AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

No money for Oliver drivers

30th March 2006, Page 10
30th March 2006
Page 10
Page 10, 30th March 2006 — No money for Oliver drivers
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?

It seems the final chapter in the

William 1Vartin Oliver saga has been L

written. Guy Sheppard reports.

FOUR TRUCK drivers whose jobs moved 25 miles when their company was taken over by Cumbrian haulier William Armstrong have lost their claim for wrongful dismissal.

The former employees of William Martin Oliver claimed the travelling distance from their original workplace near Hexham to Armstrong's Longtown base north of Carlisle was too far.

But an employment tribunal ruled against the drivers after hearing how Armstrong had originally intended to continue operating from Oliver's site but was refused permission just before the deal went through.

The takeover nearly a year ago followed the conviction of three members of the Oliver family for conspiracy to falsify tacho charts (CM 12 May 2005).

Chris Dubber, regional officer for the United Road Transport Union, reports that each of the drivers would have been entitled to about £8,000 in redundancy pay if the tribunal had agreed that the takeove rprocedures had breached the TUPE transfer of undertakings legislation.

"Armstrong said that because the drivers were away all week, they would only have had to go there on the first and last day of the week." he adds. "Our argument was that Longkown was too far to travel and no help with the transport had been offered."

The URTU spokesman adds that although Armstrong has now found a replacement site in Hexham, this did not happen for more than six months after the takeover was completed: The drivers who did transfer over were told they would only be at Longtown for a short time."


comments powered by Disqus