Job-loss ruling affects new centres
Page 12
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
IN A CASE that foreshadows problems the new operating centre controls would create, a Manchester industrial tribunal has ruled that the movement of a haulier's base by five miles did not create redundancy.
They rejected a claim for a redundancy payment by lorry driver Lindsay Goodchild, who had been employed by W. R. Wilson (Transport) since 1976.
Initially he operated from the company's premises at Bredbury, Stockport, about five miles from his home. The company moved to smaller premises at Ardwick in Manchester in July 1983. On September 15, Mr Goodchild wrote to the company giving a week's notice of the termination of his employment saying that he believed there was a redundancy because of the movement of the depot.
The tribunal said that in certain circumstances an employee could be "constructively dismissed," that is entitled to resign because of the actions of his employer.
The terms and conditions of Mr Goodchild's employment did not specify his place of work, but even if a term could be employed in his original contract of employment that his normal base of operation was Bredbury, the tribunal did not consider that in requiring him to operate from Ardwick the company was guilty of a significant breach of contract.
Neither did they consider that it was an essential term of his contract that the company's depot be at Bredbury rather than at some other place in the Manchester area within a reasonable distance of Bredbury.
By the nature of his job most of Mr Goodchild's working week was spent away from home and on average he would only be home on two working days a week.
He would only have to leave home 15 to 20 minutes earlier and, since the move, drivers had been permitted to take their vehicles home before a long distance journey. Had Mr Goodchild asked if he could do that, permission would have been granted.
Mr Goodchild complained about other matters at Ardwick such as brewing up and toilet facilities but in the tribunal's view those complaints had little substance.
Mr Goodchild gave in his notice and the tribunal did not consider that the company's conduct constituted a "constructive dismissal". Even if they had, they would have held that Mr Goodchild had unreasonably refused an offer of suitable alternative employment so he would not have been entitled to a redundancy payment.