AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Firm failed to apply Code of Practice

28th November 1981
Page 9
Page 9, 28th November 1981 — Firm failed to apply Code of Practice
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 FAILURE to comply with the Code of Practice in relation to redundancy cost Nottingham Paving Ltd, trading as S. B. Hogg (Removals) Ltd, £2,082.89 in compensation when a Sheffield Industrial Tribunal decided that it had unfairly dismissed a driver for reasons of redundancy.

The tribunal was told that the driver concerned, Clifford Davis, had joined Hogg's in 1976. For the first year, he had been engaged on general household removals and then for three years he worked substantially in carrying three-piece suites before once again reverting to household removals' Soon after Nottingham Paving acquired the business, it was faced with a redundancy situation. It decided to make Mr Davis redundant as it felt that its work was geared to household removals and it wished to retain those who had the greatest experience of that work. Although Mr Davis had substantial experience in household removals, it was less than the experience of others who had less service with the company but who were retained.

Mr Davis argued that he was dismissed without any consultation and that it was unfair because he had ample experience of what was required and he could have done the work just as well as those retained. The company argued that it was a reasonable business decision taken in relation to a redundancy.

The tribunal said that it concluded that the company had not complied with the Code of Practice in regard to consultation, discussions and appraisal. If it had also concluded that even though there was a failure to comply then the result would have been the same in any event, the dismissal would have been fair. However, members felt that had there been a thorough discussion things were likely to have been different. Mr Davis was a man of ability and of experience who was efficient in his work.

The tribunal thought there would have been a very different decision if the Code had been complied with and Mr Davis had been retained in the company's employment in one capacity or another.

Tags

People: Clifford Davis

comments powered by Disqus