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
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208 
complaint mut tail offence
Page 22
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A DRIVER who was dismissed following a complaint about his driving was awarded compensation by a Leeds Industrial Tribunal because his employers had failed to give him sped details of the complaint against him.
K. Webb was one of eight drivers employed by A. Ogden & Sons Ltd working on a contract with the National Coal Board for the movement of waste from one colliery to another.
In its decision the tribunal says that Mr Webb had never been given any terms for his employment and there was no evidence of any grievance procedure.
Last October he was given a written warning about absenteeism and three complaints about his time keeping, although Mr Webb denied that he was late on many occasions. The tribunal also accep evidence that on occasii when his vehicle was foun< be overloaded, Mr Webb I removed the excess in suc way as to cause damage.
However, the main cc plaint about Mr Webb wa: respect of his driving. company attached consk able importance to the wa■ which its vehicles were driN and both the local autha and the NCB kept a watc1 this respect. The importa attached to this had bi made very plain to the driv In July 1977 Mr Webb given a verbal warning ab the speed at which his veh had been driven on a NCB E There was also a compli about spillage of material the road from the applica vehicle. The cornim maintained this was the re: either of poor driving or poor loading.
Mr Webb was dismissec November after the comp received a complaint fr Cannock District Council t Mr Webb had overtaken other vehicle belonging to company in a dangerous m ner.
The applicant denied that was involved and the tribu said they found the most turbing feature of the case N that Mr Webb had been no proper information ab the incident that was the s ject of the complaint.
The tribunal was as mud the dark as Mr Webb. It 1 not been told when or wh the incident took place, precisely made the oomph' or what the witness said I happened. Again nothing I been heard concerning I views of the driver of company's other vehicle s to be. involved.
The tribunal said that employer could be said to h. acted reasonably if he c missed a driver for an incid about which no details of w took place are given