1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188 
Driver wins £8,000 for unfair dismissal
Page 35
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A DRIVER SACKED without being given a chance to challenge charges of misconduct has won nearly £8,000 in compensation from a Scottish operator.
A Dundee Employment Tribunal ordered Kinglassie, Fife-based T Hamilton & Sons (Contractors) to pay the driver 17,892.06 in compensation for unfair dismissal and unpaid wages.
The company maintained that the driver, George Robertson, had been dismissed for misconduct after a series of incidents that culminated in a number of Christmas trees he was delivering being damaged.
In holding that the dismissal was unfair, the Tribunal said the decision to dismiss was taken without giving Robertson any opportunity to put his side of things. It was mindful that the company was a small employer and had limited administrative resources. However, it did not take much in the way of administrative resources to have a meeting with an employee who was in danger of being dismissed and to ask him to give his side of things.
The company had clearly decided all the incidents. apart from the final one relating to the Christmas trees, merited no more than a warning. In regard to the trees. Robertson's clear evidence was that he he had thought were adequate in the circumstances. The company had no evidence with which to counter that since it had not carried out any investigation . Its position was simply that the trees had fallen over and it must have been Robertson's fault. There was no evidence to suggest that Robertson had contributed to his own dismissal by his conduct. had taken precautions