1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152 
It's curtains for no-nights driver
Page 21
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
'VAS FAIR for a Sheffield lorry driver to be sacked for refusing to e out a load which involved an overnight stay, according to an ustrial Tribunal.
. heard that driver Patrick nberton had worked for 19 irs with C. H. Preston (Shefd) Ltd as a long-distance ver. Until about three years ), he had worked on a rota ich involved an overnight y once a month, but since !ri he had been engaged ely on local work.
-le told the Tribunal that he sn't keen to work long hours overtime, and the company I its best to pass this work to ler drivers who, being mard men, were in greater need extra cash. But the Tribunal said Mr Pemberton's contract of employment obliged him to make journeys involving overnight stays if necessary. The memorandum of agreement said there would be full flexibility of duties and varied starting times.
Mr Pemberton was wrong in saying that there had been a variation in his contract entitling him to be regarded as a local driver.
He was given a warning in January when he failed to follow instructions and returned to base without picking up another load. Though he claimed that the trailer had not been properly loaded, the Tribunal was satisfied that Mr Pemberton was in fact unwilling to stay overnight.
In July, he refused to do an overnight journey to London, without giving any reason. He told the Tribunal that he would have been prepared to take the load if the vehicle had been suitable for the purpose, though he did not say so at the time.
The Tribunal held it inconceivable that Mr Pemberton would not have said this at the time — if that was his real objection. He did not want to stay overnight, and, by his refusal, he was repudiating a fundamental term of his contract of employment.
According to the company, it was trying to preserve its drivers' jobs in the face of the recession. All it wanted in return was for its drivers to show some flexibility.