Driver takes head after losing glass
Page 22
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A DRIVER who was dismissed by Modern Art Glass Co, for failing to check goods delivered to a customer against the delivery note, was awarded 006.30 compensation by a Leeds Industrial Tribunal, after they had held that he had been unfairly dismissed.
The company told the Tribunal that mistakes could easily be made when sheets of glass were loaded on a vehicle and instructions had been given to drivers, in July 1977, that they must check the sheets of glass as they were off-loaded at the customer's premises and make any necessary amendment to the delivery notes.
The driver concerned, B. Monk, had twice been warned for failing to do that and was finally dismissed in November, after a third incident.
On November 7, a random check was carried out and additional sheets of glass over and above the totals on the delivery notes were found on Mr Monk's vehicle, which they estimated were worth £263. Mr Monk told the works manager that he had checked the load and had amended the delivery notes to coincide with what was actually on the vehicle.
However, when he returned after completing his deliveries, it was found that the delivery notes had not been amended and Mr Monk could not remember to whom all the ex tra glass had been delivered, so the company was unable to charge the customers concerned for it.
In evidence, Mr Monk said his vehicle had been halfloaded by the time he was given the delivery notes and he did not know what had already been loaded on to the vehicle. He agreed he had failed to check the amount delivered to each customer, and said he had been in a rush as he had other deliveries to do because of a shortage of drivers.
As far as a previous incident, at South Shields, was concerned, the customer's staff had started unloading immediately on his arrival and he had not time to check how many sheets were taken off.
In its decision, the Tribunal said it did not feel it fair to blame Mr Monk for the fact extra glass was put on his vehicle. They disregarded the first incident, for which he received a warning, as this had occurred before the instructions to drivers, requiring them to check loads against the delivery note as they were unloaded, had been issued. Although Mr Monk was clearly blameworthy, the Tribunal felt that, bearing in mind that he had been employed by the company for five years, during which time he must have made a very large number of deliveries, and taking into account the particular circumstances, it had been unreasonable of the company to dismiss him without notice.
They held that Mr Monk was 50 per cent to blame for his own dismissal and took that into account when calculating the amount of compensation.