Emmanuel v Athill

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Court: Industrial Court (Antigua)
• Judge: Simmons, J.
• Judgment Date: 23 May 1977
• Date: 23 May 1977

Industrial Court

Simmons, J. (Hearing Officer)

Emmanuel

and

Athill

Appearances:

Mr. Baldwin Spencer for the worker

Mr. John Athill for the employer

Industrial Law - Unfair dismissal — Employer maintained that the worker terminated her own services and therefore forfeited her compensation — Union denied that the worker had terminated her own services and reiterated that it was because of her refusal to remove a dead dog that the worker was dismissed — Court found that unfair dismissal did not arise — Worker paid $300.

Case for the Worker:

1 The Union submitted that the worker, a domestic servant, was employed by the employer from 8th May, 1967 before she was dismissed on 10th January, 1977. On 10th January, 1977, while the worker was performing her normal duties, she was contacted by the employer who inquired why there was no water in the refrigerator, the worker's reply was that she was busy doing something and that she could not do everything at the same time. The Union stated that the employer retorted that the worker was too lazy and since she was not prepared to carry out his instructions she must leave his house. The worker, upon leaving requested that she be compensated for her years of service, to which the employer remarked that he had nothing for her and repeated that she must leave his house immediately. The worker left.

2 Continuing, the Union stated that the worker returned later that day with her husband to investigate the matter, but Mr. Athill reiterated that he had already asked her to leave and had nothing else to do or say. They both left. The Union pointed out further that the worker again returned subsequently with other concerned individuals, but the attempts proved futile.

3 The worker submitted that during the period she worked with the employer there had never been any serious differences and furthermore that all instructions issued by the employer were carried out. Moreover, he indicated that the employer was in an aggressive frame of mind on the day in question and also that it was because of her refusal to remove a dead dog why the employer dismissed her.

4 The Union, in its final submission pointed out that the employer was in a bad mood in regard to domestic affairs, and as a consequence “threw his passion on the worker”.

5 The Union denied that the worker had terminated her own services and reiterated that it was because of the dead dog why the worker was dismissed. Statements were made by Mr. Hugh Emanuel.

6 Finally, the Union stated that the worker was unfairly treated and therefore claimed reinstatement without loss of pay.

Case for the Employer:

7 The employer submitted that the worker, a domestic servant, worked with him from 8th May, 1967 before she terminated her employment on 10th January, 1977. The employer went on to state that some time prior to the 10th January, 1977 he issued instructions on more than one occasion to the worker that the bathroom be cleaned.

8 Continuing Mr. Athill stated that on the 10th January, 1977 he reported for work as usual, on his return at approximately 10:00 a.m. he met...