AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Driver wins case

27th October 1984
Page 16
Page 16, 27th October 1984 — Driver wins case
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?

A DRIVER's refusal to work on a Sunday led to a Pudsey industrial tribunal being asked to interpret an agreement between the Leeds and Bradford Hauliers Federation and the Transport and General Workers' Union.

The driver concerned, Mr E. Chilton employed by Chris Metcalfe, was seeking compensation for unfair dismissal. The company claimed that he had not been dismissed, but only suspended.

The evidence was that on July 20 Mr Chilton refused to work the following Sunday. He was asked to think about it for

Dissatisfied

AFTER objections from a delivery driver an Employment Court judge has ruled that if a member is dissatisfied with his union's performance he could be entitled to opt out of a "closed shop" agreement.

A worker's objection did not have to be in the nature of a moral objection, said Mr Justice Bristow at the Employment Appeals Tribunals in London.

The driver left the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers because he thought the union had failed to look after his interests when he claimed he was unfairly dismissed from his job. This was seen as an adequate reason by the Tribunal.

The driver, Richard Shackcloth, of Hitchin, Hertfordshire, is now claiming compensation against his former employer Home Delivery S-rvices of Hitchin, which is part of the Littlewoods organisation. 15 minutes and he was suspended when he again refused. The following Wednesday, the company phoned to ask him to come into work the following day, but in the meantime, Mr Chilton had got another job.

The company abided by an agreement between the Federation an.d the TGWU which stated, at paragraph eight, that the working week would be 40 hours guaranteed, being a minimum of eight hours per day Monday to Friday. If a fiveand-a-half-day week was worked, there should be a minimum of seven-and-a-half hours per day, Monday to Friday, and four hours on Saturday.

Mr Chilton claimed that he could abide by that agreement without the necessity of having to work on a Saturday. He accepted that he had frequently worked on Saturdays in the past to stay in line with the rest of the workforce. He also agreed that he was on a fiveand-a-half day week of 55 hours with the occasional Sunday.

The company pointed to paragraph two of the agreement which stated that where more favourable terms applied, they should be the subject of negotiation between individual management and shop stewards. The company maintained that there was such an agreement which entitled it to require drivers to work on Sundays instead of Saturdays.

The tribunal said that it had not seen any written evidence of such an alternative agreement. Consequently, it held that the binding agreement was the one referred to between the Federation and the Union.

If that was the operative agreement and contract of employment, then Mr Chilton was not compelled to work on a Sunday. He was asked to do so and he was within his rights to refuse.

By suspending Mr Chilton without pay, the company had repudiated the contract of employment. Mr Chilton was entitled to treat the contract as being at an end and his leaving as a "constructive dismissal".

The tribunal adjourned the proceedings for 28 days to give the parties an opportunity of agreeing on compensation.


comments powered by Disqus