AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Shell policy costs Al*

17th August 1989, Page 22
17th August 1989
Page 22
Page 22, 17th August 1989 — Shell policy costs Al*
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?

IN A Shell ban on drivers over 60 has cost Birmingham tanker operator Alpha (Bulk Liquids) 21,784 in redundancy money and cornpensation for unfair dismissal.

Tanker driver S 11 Wyatt told a Birmingham industrial tribunal that his dismissal by Shell transport contractor Alpha was unfair.

Rumours of the ban circulated at Shell's Kingsbury depot during last autumn. In December Wyatt (who was 61 in January) asked the depot manager about the situation and was told his employment would finish at the end of the year. lie consequently left at the end of 1988, without being offered any redundancy pay.

The tribunal said Wyatt was perfectly fit and capable of working, but the company was in the position that there was no work for him on the Shell contract, and no alternative work was available.

Clearly this made him redundant. Wyatt was not given any written or verbal notice of the termination of his employment by Alpha, and there was no consultation.

Though it would have made no difference to the final result, the tribunal said that the company had a duty to keep its staff informed of their fate.

The tribunal found it curial. that Alpha's managing direct° never told Wyatt directly that his job would end, saying thal the total failure to communici with Wyatt turned a redundar cy into unfair dismissal.

The tribunal ordered Alpha to pay Wyatt 2984 redundanc with 2800 compensation for ii fair dismissal.