AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Dismissal over van damage was unfair

20th August 1992, Page 12
20th August 1992
Page 12
Page 12, 20th August 1992 — Dismissal over van damage was unfair
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?

• The dismissal of a driver by AA Leeds-based JA Magson, after he refused to pay the cost of repairs to his vehicle, was unfair, according to a Leeds Industrial Tribunal.

Terence Robson admitted he had been negligent when he reversed over a small pillar damaging the sump and other parts on his Mercedes van. He refused to reimburse the company for the cost of repairing the damage, approximately £800, at the rate of £20 per week.

The tribunal said Robson had 12 years' service with no previous warnings in that time. The admitted misconduct was not so serious as to merit instant dismissal, even taking account of a minor incident the night before when the rear light lenses were broken.

Robson's average take-home pay was £109 a week. He was married with a young child and his wife did not work. To ask a man in those financial circumstances to pay £20 a week, irrespective of the fact that it was unreasonable to put that forward as an alternative to dismissal, was in itself unreasonable, said the tribunal.

The hearing was adjourned for the parties to agree on either the amount of compensation or reinstatement of Robson with no compensation.