AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Selling pallets did not justify sack

17th January 1991
Page 24
Page 24, 17th January 1991 — Selling pallets did not justify sack
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?

• Woodside Haulage of limber Bridge, Lams acted unfairly by sacking Lirl ei for selling pallets without authority, a Manchester industrial tribunal has ruled.

However, as driver Kenneth Openshaw was said to be 15% to blame, the tribunal will decide at a later date whether he should be reinstated.

The tribunal heard that Openshaw was sacked after one of the company's customers complained that he had uplifted and disposed of pallets without authority after making a delivery.

Openshaw said that he had been asked by a warehouseman to take the non-returnable pallets so that the stock of pallets at the customer's premises could be kept to a minimum.

He sold the pallets for £42 and denied that he had been told he was not allowed to dispose of pallets in such circumstances. However, managing director Norman Rea said that the rule had never been put in writing.

The company had no reasonable grounds to back up its belief that Openshaw had stolen the pallets, said the tribunal. The firm had not carried out an investigation and it had made no enquiries.

A reasonable employer would have spoken to Openshaw and suspended him pending an investigation, it said.


comments powered by Disqus