Management matters
Page 66
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
continued from page 63
say the applicant was in their view "by no means a perfect transport manager. We think he certainly had failings in relation to paper work; we think that he showed from his own evidence that he did not really appreciate that it must have been a great nuisance to the office staff that he duplicated records showing jobs done. We appreciate that he was told by the secretary that that did not matter and that it was better to do that than to omit one. . . ." . . . that all this is " quite a different thing from being slaphappy." Even though there was an alleged failure to keep proper records about mileage, diesel fuel and so on the Tribunal found that Mr Lamey had never given proper directives to the applicant "who after all was quite inexperienced in this sort of managerial work." Hence dismissal on such grounds would have been unfair because "he had not been given a proper chance to remedy his defects by being given proper directives, and warned as to what he was doing wrong."
How did the Tribunal set about determining the compensation in this "serious claim" involving a 54-year-old transport manager who is not 100 per cent fit ?
First, Mr ,Whitear senior had tried hard to get alternative work in the Bideford/Appledore area and he had managed only to get a job as a relief gatekeeper, irregular and speculative work.
Secondly, the new transport manager was being paid £2,600 a year. Had Mr Whitear remained with the company the Tribunal thought it reasonable that his salary would have been, say, taxa Loss of earnings was assessed at £850 a year, but this was not multiplied by 11—for the remaining years of Mr Whitear's normal working career—but by five because of the detinct possibility that even with proper directives the applicant would not have made the grade in which case the respondents could properly and fairly have dismissed him on grounds of lack of capability).
Redundancy entitlement if the dismissal had occurred in February 1975 would have been something rather over £1,000. The Tribunal felt it right to award £650 under this heading, so we get £850 x 5—£4,250) plus £650, giving a figure of £4,900.
Because of the lack of professionalism of Mr Whitear the Tribunal reduced the notional figure of £4,900 to £3,200. Other minor adjustments brought the total stun awarded to £3,495, almost coinciding with the maximum possible.