Driver's E343 award after slow deliverie
Page 13
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
DRIVER has been awarded £343 for unfair dismissal, after Dsing his job in the wake of complaints about slow deliveries.
Glendower Cutting Tools ..td denied that driver E. Vesson had been dismissed, Then the case was heard by ..eicester Industrial Tribunal. t claimed that he had left of kis own accord.
Mr Wesson said that on une 21 the managing director, Ar Doherty, said that he was lot satisfied with the length of ime he was taking over deiveries. Mr Doherty said he vas not prepared to accept his any longer and that Mr Wesson was being paid up to he end of the week as he no onger wanted him on the orripany. Mr Wesson said he isked Mr Doherty whether he vas being sacked and Mr )oherty said "yes."
Mr Doherty said he had a list )f complaints about Mr Wesson. He had wanted to mow why he had driven an xtra 40 miles when delivering ;oods in Peterborough. He isked him several times for the lames of the three companies le had visited and got a diferent answer on each occa;ion.
When he gave him the list of '-omplaints, Mr Wesson had ;aid the company would have ,o give him a week's notice. When Mr Doherty said "No. I mant to make some inquiries," VIr Wesson had replied "I will ;ee you at the tribunal."
After Mr Wesson left, the ompany received a National [nsurance questionnaire. In Thing out the circumstances ;urrounding Mr Wesson's caving, the company added He would have been dismissed if he had waited."
The tribunal said it accepted Mr Wesson's evidence of what lad occurred on June 21. This ..vas to some extent corroborated by the National Insurance questionnaire.
The company had given Mr Wesson a written warning on May 16 after it was alleged he h.ad washed his car, without )ermission, saying that he was then on probation for the next two weeks. The Peterborough incident occurred on May 25.
None of those matters had been put to Mr Wesson at the time despite the fact they were within the two-week probationary period. In fact no mention was made of the Peterborough allegations until June 21.
Complaints have also been made that Mr Wesson took too long over deliveries and that he failed to report in at lunchtime as he was required to do. It was also said that he misused the company car.
Although Mr Wesson had been given a verbal warning in March, the tribunal said the written warning in May had been for a completely different and separate matter.
The tribunal believed that the company had made a series of aliegz dons against Mr Wesson, most of which were unfoundeG according to the offence. They felt that there was no consistency in the way that management had dealt with him. They believed that it had been the company's intention to dismiss Mr Wesson and that dismissal was unfair.