AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Is dismissal a four-letter word?

22nd October 1976
Page 41
Page 41, 22nd October 1976 — Is dismissal a four-letter word?
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?

A TRANSPORT CONTRACTOR who told his driver to "— off" was deemed to have dismissed him and he was instructed to pay the driver £312 compensation. That was the fate of T. C. Thompson Transport Ltd of Lewisham, South London, under a decision of an Industrial Tribunal.

The driver had received instructions to take his vehicle to the testing station, the vehicle being untaxed and unable to be taxed until the test certificate was obtained. He was also instructed, after obtaining the test certificate, to go on to an important customer. The issue of the test certificate, was refused, so he did not go to the customer as instructed but returned to the yard with the vehicle.

The Tribunal's decision goes on: "When he returned, there was a conflict of evidence between Mr Thompson and the driver as to what was said. According to Mr Thompson, he was highly annoyed that the driver had not gone to the customer, whom he did not wish to let down. He asked the driver the reason and was told by him that the vehicle had not passed its MoT test.

Mr Thompson instructed him to carry on with the journey and go to the customer. Mr Thompson said, "If you can't take the vehicle, you might as well go." The driver then went home. Mr Thompson denied that he had used the word "sacked" and in fact the driver himself confirmed that this word had not been used. "The evidence of the driver," continues the Tribunal, "is completely contrary. He says the conversation was as follows. Mr Thompson said 'What are you doing back here?' and was told the vehicle had failed its test. He then said 'you could have gone and done a day's work,' so the driver naturally inquired 'well what if I was stopped?' Mr Thompson replied 'you won't get stopped for testing again and tax'. Mr Thompson repeated 'you will not get stopped, are you going to do a days won l or are you not?' The driver replied 'no, not with the motor which has failed its test and is not taxed'. Mr Thompson then said 'you are finished'; the driver asked him again and he repeat ed 'you are finished, off'.

"We have to decide on that evidence whether in fact there was a dismissal. It is admitted that Mr Thompson was extremely angry; he says he was more concerned with his customer than the state of the vehicle. We accept the evidence of the driver on this, that he was told he was finished and to ---off. We are of the unanimous opinion that those words constituted a dismissal.

-Now, since he was dismissed, has the employer shown a reason for the dismissal? In our view the employer has admitted that this was an unlawful order and the driver was proper in disobeying it. He was a conscientious driver and did not want to break the law, nor to take the vehicle. out and to be a menace on the road. In our unanimous view

the employer has shown no reason for the dismissal."

There is much more in the Tribunal decision. It reports what went on later in the day and the efforts made by Mr Thompson and his father to emphasise to the driver that he had not been dismissed, and that the firm wanted him to return to work. The Tribunal recognise that the employer -did all he possibly could to clear up this unfortunate mistake. Mr Thompson went so far as to contact the driver in the evening of the same day to inform him that he was not dismissed and could return on Monday."

The decision goes on: "Once the driver had been dismissed, the dismissal could not be reversed by the unilateral action of the employer. The driver was quite entitled to insist upon the dismissal as one which stood; it takes both parties to agree to a dismissal being rescinded".

This case is unfortunate because the driver was instructed to do something which would break the law. It shows the extreme danger of words said in anger and in the heat of the moment. With the acceptance by the tribunal of the driver's account of his recollection of the event, it shows hovy. the employer can never know exactly what he is up against when he is forced into a tribunal hearing.

The tribunal put on record that the firm did all it possibly could to clear up -this unfortunate mistake-. But it was too late, so the tribunal viewed it, to get the firm off the hook. For a few sharp words, Thompsons

Tags

Organisations: Industrial Tribunal
People: Thompson
Locations: London

comments powered by Disqus