Dismissed driver wins appeal
Page 23
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
■ DRIVER who took his van ome despite a contract of mployment forbidding this .ad his appeal against unfair ismissal upheld by a Scottish ndustrial Tribunal and was warded £738.
Norman Lovie had taken his • an home when he finished vork after 6 o'clock in accorlance with a practice that had ;rown up in Vogue Varehouses (Edinburgh) Ltd .nd later that night the vehicle was damaged by vandals.
Damage and other transport arrangements cost the company £100 and it took the view that Mr Lovie was guilty of gross misconduct and immediately sacked him.
Vogue claimed that its drivers knew that they should return vans to the company compound and that they had keys to a padlock to do so .enabling the vans to be kept safely locked up.
But Mr Lovie said that the company must have known that drivers took vans home from time to time and there had been no warning that instant dismissal would be the result of taking a van home.
The company contended that the damage to the van was a foreseeable result of taking the van and parking in • a particular area. But the tribunal held that Mr Lovie's conduct did not amount to conduct that warranted immediate dismissal.