irst in, not last out
Page 7
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
IOUGH an industrial tribu;ould not advise an erntr what to do in relation to ;election of employees for idancy, the tribunal could le if the employer's action reasonable in cases where .1..d redundancy procedures departed from.
said the Leeds Industrial nal when it awarded lorry r J. C. Leva £1,131 compenn for unfair dismissal by his oyers Southstore Ltd. • ?, tribunal heard that in Deer 1980 Mr Leva was given :er saying that because of Igamation with Chateau
Foods Ltd. Two of the drivers were to be made idant and that selection d be on the first-in last-out iple.
Leva complained that a r/storeman, a Mr Heath, did substantially the same and who joined the corn15 months after him had retained.
its decision the Tribunal the company had not id by its own stated proceIt could see no reason why e.ath should have been kept nd Mr Leva dismissed. On simple basis, Mr Leva's tion for redundancy was r.