ROAD worker John Sherwood was awarded £24,000 after an industrial tribunal found Oxfordshire County Council had not fulfilled its motto of 'caring countywide'.

Single Mr Sherwood, 56, of Goring Heath, took the county to an industrial tribunal in Reading after being told at the beginning of last year he would have to retire because of ill health.

In its judgement the tribunal said the council's motto 'caring countywide' did not tally with its treatment of Mr Sherwood.

"It sits uneasily with what we considered the appalling treatment of such a long-serving employee," they said.

The tribunal said Mr Sherwood was "cynically misled and manoeuvred out of the workforce" and said the whole case did the county council no credit whatsoever.

They found in Mr Sherwood's favour and he was awarded £24,000 compensation from the council.

Mr Sherwood worked for the county council for 35 years in its highways department as a road maintenance worker and had suffered from worsening health.

His dismissal took place when motorway repair work done by the county council was being transferred to private company Tarmac. Other employees in that area were transferred to Tarmac, given other jobs at the council or made redundant with a cash settlement. After the judgement, Mr Sherwood, of Penny Royal, Goring Heath, said: "I am just very pleased because I thought I would end up out of work with nothing.

"I was driven home a few days after having a medical at the end of 1996. But I thought I was going to be paid redundancy. I got nothing. It seems to me that the council has been made to look very shabby. The council used to go through proper procedures. I don't believe that happens anymore. I think it was a question of the council not having enough work for a lot of men after repair work was transferred to a private company."

Sue Corrigan, county personnel manager, said: "He was unfit to do his job and not wanting to transfer to his new employer - we failed to communicate with him adequately at that time.

"It would be wrong of me to deny that communications were not all they should have been and we need to focus on making sure that we can't fall into this trap again."

Mrs Corrigan added that the county council felt the tribunal had not taken all the evidence into account.

She said: "We were shocked by the words used by the tribunal in its judgement because we gave evidence in good faith.

She said: "For example, Mr Sherwood had no recollection of attending a meeting with his manager, and his manager had a note of the meeting. The tribunal took the view that the meeting did not take place and the notes were fabricated.

"We would consider that they didn't come to the right conclusion but what we need to be sure of is that it doesn't happen again."

Converted for the new archive on 30 June 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.