AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Lynx driver wins 'dishonesty' case

1st November 1990
Page 23
Page 23, 1st November 1990 — Lynx driver wins 'dishonesty' case
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?

• Lynx Express Delivery

AA Network has

been ordered to re-engage a de livery driver it sacked for sus pected dishonesty.

A Manchester industrial tribunal was told that John Power had been employed at the company's Leyland depot and had been dismissed after it was suspected that he had stolen a carton of Caithness Glass.

Power was reported by two other employees to have been seen taking the carton from a loading bay other than his own, and putting it in his vehicle.

When interviewed, Power denied any dishonesty, claiming no knowledge of any carton of Caithness Glass. He was subsequently cleared at Crown Court of a charge of theft.

Holding that Power had been unfairly dismissed, the tribunal said that it was satisfied that the company did not have reasonable grounds for believing that he was guilty. Power had been dismissed within 20 minutes of returning to the depot — no reasonable employer would have acted in such a hasty and precipitate manner.

He was not informed that the interview was a disciplinary interview which could result in dismissal and he was given no opportunity of representation. Any reasonable employer would have allowed him to read the written statements made by the two employees who made the allegation.

The tribunal was satisfied that it was common practice for the senior warehouseman to give drivers blank delivery notes to complete if they discovered goods on their vehicles not accompanied by the appropriate delivery note.

When Power told the security officer that he had delivered two parcels to a customer, one of which had no delivery note to that effect, his statement had not been investigated.