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
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186 
Driver loses claim for unfair dismissal
Page 32
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
AN EASTRIGGS lorry driver who lost his claim for unfair dismissal against Wm Armstrong (Longtown) has been ordered to pay f200 towards the company's legal costs.
A Glasgow Employment Tribunal heard that Andrew Graham was sacked last December for two reasons. First, it was claimed that he had urinated at the side of his vehicle in the sight of members of the public, including children. Second, he was accused of defrauding the company of £1,700 by falsely filling in his tirnesheets.
The first matter had come to the company's attention following a phone call from a member of the public. The location of the alleged incident was a 10-minute drive from the company's base and there was a toilet within 50 yards. Graham had no sensible explanation; at the disciplinary hearing he would neither admit nor deny that the incident had taken place.
Appearing before the Tribunal, Graham denied the urinating incident, though he conceded that his truck had been stopped at the place where it was said to have taken place. He denied telling a manager that it had taken place.
Graham accepted he had completed the timesheets incorrectly over a significant period, but maintained it had been an accident.
The Tribunal found the company was entitled to reject Graham's explanation. It accepted the company believed he was guilty in both cases and considered his claim for unfair dismissal had been misconceived.