Guy sacked for parking
Page 18
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
6 6
• Wilkinson Furniture acted unfairly in sacking a driver who disobeyed instructions that vehicles must be parked at their operating centre when not away from base, a Leeds industrial tribunal has ruled.
But the tribunal added that it only faulted the company's decision to dismiss driver Philip Guy because it had got its procedure wrong.
The tribunal was told that because of the Licensing Authority's crackdown on the parking of vehicles away from their operating centres, the company had written to its drivers saying that all vehicles had to be kept at their specified operating centres when not away on duty.
On 12 June the company was informed by the North Eastern Traffic Area that Guy's vehicle, which was based at Pontefract, had been seen parked at the Sharlston Hotel. He was given a verbal warning, but it was not recorded.
In September, after returning from a trip to London, Guy parked his vehicle on waste ground at Sharlston. The vehicle was seen there by the company's marketing and distribution manager. The following day Guy reported that his vehicle had been vandalised and following a disciplinary interview he was dismissed.
For the company, it was said that the damage to the vehicle had played no part in the dismissal. It's 0-licence depended on strict enforcement of the parking requirement. Drivers were almost totally on trust in that respect, so any break of the requirement had to be viewed seriously.
Guy admitted breaching the requirement but said that he thought that the most he would get after 20 years' service was a written warning.
Holding that Guy had been unfairly dismissed, but assessing his contributory fault at 50%, the tribunal said it did not wish to say anything that would detract from the company's right to emphasise to its drivers the continuing importance of complying with the LA's requirement, and the drastic consequences if they failed to do SO. Whether a trust basis was adequate to secure that compliance was a matter for the company: some might think that it was not.
The tribunal felt that the company had not gone far enough to make it clear to Guy that any repetition would be viewed seriously enough to bring about his dismissal. A disciplinary warning should be clear and unambiguous, and in this case it had not been.