AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Compensation slashed

26th May 1994, Page 19
26th May 1994
Page 19
Page 19, 26th May 1994 — Compensation slashed
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

• Teesside Transport Commercial Services, trading as David Fox Transport, has to pay lorry driver Arthur Fox 48 compensation for unfair dismissal. Fox was sacked after his trailer mounted a kerb and burst a tyre.

A Leeds Industrial Tribunal was told that Fox had been driving his artic out of the Middlesbrough premises of British Steel when the trailer mounted the kerb and went over a piece of protruding metal. Arthur Fox was interviewed by director David Fox, who did not accept his explanation, taking the view that he should not have allowed the trailer wheels to run over the kerb. He said he would consider his record, and sent him to make

6

a delivery at Pocklington on his way back to Immingham.

When David Fox looked at the file he discovered that Fox had received one written and two verbal warnings. He telephoned the company's managers at Immingham, telling them to dismiss Arthur Fox on his arrival.

The Tribunal said that there was no attempt by David Fox to discuss Arthur Fox's record with him. When he arrived at Immingham he was dismissed without being given an opportunity to discuss the matter.

Although the Tribunal accepted that the company was entitled to the view that the burst tyre was due to Arthur Fox's negligence, the procedures followed were defective. It was unreasonable for the company to dismiss Arthur Fox without a hearing to answer the charges against him: charges which were never put to him in any detail.

However, Arthur Fox had one written and two verbal warnings. The Tribunal reduced the compensation by 50% because of his conduct, particularly in view of the seriousness of his conduct at Middlesbrough, and by a further 90% because they assessed that if a fair procedure had been followed he would only have had a 10% chance of keeping his job.


comments powered by Disqus