Chorley council face £60K bill after unfair dismissal of worker (From Chorley Citizen)

Chorley council face £60K bill after unfair dismissal of worker

3:56pm Tuesday 6th September 2011 in News

Chorley Council have been landed with a £60,000 bill after losing a case to a long-serving worker who was unfairly dismissed from his job due to trade union activities.

Wayne Andrews, 45, was made redundant in August 2009 from his job as the town’s markets manager after 21 years of service.

In September last year, an employment tribunal chaired by Judge Diana Kloss, unanimously ruled in favour of Mr Andrews, who also acted as UNISON’s representative to many of the council’s workforce.

The council refused to accept the ruling and have made repeated attempts to appeal, meaning legal costs for the case have spiralled to around £19,000.

At a hearing in London last week, a judge ruled that the council had no grounds for appeal.

Mr Andrews will also receive a significant sum in compensation and around £2,000 in interest, meaning the cost of the case to council taxpayers has risen since the original ruling.

The council’s chief executive, Gary Hall, said the they hadn’t taken the decision to appeal lightly and was extremely disappointed with the outcome.

It is the first time a tribunal hearing has ruled against the council.

Mr Andrews claimed the council had acted “vindictively” in failing to accept the original ruling and had attempted to “defend the indefensible”.

“The whole thing could have been sorted a year ago when the panel ruled in my favour,” he said.

“Instead the council have attempted to argue that black is white and mounted up legal bills and interest of thousands of pounds that the people of Chorley will have to pay.

“I was never in any doubt that I would be vindicated and after the trauma of my unfair dismissal and now I just want to put this behind me.”

The original ruling stated that managers at the council decided Mr Andrews ‘should leave their employment because of his trade union activities and used the restructuring process to bring about that result’.

Mr Hall, added: “Whenever we have a restructure there is a set procedure we follow to ensure everyone is treated fairly.

“The council didn’t agree with this particular judgement and was satisfied it was appropriate to appeal because the council wanted to reduce the cost of Mr Andrews’ claim to council taxpayers.”