In the recent case of Mr Jennings v H&P Freightway Limited, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld the original Tribunal’s decision that the claimant’s dismissal was not automatically unfair according to section 100 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

H&P Freightway had employed Mr Jennings as an HGV driver for less than 12 months. In November 1998, he was in Dewsbury having just delivered a load when he received a call from his line manager instructing him to pick up a new load in Billingham.

Mr Jenning informed his manager that he had had a heavy week and so was not likely to be able to pick up the load the next day. The conversation ended with the line manager giving Mr Jennings a clear instruction to pick up the load.

However, Mr Jennings did not pick up the load. He spent three hours in Hull then returned to Teesside with an empty vehicle. When instructed to go back and pick up the load from Billingham, he refused, and was later dismissed for refusing to obey reasonable instructions.

Mr Jennings, who had been employed by H&P for less than 12 months and so was not entitled to full employment rights, claimed that his dismissal was automatically unfair. His reason for not collecting the load was that he had had a busy week and was very tired. From this, he argued that his refusal to pick up the load was for health and safety reasons, making his dismissal automatically unfair.

In coming to its decision, the EAT noted that Mr Jennings had given no evidence to suggest that he believed there was any health or safety risk in picking up the load, as he was only tired and had not exceeded his driving hours for the week.

As there was no substantial proof of any health and safety issues connected to the pick up, the Tribunal found that there had been no health and safety breach and therefore the dismissal was not automatically unfair.

Technorati Tags: Employment Rights Act, Health and Safety, Unfair Dismissal