Driver compensated for dismissal letter failure
Page 19
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
AA
However, a Man chester industrial tribunal ruled that the driver concerned, Anthony Harrison (no relation), was not entitled to redundancy payment after being sacked because Archbold Freightage would no longer allow him to undertake its work The Tribunal was told that Harrison operated two vehicles solely contracted to Archbold. Though drivers were employed and paid for by the company, they were entirely under Archbold's direction.
The company agreed to a request from Archbold that Anthony Harrison's tacho charts be produced because the company was investigating some load discrepancies. M Harrison later received a telephone call stating that its driver was no longer allowed on Archbold's property and would no longer be required to drive for the company.
Neither M Harrison or the sacked driver were able to obtain a reason why the man had been sacked.
As a result, Malcolm Harrison decided to suspend the driver, giving him a letter outlining the reasons for that decision. The company later terminated the driver's employment.
When Harrison asked for reasons for his dismissal, Malcolm Harrison felt this was an unreasonable request, as he had already given the driver a letter.
Ordering that the company pay 1470, the tribunal said it sympathised with the position of the small employer, but it was incumbent on the company to know the law.
The obligation to give written reasons for dismissal are clearly laid down, it said.