Charles v Eagle Garment Factory

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Judge: Delivered by Lincoln Simmons
• Judgment Date: 03 October 1980
• Court: Industrial Court (Antigua)
• Date: 03 October 1980

Industrial Court

Simmons, J. (Hearing Officer)

Charles

and

Eagle Garment Factory

1. Dispute: HAZELIN CHARLES vs EAGLE GARMENT FACTORY

2. Issue: Unfair dismissal.

3. Date & Place of Hearing: 3 ^rd October, 1980 – Labour Department

4. Appearances:

(a) For the Worker:

• (i) Mr. William Robinson – President, A.T.& L. U

• (ii) Mr. Bradley Carrott – Industrial Adviser, A. T. & L. U.

• (iii) Hazelin Charles – Worker.

(b) For the Company (Eagle Garment Factory):

• (i) Mr. Cyril Cumberbatch – Director, Antigua Employer's Federation.

• (ii) Mr. Copeland Hadeed – Proprietor & Manager.

Industrial Law - Dismissal — Worker was absent from work and on her return she was told that her services were terminated without a letter or reasons given — Decision that this could not be an absolutely sufficient ground to justify dismissal.

5. Delivered by Lincoln Simmons – Labour Relations

6. Case for the Worker:

1 The Union said that the worker had been employed by Eagle Garment Factory for the past four and one half (4 ¹/₂) years. On Tuesday 11 ^th December, 1979 she was absent from work, on her return to work on the 12 ^th instant (one day later) she was informed by the Manager that she had fired herself and that she should leave his factory immediately. The Union contended that the worker was unjustifiably dismissed and requested that she be paid one (1) week's pay in lieu of notice plus compensation for the 4 ¹/₂ years of service.

2 In its final submission the Union pointed out that at no time did the worker receive any warning letter about absenteeism, they admitted however, that at a discussion held on 6 ^th December, 1979 concerning short pay of the worker, Management warned her verbally about absenteeism. They argued further that at no time during discussions on 6 ^th December, 1979 did Management bring out or attempt to paint out the alleged worker's absence of 22 days over the last six months. They said that in their view if this was so it was the duty of Management to write the worker if they felt that her absence was too consistent.

3 Finally, the Union said that it is the normal practice in the State also a stipulation in the Antigua Labour Code for medical certificates to be forwarded after three days of absence or illness and for the Company in this case to dismiss the worker after one day's absence was unfair.

4 They reiterated their request and asked that the award be in favour of the worker.

7. Case for the Company:

5 Management said that on 6 ^th December, 1979 they held discussions with the Union about short payment to the worker at which time they pointed out that the worker's absence from work without a reasonable excuse or a medical certificate was very bad.

6 On 11 ^th December, 1979 the worker was dismissed for absenteeism. At that time a record was produced of her absence over the last six months, (they referred to their memorandum dated 24 ^th March, 1980 which showed among other things a period of 22 days absence in the months). They said that the...