AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Driver partly to blame

1st July 1993, Page 18
1st July 1993
Page 18
Page 18, 1st July 1993 — Driver partly to blame
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?

Keywords : Law / Crime

• Evans Transport Services (Wolverhampton) unfairly dismissed a driver who refused to take a load to Scotland without giving any reason because the company did not hold a disciplinary inquiry.

However, a Birmingham Industrial Tribunal indicated that they assessed the driver's contributory blame at 60%. Compensation is to be agreed, Michael Davies told the tribunal he was asked on 24 July to collect a load from Dudley at 06:00hrs. He found the factory shut. He waited for 1 t4 hours and was then told that transport had been booked for 15:30hrs. When he returned to the depot he had to deliver some pallets. He returned at about 11:00hrs and was then told that he had to go to Scotland.

He said that it would have taken him some time to load. The

ernial

journey to Scotland would mean an overnight stay and he did not have a sleeper cab. After he twice refused to take the load Mr Smith, a director, told him to clear out his cab and take the rest of the day off.

Smith said that on both occasions Davies said that if he was expected to go to Scotland that day he would clear his things out of the cab and leave. He told Davies that if he was not going to do the job he was suspended. Davies then took his things and left and he assumed that he was resigning. The following day Davies received his P45, his holiday pay and his wages to date.

The tribunal concluded that Davies had been dismissed. They said they could find no reason for the company to believe that he had resigned. Davies left the depot because he was told to do so. They accepted his evidence that he had removed his belongings from the cab because he would not be driving the vehicle while suspended.

The company decided to dismiss him for misconduct after suspending him, without any inquiry or discussion. For those reasons, the tribunal found the dismissal unfair. However, the tribunal considered that Davies must bear a considerable amount of blame for the dismissal. It said that he made no attempt to discuss the matter with the depot manager or Smith, both of whom were met with a refusal.

Tags

Locations: Wolverhampton

comments powered by Disqus