AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Tribunals split over fighters

28th July 1988, Page 12
28th July 1988
Page 12
Page 12, 28th July 1988 — Tribunals split over fighters
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 and a traffic clerk, sacked by F W Farnsworth for fighting, have been given fair and unfair dismissal decisions by two different Nottingham industrial tribunals.

Last October driver Stephen Edwards had returned to the company's depot after a longdistance trip. Traffic clerk John Bancroft had failed to give him the correct instructions regarding the disposal of mattresses used in refrigerated vehicles. As a result, Edwards had had to unload his vehicle in the pouring rain. He had been annoyed, had spoken to Bancroft and a fight had developed and glass in a door had been broken. At a subsequent disciplinary hearing the company had been unable to determine who had started the fight, and both men had been dismissed.

Bancroft's case had been dealt with first, and the tribunal had ruled that he had been unfairly dismissed because he had been sacked at the outset of the disciplinary hearing, before his union representative had had an opportunity of putting his case forward. They assessed Bancroft's contribut ary fault at 65%.

Edwards' case came later, before a different tribunal. It ruled that the dismissal had been fair because he had not been sacked until the end of the disciplinary hearing, after his union representative had had an opportunity of putting his side of the story to the company.

That tribunal said that it had been unable to accept that the procedural defect which applied in Bancroft's case rendered Edwards' dismissal unfair. Even if there had been a procedural defect in Edwards' case, it would have made no order for compensation as it felt that it would not have made any difference to the result. Fighting was a gross offence and it was unable to say that a reasonable employer would not have dismissed under these circumstances.

Expressing concern about the inconsistency of the two decisions, the tribunal said that it would have been better if both cases had been heard at the same time, by the same tribunal. Unfortunately, this had not been practical.

Tags

Locations: Nottingham

comments powered by Disqus