Coates v Antigua Beach Hotel

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Court: Industrial Court (Antigua)
• Judge: Hearing
• Judgment Date: 22 March 1977
• Date: 22 March 1977

Industrial Court

Simpson, J. (Hearing Officer)

Coates

and

Antigua Beach Hotel

Appearances:

Mr. Baldwin Spencer for the worker

Mr. C. M. Cumberbatch for the employer

Industrial Law - Unfair Dismissal — Worker's employment was terminated for allegedly transporting his nephew in the company's vehicle without the consent of management and in violation of the rules, using obscene language and being in a state of drunkenness while transporting hotel staff — Union submitted that the worker committed no offence serious enough to warrant termination of his employment — Management submitted that the dismissal was fair and correct — Dismissal was an excessive punishment — Awarded compensation for loss of employment of $200.

Case for the worker:

1 The Union submitted that the worker had been employed by the hotel as a driver for approximately three years and three months. On the 26th December, 1976, while at work, the worker was told by the manager not to report for duty the following day (the 27th). On that day he was given a letter terminating his employment for allegedly

• a Transporting his nephew in the Company's vehicle on December 25th without the consent of management, in violation of the rules;

• b Using obscene language in the presence of guests and the manager in a public area of the hotel;

• c Being in a state of drunkenness while transporting hotel staff on December 25th.

• ii. The worker denied that he had transported his nephew in the Company's vehicle. On the 25th his nephew, who lived in Cedar Grove, visited him at the hotel at about 5:00 p.m. At about 8:00 p.m., as his nephew was about to leave, the worker told him that he would like to drive him home, but would have to seek permission to do so. He told him to sit in the car in the meantime. The duty watchman was also in the car. As the worker was approaching the front desk he was stopped by Mr. Pat Gonsalves, who questioned him about the people in the car. Upon hearing who was in the car, Gonsalves asked if the worker was going to give lifts without permission again. The worker said that he was on his way to seek permission. At this, Gonsalves started to swear, using four-letter words. The worker returned to the car, and told his nephew that he would walk with him to Cedar Grove.

• iii. The worker denied that he had been about to drive off when he encountered Gonsalves, and also denied that he had admitted to Mr. Brian Gonsalves and the manager that he had brought his nephew to the hotel in the car.

• iv. The Union submitted that Management could not state emphatically, as they had done in their letter of dismissal, that the worker had transported his nephew without permission, since he had never been given a chance to commit that offence. The accusation was therefore a fallacy. The Union noted that the worker had received a letter dated November 2nd, 1976, warning him against a repetition of such an offence, on pain of dismissal. Since that date, the offence had not been committed by him.

• v. At about 11:15 p.m. that same evening, when the night staff were ready to leave, the worker went into the bar and spoke to Lawrence Jarvis, the bartender. He then went to the car and, seeing the workers in it, drove off. A little way down the road, he noticed that there were five passengers in the car besides the driver, in excess of the regulation four. He therefore returned to the hotel. The manager was just coming down the front steps, and, before the worker could speak, called him and asked him if he had a problem. The worker explained that he had more than the regulation number of passengers in the car, and suggested that the trainee be off-loaded. Upon being instructed to drive off, the worker insisted upon, obeying the regulations. When asked by the manager if he had not carried more passengers before, the worker, pointed out that this had been done in the land rover, which had greater capacity. Finally, after the manager insisted that he leave or be suspended, the worker drove off.

• vi. There was no question, the Union submitted, of the worker swearing or using obscene language in any form or manner. The allegation contained in the letter of dismissal was false.

• vii. The worker denied that he had used a four-letter word to the bartender, or that the manager had been present when he spoke to the bartender. He denied that the manager had spoken to him immediately after he spoke to the bartender, or that he had admitted to the manager that he had used a four-letter word in the bar. In fact, the worker stated, he did not speak to the manager until he returned to the hotel with the excess passenger.

• viii. In relation to the allegation of drunkenness the Union submitted that the manager had no way of knowing that the worker was under the influence of alcohol. At any rate, even if he was, it would have been management's responsibility not to place the driver and other employees in jeopardy by insisting that the worker drive while not in complete control of his senses, particularly when there were more passengers in the car than the law allowed.

• ix. Finally, the Union submitted, taking the points in the letter of dismissal individually, the worker committed no offence serious enough to warrant termination of his employment. Even when the points were taken together the combination was not strong enough to warrant dismissal. Given that the worker's performance over the years was good, and that management's case was not valid, the dismissal was unfair and unnecessary under the circumstances, and the Union claimed reinstatement without loss of pay.

Case for the employer:

• i: Management submitted that the worker had been warned, by letter dated November 2nd 1976, against unauthorised use of the company's vehicle to give lifts to non-employees, on pain of dismissal for a further offence. Contrary to the Union's submission, the worker did commit a...