Faulty criteria for dismissal
Page 14
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• Glasdon Manufacturing was ordered to pay 1200 in compensation to lorry driver William Rimmington after a Manchester Industrial Tribunal decided that the way that it had made him redundant was unfair.
The tribunal was told that due to the recession the company had decided that it had to sell one of its vehicles and make one of its six drivers redundant. They first considered selection on the basis of last in, first out. The company then decided that the driver with the least service should be retained because he had an unblemished record, had been commended by customers and had taken a hazpak course. The next driver in line had also attended a hazpak course. The next two were Rimmington, who had joined the company in January 1985 and another, who had joined in June 1985. The company selected Rimmington, after considering the disciplinary records of the two men, Last in, first out had been abandoned as a criterion when it was realised that would lead to the dismissal of Bamber, said the Tribunal. Rimmington was not consulted about the criteria for selection. He was handed what was in effect a letter of dismissal at the start of a meeting on 25 November and told to clear out his lorry and leave the premises at the end of that meeting. He had no real opportunity to challenge his selection.
Although the company had offered the following week for consultation, the Tribunal did not consider that it ever had any intention of reviewing its decision. Rimmington was asked to report on 6 December to see if alternative work could be found for him. It had not, and the Tribunal was not satisfied that the company had made any attempt to find him alternative employment within the company itself or the rest of the group.