Galley Bay Hotel v Christopher

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Court: Industrial Court (Antigua)
• Judge: Mr. Eric Browne,Mr. St. Lawrence DeFreitas,Mr. Peter Williams
• Judgment Date: 20 September 1979
• Date: 20 September 1979

Industrial Court

Browne, J. (Chairman); De Freitas, J. (Member); Williams, J. (Member)

Galley Bay Hotel

and

Christopher

Present were:

Employer's Representative:

Mr. C. Cumberbatch

Director of Employers Federation

Employee's Representative:

Mr. James T. Rose, General Secretary A.T. & L.U.

Mr. Neville Christopher Employee

Industrial Law - Redundancy — Employer appealed the question of payment allowed by the Hearing Officer — Submission succeeded — Employee was redundant — Awarded $3655.31. plus any vacation pay due him.

Issue: Redundancy

Composition of the Board

1 Mr. Eric Browne – Chairman

2 Mr. St. Lawrence DeFreitas – Member

3 Mr. Peter Williams – Member

4 The first point of appeal by the Galley Bay Hotel was the question to determine what was Neville Christopher's latest basic pay. This Board requested that the employer's latest pay sheet be submitted and as a result we determine that the employee's latest basic pay was $61.43 per week.

5 The second point of appeal surroundings the question as to whether the employee is entitled to severance pay taking Section C 45 (2) (b) of the Antigua Labour Code into consideration and the fact that the employee was recalled by the employer on 26 ^th November, 1978, six months after 24 ^th May, 1978 the date on which the worker was laid off.

6 Section C 45 (2) (b) of the Antigua Labour Code states:

“if no date of recall is given at the time of termination, severance pay shall be payable when and if, after three months from the termination, the employee shall not have been recalled.”

7 It should also be noted that Section C 45 (2) (b) stipulates:

“where the date of recall, if one is given at the time of termination, be six months or more in the future, severance pay shall be payable on the date of the original termination.”

8 At no time during the review the employer through its representative disagreed that the employee would have been entitled to severance pay under Section C 45 (2) (b) if he were not recalled at all or if this claim was made prior to such recall. The employer's was recalled and chose not to continue his employment that he was infact not entitled to Severance Pay.

9 It is the opinion of this Board that the right severance pay under Section C (45) (a) (b) is not related to or dictated by any subsequent act or acts by either the employee or employer, and we cannot subscribe to the argument that the recalling of the employee after the three months expiry date deprived the said employee of the statutory right created by the Act to wit severance pay.

10 We should also point out by way of dictum that it is not a matter...