AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Claims too late

5th October 1989, Page 20
5th October 1989
Page 20
Page 20, 5th October 1989 — Claims too late
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?

• Claims h two tanker drivers that they were u fairly dismis sed by William Brennan (Bulk Liquids) have been rejected by two Leeds industrial tribunals, because their claims were submitt( too late.

The tribunals were told that the claims, by H Brij and G Maunders, had bee submitted out of time afte they had heard of the suc cess of one of their colleagues, David Richardsoi in winning 22,466 compensation.

The tribunals ruled that they had no jurisdiction t( hear the claims, because would have been reasonal for them to have been ml within the three-month Ui limit. In Briggs's case the was also an argument ov( whether he had the two years' continuity of empk ment needed for a claim. The tribunal in that case said that he had been dismissed without notice on January, but the company had continued to pay him until 3 February.

Briggs had started fulltime employment with th, company on 25 January 1987. But it was argued that two weeks of servico prior to that, when he ha been employed casually, should be included.

Briggs had done casua work in each of those weeks, but only one shift (16:30hrs to 08:00hrs). That was 151/2 hours in each week, less than 16 hours which was, for the purposes of the legislatio the minimum length of a working week.

If Briggs had been giv, a statutory period of noti it would have been one week. That would have 4 tended his reckonable se vice to 20 January — sti few days short of two ye