George v White Sands Hotel

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Court: Industrial Court (Antigua)
• Judge: Simmons, J.
• Judgment Date: 11 November 1979
• Date: 11 November 1979

Industrial Court

Simmons, J. (Hearing Officer)

George

and

White Sands Hotel

(1) Dispute: JENETA GEORGE v. WHITE SANDS HOTEL

(2) Issue: Unfair Dismissal.

(3) Appearances:

For the Worker:

Mr. W. George – Industrial Officer – A.T. & L. U.

Ms. J. George – Worker.

For the Employer:

Mr. C. Cumberbatch – Director,

Employers' Federation.

Mr. C. Hawley – Manager.

Industrial law - Dismissal — Worker was dismissed for eating peanut butter from a guest room that she had cleaned that day — Decision that the circumstantial evidence when carefully considered merited the worker to be held responsible and for her to bluntly deny the charge without attempting to give a reasonable explanation was not satisfactory on her part — Dismissal fair.

(4) Place and Period of Hearing:

1 Labour Department, Wednesday 7 ^th

2 November, 1979 and Friday 11 ^th November, 1979.

3 Delivered by – Lincoln M. Simmons – Labour Relations Officer.

(5) Case for the Worker.

4 The Union submitted that the worker a chamber maid began working with White Sands Hotel from sometime in July, 1972 until Friday 17 ^th November, 1978. The Union said that on the day in question the worker along with two trainees cleaned a guest room. The Union pointed out that the worker cleaned the bathroom while the trainees make up the beds at the end of which the employees left the room.

5 Continuing, the Union said that the worker upon the completion of her work-day went to collect her week's wage at which time she was told by Mrs. Hawley that a guest had told her that she had dishonest staff and reported that when she went into her room she found a dirty knife and someone had been using her peanut butter. According to the worker, she told Mrs. Hawley that she did not interfere with the butter, as a consequence, Mrs. Hawley told her that she did not want to hear anything from her and that she was dismissed. The worker said that she in turn asked Mrs. Hawley for compensation for the period of employment. Mrs. Hawley then called the worker to the office and paid her wages for that week. The Union said that the dismissal was unfair and asked that the worker be compensated for her years of service.

Final Submission:

(a) The Union.

6 The Union in its final submission emphasised that the worker on the day in question worked with two trainees and while she cleaned the bathroom they make up the beds at the end of which they all dealt with the general cleaning and brushing of the room. The Union said that it could not agree that the worker was guilty because of her seniority neither did they agree that she should be held responsible for anything that could have been mishandled by anyone. They said that it must be borne in mind that the trainees contributed nothing towards what happened on the day in question, also that the evidence produced by management bore no relevance to what the worker was alleged to have done, the Union said that no previous warning or suspension could be used to support the action of dismissal by management. They said further that as for the statement submitted by Mrs. Hawley she could not prove that the worker had eaten the butter or was seen eating the butter.

7 Finally flat Union objected to the evidence submitted by management been used to determine the fairness or unfairness of the worker's dismissal. They asked that their claim of unfair dismissal be upheld...