AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

TGWU REPLIES I I would like to draw reference to

6th October 1988, Page 22
6th October 1988
Page 22
Page 22, 6th October 1988 — TGWU REPLIES I I would like to draw reference to
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?

the article reported in your 8-14 September issue under the heading "Curtain Must Pay" on page 33.

The article refers to an award by the tribunal of two weeks' pay to the three men in relation to redundancy payments, when in actual fact the two weeks' pay was awarded as a result of an application by the T & GWU for a "Protective Award."

On behalf of the three men I made a further application claiming that they were unfairly dismissed and were entitled to redundancy payments, recognising their entitlements under the Employment Protection Act. This application was also successful in that two were awarded a basic award which equates to full payment under the Redundancy Payments Act — one man 10 weeks' payment, the other 15 weeks' payment. In the case of the third man he was awarded the basic award of 11 weeks' pay and also a compensatory payment of a further seven weeks at gross nett earnings. These payments are in addition to the two weeks' pay award.

As you are probably aware the industrial tribunals in Scotland do not consider the legal rights as defined in the Employment Protection Act which covers lieu-of-notice payment entitlements; this area must be referred to the Sheriff Court for a decision. To this end the T & GWU has instructed solicitors to make application on behalf of its members.

Donald Munro, Transport & General Workers' Union, Paisley, Scotland.


comments powered by Disqus