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 
Tribunal rules redundancy was justified
Page 29
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
When a driver was made redundant, and then suspected his old truck
was making the same delivery, he claimed for unfair dismissal...
A DRIVER who was made redundant has lost his case for unfair dismissal after a Glasgow Employment Tribunal ruled that this was a genuine redundancy despite the driver's suspicion that the work he was employed on continued following his dismissal.
He suggested that he had been chosen for redundancy because he was approaching a full year's service which would have entitled him to employment rights.
The Tribunal was told that Grimsby-based fish haulier Quayside Distribution had a contract with Frigecosse to transport loads of salmon from its depot at Bellshill down to Manchester, with a drop of a small quantity of fish at Carlisle.This work was carried out by the dismissed driver, Peter Conoboy.
On 25 June Quayside received a letter from Frigecosse advising that due to a large drop in the volume of traffic to Manchester the contract would be cancelled. Conoboy was the only driver employed by the company who was based in the Glasgow area.
There was another arrangement whereby vehicles based in Grimsby and elsewhere travelled to Bellshill on a regular basis to transport material to a variety of locations in the north of England. Because of the varied nature of those locations, the company used two full-time drivers to cover those tasks plus a relief driver, Nigel Brummit, who would occasionally collect from
Bellshill as part of his relief duties. Those three drivers were the only other drivers employed by the company who visited Bellshill.lhey lived in the Midlands or the north of England and they were all based at Quayside's Grimsby site.
Convinced that his old job was being still being performed, Conoboy visited the Bellshill premises after his dismissal. He found two vehicles, including the one he had formerly driven which was now being driven by Brummit. Conoboy contacted his regular customer at Carlisle, who confirmed that there had been no change in its arrangements. Fish was still being delivered to them in a vehicle which was now driven by Bnunmit. The job had changed
However, unknown to him the larger part of Conoboy's job had changed, as Frigecosse was using a single Quayside vehicle without a driver. That vehicle was being used by Frigecosse for other transport requirements on a short-term basis, using its own staff.
The reality was that the regular run to Manchester had been cancelled. The existing arrangements to other destinations were continued and, Brummit, as part of his relief runs to those other destinations, was delivering to Carlisle. The Tribunal decided it was clear that there had simply been an unfortunate series of coincidences from which Conoboy had drawn the wrong conclusion. The Tribunal's conclusion was that this was a genuine redundancy The Tribunal added that prior consultation was rarely pointless. However, the situation arose from a directive from the customer and there was nothing the company could do about that decision. Conoboy was the company's only employee in Scotland and as the company only had a "pool of one" it had no options as to who to make redundant, or the possibility of offering other work. •
DON'T BE SHY—ASK!
CM 's legal section welcomes your questions which will be answered in print by top transport lawyers.
Whether your question is about overloading, drivers' hours, or any aspect of employment law or driving legislation, we will endeavour to give our experts' interpretation of the law. Questions can only be answered in CM'S pages. Write to Patric Cunnane, Legal Editor, Commercial Motor, Quadrant House, Sutton, Surrey SM2 5AS; telephone 020 8652 3678, or e-mail: patric.cunnane@rbi.co.uk