Gilpin v Katzenmajeur

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Court: Industrial Court (Antigua)
• Judge: Simmons, J.
• Judgment Date: 18 August 1978
• Date: 18 August 1978

Industrial Court

Simmons, J. (Hearing Officer)

Gilpin

and

Katzenmajeur

Appearances:

Mr. Bradley Carrott, Mr. Wigley Geroge and Ms. Kathrine Gilpin for the worker.

Mr. Louis Lockhart for the employer.

Industrial Law - Dismissal — Employers left a list of items that the worker should do while they were away — Worker did not do them — Worker was told to find a new job and given two weeks notice of dismissal — Worker rejected the notice and left — Court found the employer's notice of termination was well within the scope of the law — Dismissal fair.

Preliminary Submission:

1 Mr. Lockhart submitted that there was no claim for the Union since it was clearly stated by the Union in a letter dated 12th January, 1978 addressed to the Labour Commissioner that the employer gave the worker adequate notice of dismissal which she refused and decided to quit her employment forthwith. He made reference to “section C 11 (4)” of the Antigua Labour Code.

Case for the Worker:

2 The worker's case was submitted mainly through the Union (Mr. Wigley George) who stated that the worker had been employed by the Katzenmajeurs for a period of fourteen (14) months as a domestic servant receiving a weekly wage of $35.00. Sometime in December, 1977 the Katzenmajeurs left the state for Montserrat and informed the worker that they were leaving a list of fourteen items of the things, which they expected her to do during the period they were away. A copy of the list can be found at page 4.

3 The union stated that the worker was not made aware of the contents of the list prior to the Katzenmajeurs leaving, however, when she checked the list she found that there were two things that she never been asked to do or had ever done before, as a result these were left undone

4 The two items are viz -:

• (a) Cleaning Peter's shoe.

• (b) Feeding the Dogs end Cats and checking the plants if necessary and watering.

5 On January 3rd, 1978 the Katzenmajeurs returned and found that the above named items were left undone, as a result, Mrs. Katzenmajeur told the worker to find herself a new job. Shortly afterwards Mr. Katzenmajeur told her that if she wanted to work he was giving her two weeks notice at the end of which she should leave. The worker immediately turned to Mr. Katzenmajeur and told him that she was accepting what Mrs. Katzenmajeur had said. The worker left.

6 The union in their supporting argument stated that the Katzepmajeurs' had violated “sections C2 (1) and C5 (1)” of the Antigua Labour Code. They also submitted that the worker was quite correct when she decided to heave having been told so by Mrs. Katzenmajeur who was her immediate boss since during her period pf employment all her instructions were issued by Mrs. Katzenmajeur who was her immediate boss.

7 In closing, the union stressed...