Dowdy et Al v Ryan

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Court: Industrial Court (Antigua)
• Judge: Simmons, J.
• Judgment Date: 20 January 1977
• Date: 20 January 1977

Industrial Court

Simmons, J. (Hearing Officer)

Dowdy et al

and

Ryan

Industrial Law - Lay off — Severance pay — Notice Pay Union argued that the workers were inadequately notified of the employer's intention to lay — off — Union also submitted that the employer had no intention of recalling the workers, hence the request for severance and notice pay was justified — Employer contended that the workers severed their own employment and hence forfeited their rights to severance pay or notice pay — Workers paid 1 weeks pay in lieu of notice in accordance with section C9 (iii)(b) of the Labour Code and 2 weeks severance pay per annum with interest at 10% per annum.

Preamble:

1 The Labour Commissioner, in accordance with Section 80 (2) of the Antigua Labour Code (No. 14 of 1975, as amended) appointed me Hearing Officer to inquire into the charge as to Severance Pay due to Alphonso Dowdy; Eustace Benjamin: Robert Watkins: and Arnold Gregory as a result of the termination of their employment with George Ryan.

2 The matter was referred for Formal Handling to be heard under and in accordance with the provisions of Section C Part 4 of the said Labour Code.

3 The Hearing, conducted in accordance with the provisions of Section B9 and 10 of the Labour Code, took place in two parts, the first on Wednesday 19th January, 1977. The hearing was adjourned to allow both sides to furnish the Hearing Officer with a copy of the letters of lay-off and records of Employment. The hearing was concluded on Thursday 20th January, 1977. The workers were-represented by the Antigua Workers' Union in the person of Mr. David Jonas -Industrial Officer, Mr. George Ryan, hereinafter referred to as the Employer, represented himself.

4 In accordance with Section B9 (5) of the Antigua Labour Code, 1 hereby submit my decision.

Case for the Union:

5 The Union, in presenting its case, submitted that the workers worked with the Employer for the past four years and seven months; three years and ten months; four years and nine months and four years and two months respectively. On 6 ^th September 1976, the workers, after completing their duties for that day, received a letter dated 3 ^rd September 1976, informing them that they were being laid-off effective 6 ^th September 1976 and that they would be notified when they should report for duty.

6 The Union argued that the workers were inadequately notified of the Employer's intention to lay-off. The Union further argued that within the construction industry when a worker had been laid-off indefinitely that the worker would seek employment elsewhere until he was recalled. This was an established practice. The Union also argued that since the Employer at no time requested the workers be available their failure to inquire did not give the Employer the right to assume that they did not intend to return. In addition, the Union stated the when the workers were laid-off previously it was the Employer himself who recalled them.

7 In conclusion, the Union contended that the Employer had failed to fulfil his obligation of informing the workers when they should return for duty, and stated that three (3) months had since elapsed. The Union also stated that the workers had no prior knowledge of the Employers intention of laying-off. The Union then made reference to Section C44, C45 (2) (b) and Section C9 (iii) (b) of the Labour Code. Finally the Union submitted that the Employer had no intention of recalling the workers, hence the request for severance and notice to pay was justified.

Case for the Employer:

8 The Employer stated that the workers were laid-off on 6 ^th...