Adams v V.S. Navy Facilities

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Court: Industrial Court (Antigua)
• Judge: James, J.
• Judgment Date: 04 April 1978
• Date: 04 April 1978

Industrial Court

James, J. (Hearing Officer)

Adams

and

V.S. Navy Facilities

Appearances:

Mr. B. Spencer, Mr. A. Adams for the worker

Mr. C. Cumberbatch, Lt. T. Marshall and Chief Hofer for the employer

Industrial Law - Unfair dismissal — Worker was dismissed for disrespectful conduct — Ruling that the evidence presented was not compelling enough to lead to the conclusion that the offence could have warranted summary dismissal — Worker unfairly dismissed.

Case for Employer:

Cross Examination:

1 The worker denied that he had ever been given a final warning or spoke in a loud voice at any time when he was cross-examined by Mr. Cumberbatch.

Case for the employer:

• i. Chief Hofer gave evidence in the presentation of the employer's case.

• ii. He said that on the 18th January 1978 at approximately 1:15 p.m. Mr. Adams, the worker came to the store manager's office and complained in a loud voice that he had never been informed about a particular item that had been in the warehouse for a long period of time.

• iii. It was stated that he had been previously informed and with that the worker stored out of the office unto the sales floor complaining in an unusually loud voice, which could be heard from the office after he had reached the front of the store.

• iv. Continuing Chief Hofer said that he then left the office and went to remind the worker that the discussion had finished and that he should be back to work. The worker replied he could talk when he wanted and was again told to work and not disturb the customers.

• v. Chief Hofer explained that after the third reprimand and in view of the disrespectful conduct displayed he ordered the worker to punch his time card and go home for the rest of the day without pay. About five minutes later Chief Hofer went upstairs to see if the worker had punched out and observed him shouting again. He was told to leave the place immediately and after some hesitation he left.

• vi. Chief Hofer concluded that the employee was an inefficient worker who questioned all authority and had to be continuously supervised to see that his job was done. He had a very bad record of tardiness and had been verbally reprimanded on many occasions.

• vii. A copy of a final warning letter (exhibit A) and the letter of dismissal (exhibit B) were submitted as evidence.

Case for the employer:

Cross Examination:

2 Mr. Spencer on cross-examining Chief Hofer established that previous mention had been made of the items in the warehouse. There was some debate as to what could be considered a loud voice and whether there were any customers present at the time of the incident.

3 Chief Hofer admitted that all he thought was necessary t the time was for the employee to punch out his card or the remainder of the day.

Summary for Employee:

4 Mr. Spencer complained that the worker was summarily for an offence that did not exist. He said that what ever transpired that day could not be considered based on the evidence presented today to warrant summary dismissal. Chief Hofer had stated all he felt was necessary was to ask...