AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Last in, first out won't always work

23rd May 1981, Page 15
23rd May 1981
Page 15
Page 15, 23rd May 1981 — Last in, first out won't always work
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?

HE SELECTION of drivers for redundancy by Schrieber Furniture td on the grounds of economy of operation rather than on a "last , first out" basis has been upheld by a Birmingham Industrial ribunal.

It rejected a claim by lorry river E. S. Wood who was emloved at the company's Manhester depot that he had been Linfairly dismissed.

The tribunal heard that in ckprit 1980 the company had gone onto short-time working. In June notices of intended redunlancies were given at Manchester, Bolton and Harlow depots.

In September the company Jecided that 11 drivers who Norked from the Manchester depot but lived in Birmingham :which included Mr Wood) should be dismissed as it was Felt that their operations were Jneconomic.

Mr Wood argued that the method of selection was unfair. He said that he had been based 3t the Manchester depot since 1977 and held a Manchester anion card. He felt that he should have been treated in exactly the same way as the other, Manchester-based, drivers.

The tribunal said that if a driver operated from Manchester but lived in Birmingham, he was going to have to return an empty vehicle to the depot at some stage. At an operating cost of 70p per mile, this meant the Birmingham to Manchester journey cost around £140. However, ruled the tribunal, a driver who lived in Manchester was able to return his vehicle in the evening and get to work early the next morning. A driver who lived in Birmingham would begin his deliveries much later because of the distances involved.

It made economic sense, ruled the tribunal, to retain drivers who lived nearer the Manchester depot.

Mr Wood said he had had the option of moving to Manchester in 1977 all expenses paid but he did not exercise that option. When he was asked what the position would be if he moved to Manchester in 1980 he received no reply and he did not seem to have taken the matter any further.

Schreiber said in 1977 it had given Mr Wood the option of moving to Manchester with all expenses paid. He had not taken up the offer then, and the company was now in no position to repeat the offer.

The tribunal could find nothing unfair in the company's action and in the method chosen for redundancy selection.

Tags

People: E. S. Wood

comments powered by Disqus