Challenger v Antigua Distillery Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Judge: Frederick, J.
• Judgment Date: 21 October 1982
• Court: Industrial Court (Antigua)
• Date: 21 October 1982

Industrial Court

Frederick, J. (Hearing Officer)

Challenger

and

Antigua Distillery Ltd

(1) Dispute: Cornell Challenger vs. Antigua Distillery Ltd.

(2) Issue: Unfair Dismissal.

(3) Appearances: (a) For the Worker:

Mr. H. Josiah-Industrial Relations Officer – A. W. U.

Mr. C. Challenger-Worker.

(b) For the Employer:

Mr. C. Cumberbatch-Director, Antigua Employers Federation.

Mr. G. DeSouza-Manager, Antigua Distillery Ltd.

Industrial Law - Dismissal — Worker was dismissed by the company on an accusation of spitting into a new cavalier carton and as such was guilty of spreading germs in the bottling room — Union submitted that through section C60 (1) and (2) the dismissal was harsh, unjust and unfair — Court found the conduct of the worker bore relation to dismissable offence under section C61 of the Labour Code — Dismissal Justified.

1 (4) Place and Date of Hearing: Labour Department, 21 ^st October, 1982.

2 (5) Hearing Officer: Walter N. Frederick-Labour Relations Officer.

3 (6) Case for the Worker:

4 The Union in its submission prefaced its arguments by stating that the worker was dismissed from the Company by letter dated 17 ^th November 1981. They further submitted that through Section C60(I) and (2) they intended to prove that the dismissal was harsh, unjust, and unfair. The worker was then asked to relate what took place on the day of the dismissal.

5 The worker stated that on the day in question he was sealing cartons, and was told by the Manager not to leave the Plant and go outside. He (the worker) later felt the need to spit and so he went over to an empty Cavalier Carton, which had in waste paper and spat in it. The Manager then came to him and told him that he was fired.

6 (7) Cross Examination:

7 The worker under cross examination stated that he never used the bath rooms at the workplace and further stated that the bath rooms as he knows them were only available for use by members of management. The worker denied ever being warned about his unhealthy habits.

8 (8) Summary

9 The Union in rocking its final submission stated that when Management was making the decision to terminate the worker, the provisions of section C60 (1) and (2) of the Antigua Labour Cods should have been taken into account. The Union made reference to the Industrial Court Award in the dispute of the eleven (11) Technicians vs. Cable and Wireless and the said that onus of proof rested solely on the employer to show that the action taken at that time was justified. They therefore wished to use that reference in showing that the dismissal was harsh, unfair, and unjust.

10 The Union contended that Management was of the opinion that the carton that the worker spat in was a new one which i o fact was not and as such management failed to prove that the act was indeed committed as alleged. The Union further stated that even if the offence was committed tire ultimate action of dismissal should not have been taken. The Union stated that Management failed to prove that the carton that the worker spat in was a new one. They further stated that the worker was unfairly dismissed and that he should be reinstated without loss of pay or privileges or that he be compensated from the date that he was dismissed to the date when the award in this case is given as per the Collective Agreement which subsists between the Antigua Workers Union and the Antigua Distillery Limited.

11 (9) Case for the Company:

12 Management in its submission stated that a Plant Manufacturing rum, such as the Antigua Distillery Limited has got to he strictly hygienic. The Company further submitted that the Antigua Distillery Limited receives visitors, both local and foreign on numerous occasions. If by some chance the worker was seen by such persons when he spat in the Cavalier carton this could have caused rumours concerning the unhealthy preparation of the company's products to spread and as such could have possibly jeopardised the future of the company.

13 Management submitted that on the day in question the worker was seen by the Manager...