A MOTORCYCLE technician at L’Islet Motors was unfairly dismissed. That was the conclusion of an employment and discrimination tribunal.
Benjamin Le Page was employed at the garage from March 2005 until his dismissal on 4 January.
The core of Mr Le Page’s argument was that he had been unfairly selected for redundancy.
The panel consisted of chairwoman Carol Harvey, Stephen Jones and Andrew Vernon.
They heard how, in May last year, Mr Le Page had been told by two of the directors that not enough hours were being charged to customers to balance the books.
Mr Le Page said that an inference was made that if things did not improve, somebody could be made redundant.
By July, he was very concerned about his job. Asked for ideas, he suggested reducing working hours and abolishing a bonus system for the sale of cars and motorcycles.
The company did not want to reduce the hours but it was agreed that bonuses would be paid only when at least 100 hours had been charged to the customer in a particular month.
At the end of that month, the company secured the Peugeot franchise and Mr Le Page said he was told his job was safe.
He and one of the directors, Lee Renouf, attended a training course for the marque in the UK, paid for by the company.
In December, Mr Le Page broke his wrist and was signed off work for two weeks.
He said he had offered to come to work and cover for a forecourt attendant who was going on holiday but the company had told him not to.
On 3 January he was called to work where another director, Ian Marquis, told him he was being made redundant and gave him a letter of confirmation.
The reason stated was that the 100-hour charged target had been reached for only three months between July and December.
Mr Le Page said he had received a copy of the selection process for redundancy only after he had begun his claim for unfair dismissal.
He was surprised that the process stated that he had completed only the minimum amount of work and his timekeeping was poor, as neither issue had been raised with him before.
He believed that the company had used this as excuse to dismiss him because they were concerned about how long he might be off work with his injury.
The panel concluded that the company had made efforts to undertake a fair and reasonable approach to the dismissal and it had sought the advice of the Industrial Relations Service first.
While there had been some consultation with employees relating to the possibility of redundancies, it had not been continued.
From July, the company had ceased to communicate the possibility of redundancy to such an extent that it was reasonable for Mr Le Page to believe it would not happen.
GMR Holdings Ltd, t/a L’Islet Motors, requested that should an award be made to Mr Le Page, it be reduced in light of contributory factors.
The panel rejected this and Mr Le Page was awarded the maximum of six months’ pay, amounting to £11,442.18.
Article posted on 1st September, 2007 - 12.00am
Loading ...
Most Commented: