Allen v Antigua Dairy Company Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Court: Industrial Court (Antigua)
• Judge: Lincoln M. Simmons
• Judgment Date: 12 November 1979
• Date: 12 November 1979

Industrial Court

Simmons, J. (Hearing Officer)

Allen

and

Antigua Dairy Co. Ltd

(1) Dispute: BENJAMIN ALLEN vs ANTIGUA DAIRY CO. LTD.

(2) Issue: Redundancy.

(3) Appearances:

(a) For the Worker:

• i. Mr. Hudson Joseph – Industrial Officer AWU.

• ii. Mr. Benjamin Allen

(b) For the Company:

• i. Mr. C. M. Cumberbatch – Director Employers' Federation

• ii. Mr. L. Alexander – Manager.

• iii. Mr. L. Maynard – Assistant Manager.

Industrial Law - Redundancy — Union requested that their claim of severance pay, notice, plus vacation entitlement be awarded to the worker — Company contended that all efforts to locate the worker failed and requested that the worker's claim of severance pay be rejected — Finding that the worker deliberately dodged all attempts to be contacted in an effort to collect redundancy payments falsely — Situation should not be encouraged — Worker not redundant.

(4) Place and Date of Hearing:

1 Labour Department, 12 ^th November, 1979.

(5) Delivered by: Lincoln M. Simmons - Labour Relations Officer

(6) Case for the Worker:

2 The Union stated that the worker had been employed by the Antigua Dairy Company for approximately six (6) years. On 19 ^th February, 1979 the worker reported for duty as usual (the union interjected that during this time, of the year the island was experiencing a series electricity shortage), while performing his duties there was a power cut, all workers on duty that day were called by the Manager who told them that due to the power failure there was nothing in their field to be done. The Union said that the Manager told worker that there was a lawn mower outside available and that he could use it and cut the grass on the compound. The worker reminded the manager that he was not employed to cut grass, as a consequence, the worker was informed by the manager that he should go home and when the electricity returned permanently he (the Manager) would go and collect him.

3 Continuing, the Union said that a period of time had elapsed and the worker was neither sent for or collected by the manager as promised. During that time, the Union stated that the worker saw the Assistant Manager and nothing was said about his return to work. Since then a period of three months had elapsed and the Union is claiming severance pay in accordance of Section C 45 (2) (b) of the Antigua Labour Code.

(7) Case for the Company:

4 i. Management stated that the worker was laid off on 24 ^th February, 1979. They said that it was customary at the Company that vvhenever, there was any power shortage that the employees performed maintenance work to facilitate no loss of earnings, therefore, when the worker was asked to mow the lawn was not exceptional, however, he refused the alternative work and they decided to lay him off.

5 Management said that the worker was not the only one who was laid-off however, when the Electricity situation returned to normalcy in April all workers ware recalled but only the worker did not returned hecaus6'he could not be found (The Company, produced, cvide.4ce of the workers date of lay-off).

ii. Witness- Mr. L. Maynard-Assistant Manager:

6 Mr. Maynard said that approximately two weeks prior, to 1 ^st May, 1979 the Company realized that the services of the worker was needed, therefore he passed in an area in Grays Farm where he was accustomed to see the worker but he did not find him. As a result the Company wrote a letter dated 1 ^st May, 1979 and gave it to one Mr. O. Charles (Driver, Salesman), approximately one week subsequently he returned with the letter saying that he did not find the worker.

7 Mr. Maynard said that he therefore look the letter and endeavoured to contact the worker he said that he visited Mr. Oscar Mason's home on South Street an area where the worker often visits to play dominoes and was informed by Mr. Mason that the worker was engaged as a watchman on a building site on High Street. He said he made almost daily checks to Grays Farm at a place where he had dropped the worker on no fewer than two occasions. He said that on one occasion that he remembered that he offered the letter to a male occupant that occupied the same house with the worker but he refuse to accept it, on another occasion he said that to the checked at a Joint in the vicinity, leading up to the worker's house and inquired of the Proprietor if she had seen the worker, she admitted seeing him on several occasions but could...