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
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192 
Cameo sacking upheld
Page 24
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• Though unhappy with the procedure adopted by Cameo Haulage when sacking a driver, a Cardiff industrial tribunal has decided that the dismissal was not unfair.
The tribunal was told that the driver concerned, Peter Ruck, was in Spain when he carelessly allowed petrol instead of gas oil to be put into the tank of the refrigerated unit on his vehicle. He had also failed to comply with in structions to change a defective tyre, with the result that the vehicle was given a prohibition notice in a roadside check. Furthermore, the gearbox of his vehicle was damaged beyond repair in circumstances where the fault should have been noticeable for some time before Ruck actually reported it.
Rejecting Ruck's claim that he was unfairly dismissed, the tribunal concluded he had been dismissed for a mixture of misconduct and incapability. Though Ruck had been given no opportunity of offering an explanation, the tribunal took account of the fact that this was a very small company and that the overwhelming chances were that a reasonable employer would have rejected such explanations as Ruck was able to offer and would still have dismissed him.