Andrew v Arawak Motors Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Judge: Hearing
• Judgment Date: 19 September 1977
• Date: 19 September 1977
• Court: Industrial Court (Antigua)

Industrial Court

Sampson, J. (Hearing Officer)

Andrew

and

Arawak motors ltd.

Appearances:

Mr. Bercham Greene of the worker

Mr. H. G. Tyrell, Mr. Peter Rippon for the employer

Industrial Law - Unfair dismissal — Union challenged the relevance of management's allegation that the worker made use of indecent language and threats supported by possession of a length of metal — Management held that the worker had terminated his own employment — Judgment that all factors considered the workers' version was the less satisfactory of the two — Termination upheld.

Case for the worker: -

1 1. The union submitted that the worker had been employed by the company from the week ending 26th December 1975. Sometime during April 1977 the workforce was informed, by means of an undated letter (Exhibit ‘A’) that production would cease pending the arrival of materials and that the workers would be called back to work. The materials arrived after the factory had been closed for a brief period and the workers, with the exception of Mr. Andrew, were informed of the resumption of work. Not being aware of the factory's reopening, the worker did not return to work until some days after when he went to make inquiries about his job. He was told that he had been recalled but had failed to report. He was given a letter (Exhibit ‘B’) informing him that he had terminated his own employment.

• ii. Pointing out that these events occurred during the ‘dark period’ surrounding their petition to be declared Sole Bargaining Agent for employees of Arawak Motors; the union charged that the overlooking of the worker was a deliberate attempt to offset the result of the forthcoming secret ballot.

• iii. Speaking on his own behalf the worker stated that on the morning of Thursday 28th April white he was in Potters Village helping a friend to fix a motorcycle, Mr. Rippon appeared and asked him where he could find Claude Reynolds, one of the workers. He gave Mr. Rippon directions and he left. The worker denied that Mr. Rippon told him that the factory would reopen the following Tuesday (3rd May) or that he had asked him to contact any other workers. Nor had Mr. Rippon asked for Haywood, another worker.

• iv. The worker further stated that he was unaware for sometime that the factory had reopened, since he did not spend any tune in Potters when he was out of work. However, on returning to the Village after some days he was told by one of the workers that work had resumed and that management had a letter for him. The next day (Wednesday 11th May) he reported to the factory to inquire and was handed a letter dated Tuesday 10th May which stated that having failed to turn out to work from Tuesday 3rd to Tuesday 10th May he had terminated his employment.

• v. The worker denied using indecent language, causing a disturbance to threatening members of management with an iron bar. While acknowledging that a police sergeant did come on the scene, the worker said that the officer merely advised him to go to his union.

• vi. The union challenged the relevance of management's allegation that the worker made use of indecent language and threats supported by possession of a length of metal. This, they said, was not the reason for the termination, and in any case the worker had already been terminated.

• vii...