Compensation for shirt row
Page 16
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• A Glasgow
Industrial Tribunal has ordered ITD Deliveries to pay £2,950 compensation for unfair dismissal to driver Thomas McCourt, after deciding that he had been dismissed by the firm following a row over pay for night shifts.
McCourt told the Tribunal that he usually worked day shifts, but occasionally he did a night shift. The arrangement was that someone would pick him up at home and take him to the firm's Govan depot. He was always paid from the time he arrived at work until the time he left. On 5 March his payslip showed he had been paid for 37 hours for night shifts the previous week, while his own records showed he should have been paid for 41 hours. He discussed the situation with the manager. He understood that he was not to be paid on the same basis as before. Consequently, he said that he was not prepared to do the night shift in future and the manager then told him to find another job as he was dismissed for gross misconduct.
lain Gaffin, the firm's proprietor, said that a spare driver was sent to collect McCourt as a favour. If McCourt's starting time was 03:00 hours, and he arrived at 02:30 hours he wanted to be paid from 02:30. The firm was only prepared to pay McCourt from 03:00 hours. After an argument, McCourt was told that perhaps they best way of resolv
ing the problem was not to arrange for him to have a lift into the depot and for him to report for work the following day at 03:00 hours. McCourt had said he was not prepared to do that and in his view McCourt was therefore refusing to come into work. There had never been any intention of sacking him.
Gaffin conceded that fuelling vehicles before McCourt actually started driving might be regarded as "work".
Holding that McCourt had been dismissed, the Tribunal said he appeared to have been dismissed for no reason. All McCourt had said was that he was not prepared to work the night shift if he was not being paid for the hours worked. That seemed a perfectly reasonable statement to the Tribunal. McCourt was simply airing a legitimate grievance and it was unfortunate that the argument degenerated to the extent that it got out of hand.