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 
£2,466 for driver unfairly chosen for redundancy
Page 99
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
4.. AN INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL award" ing a driver £2,466 compensation for unfair selection for redundancy, said no proper consideration was given to his length of service or skill in relation to other drivers and there was no consultation.
• WILLIAM BRENNAN (Bulk Liquids) Ltd has been ordered to pay lorry driver David Richardson £2,466 compensation, by a Leeds industrial tribunal, on the grounds that the company selected him for redundancy unfairly.
The tribunal was told that Brennan's had found itself in a loss-making situation. It was decided to reduce the fleet operated from 38 to 26 vehicles. Each vehicle had its own driver and the drivers of those vehicles taken off the road were made redundant.
The Tribunal said that length of service was an important factor in selection, though not the only criteria. It might be that someone with less service might be retained because of their particular skills. In that case, all the drivers made redundant were equally as skilled, if not better skilled, than those retained. The company was unable to say what was the length of service of all the drivers but Richardson's evidence was that two or three of the drivers retained had less service than he had In any event, it was a point that was never considered by the company. No proper consideration was given to Richardson's length of service or skill in relation to the other drivers. There had been no consultation. If there had been, Richardson would have been able to point out those matters and it might be that he would not have then been selected, The tribunal was not satisfied that Richardson's selection had been reasonable in the circumstances.