AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Grey Green success

6th February 1976
Page 43
Page 43, 6th February 1976 — Grey Green success
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?

A CASE concerning Grey Green Coaches of Stamford Hill, London, gives an insight into tribunal decisions. I have extracted the whole of this account from the tribunal's decision.

The tribunal said the reason for dismissal was the capability of the driver and his conduct. But to succeed, the employer "has to surmount the greater hurdle of satisfying us that having regard to equity and the substantial merits of the case, he acted reasonably in treating that reason as a sufficient reason to justify the driver's dismissal," Grey Green had alleged that the driver altered the itinerary of a tour to Torquay. The general manager concluded that he was at fault and gave instructions that he was not to take the next coach load. "The driver states that he received no instructions that he was not to take the coach to Torquay and he acted in accordance with his scheduled duty. In the absence of positive evidence to the contrary, we accept his evidence." On the next tour, the driver had refused to hand over his keys to a substitute driver and brought the coach back. He was given a warning that he would be dismissed if a similar incident ;occurred.

A succession of complaints— the majority disputed—for the summer of 1975 occupy some 150 lines of the decision. "In dealing with these facts," said the tribunal, "we have had to have regard to hearsay evidence in many cases. We are aware of the dangers of accepting evidence of this nature and have approached the consideration of each incident in a cautionary manner with such dangers in mind."

On a service run to Ramsgate, which involved a change of passengers with another coach at a restaurant, the other coach failed to appear. Despite instructions by phone, the driver refused to keep to his own route and went to Deal and Dover instead.

On a tour to Brixham, he was observed to be distressed and overwrought. It was arranged for him to take a week's holiday and to provide a medical certificate, which was satisfactory so he returned to duty.

On a trip to Bournemouth, through no fault of his own, the coach arrived late; he told passengers that to compensate he would depart one hour later, at 6pm, but left at 5.10pm. Several passengers were left behind and had to be paid 67 compensation. "The driver denies that he said the coach would leave late and says that he prepared to leave on schedule at 5pm but in fact left at 5.20pm, having to wait for passengers who did not arrive."

Shorter runs

Warned that his job performance was not satisfactory, and examined by the company doctor, who pronounced him fit, the driver, was by agreement with the union representative, placed on "old man's journeys" with shorter runs and longer rest periods.

On a service run to Hastings via Eastbourne, the driver finished at Eastbourne. Another Lime instead of calling at Pentonville Road Coach Station, he called at Caledonian Street Coach Station, which had been closed for 18 months. On a return trip from Hastings where he was operating jointly two services, he left passengers behind for one of those services.

The tribunal noted that the,— pr oper appeal procedures' against dismissal had been followed.

They concluded: that the employer had shown the cause of dismissal to be the driver's conduct in disobeying instructions and his capability. The driver claimed that the complained of incidents did not take place, apart from a minor one. The tribunal was satisfied that such incidents did occur. "Having regard, to equity and the substantial merits of the case, the driver was justifiably dismissed in a fair manner."

Ralph Cropper

Tags

Organisations: Coaches of Stamford Hill
People: Ralph Cropper
Locations: London

comments powered by Disqus