1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152 
ietters of the law: t in wrong order
Page 19
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
EL RE TO FOLLOW strict dismissal procedures cost a lag company €120 compensation when it appeared before ham Industrial Tribunal.
he Tribunal awarded the ic ri.inimum compensation .wo weeks' wages — saying 7 h gher amount paid by ;hf eld Haulage (Bilston) I ould be offset by the itri utory fault of driver Mr R. can.
rhel Tribunal were told that July 10 Mr Carr was given a rni g after he had knocked :on rod through the engine. en n September 7 it came the notice of Mr L. Owen, a ect r, that he had been inlve4 in an altercation with e ployee of an important sto'ner, GKN.
Later in the month Mr Carr livered a load of steel to ounbridge a day late, despite ecifically being told that it ustl be on time. Mr Carr ainied that he was delayed in )ndon.
On his return to the depot he as told to move some rubsh After he had loaded bot.4t a ton, Mr Carr started is ehicle and he was asked thy he was not taking the !m inder. He said it was eav and ftgther admitted to le Tribunal that he did not rant to load it anyway.
Mr Owen said that that was 11 the work Mr Carr had done uring the day. The director aw Mr Carr standing in the ard talking to the foreman, 'nd he then went into his office and arranged for a letter of dismissal to be typed out.
The Tribunal said there was no doubt that if there had been a proper verbal warning or even a verbal directive as to what had happened if the delivery of steel failed to take place that would have constituted a good reason for dismissing Mr Carr. No doubt, if there had been any written or verbal warning issued occasionally he could have been dismissed without problems.
However, what had actually happened was that Mr Owen's patience becoming finally exhausted, he immediately. had a dismissal letter typed. out without giving any reason' for the dismissal. He thera handed this letter to Mr Carr. The Tribunal could not agree: that that method was reasonable.