy payment of £3,380 holiday pay of £260, plus £250 costs. The tribunal said the company's failure to respond in any way to Pearce's claims or to the present proceedings, when there appeared to be no defence to his entitlement, justified it having to pay some of the cost of Pearce's legal advice.

Tags


comments powered by Disqus