Sack for injured driver ruled fair
Page 21
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A DRIVER who was temporarily unable to work following injuries sustained at work had not been unfairly selected for redundancy, a Manchester Industrial Tribunal has ruled, and it rejected driver Albert Griffiths' claim for compensation.
For Mr Griffiths it was argued that his redundancy was unfair because the cause of his tempo rary inability arose from an accident at work. The company ought to have dismissed another employee who had less service and who was paid less and keep Mr Griffiths on until he was fully recovered.
The Tribunal said it accepted the company had to make one of its four hgv drivers redundant and was satisfied that the company, after making adequate inquiries, genuinely believed that Mr Griffiths would not be fit to resume his normal duties for at least another six months.
The company had no precedents for redundancy selection, Mr Griffiths was chosen simply because he was the only driver who was unable to carry out his duties at that time.
The Tribunal did not accept that Mr Griffiths asked management to give him temporarily the job of a lower-paid employee. It was satisfied that in the circumstances the company could not reasonably have been expected to adopt such a course.
The company had found that no alternative employment was available and there were no vacancies. There had been adequate consultation with Mr Griffiths who received an additional four week's wages over and above his statutory entitlement. The Tribunal could find nothing unfair or unreasonable in Mr Griffiths' manner of dismissal.