Finn drive itself
Page 18
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A DRIVER'S claims ti labourer with less service himself should have been ted for redundancy in his have been rejected by a mingham Industrial Trib but it ruled that driver Coles, employed by Ho Haulage Ltd, was entitled 1 most £220 in redundE payments.
Dealing with the questi< whether Mr Cole qualified f, dundancy payment, the Trit said the relevant dates of t, nation of his employment the Saturday of the we which his notice expired.
By rounding up the yea his employment it found date on or before whicl should have been employ( qualify for the two-year qu ing period was Septembe 1978, and it was satisfied th. Coles' employment begar September 11, 1978.
Mr Coles maintained tha James, a labourer employe the company, had one y, less service and should I been selected for redunde Although Mr James was cla as a driver, Mr Coles sal< spent half his time labouring
The company argued Mr C had been the only driver ployed and business had clined severely. Nobody been employed to replace Cole and any lorry driving was now necessary was don the company's managing d tor.
The Tribunal ruled that those circumstances it was titled to reorganise its activi provided it acted reasonabl deciding who was to be m redundant.
The tribunal did not think Coles had been unfairly SE ted.