Henry v Richards

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Court: Industrial Court (Antigua)
• Judge: Simmons, J.
• Judgment Date: 22 June 1978
• Date: 22 June 1978

Industrial Court

Simmons, J. (Hearing Officer)

Henry

and

Richards

Appearances:

Mr. David Jonas, Mr. Errol Henry for the employee

Mr. Rocky Richards for the employer

Industrial Law - Unfair dismissal — Argument arose concerning the servicing of a truck — Worker's employment came to an end — Decision that it would be unfair for a worker to be dismissed for this reason and it was clear that the action of the employer of driving off leaving the worker without issuing any instructions was intended to frustrate the worker which was tantamount to dismissal — Worker paid compensation of $662.40.

Presentation of Employee's case:

1 Mr. Jonas submitted that the worker (Enrol Henry) had been employed by Mr. Rocky Richards from October, 1974 to March 6th 1978 when he was dismissed, a period of three years and five months. His latest wage was seventy-two dollars ($72.00) per week.

2 Mr. Jonas submitted that the worker was employed principally as a truck driver, but was called upon at times to perform other duties.

3 On Friday 24th February, 1978 the worker did not receive his weeks wage, on his report fur work on Monday 27th February, 1978 at Mr. Richards' home his usual place of reporting for work, Mr. Richards came to his window and gave the worker one hundred dollars ($100.00 the reason therefor the Union stated that it was previously agreed that the worker would receive an extra pay for that week. The worker waited to receive instructions as usual, but Mr. Richards came out of his house and drove away in his car. The Union stated that the worker waited until approximately 10:00 a.m. after noticing that Mr. Richards had not returned went to the worksite at Johnson's Point.

4 Continuing, the Union submitted that the worker upon his arrival contacted Mr. Richards about his employment and after lengthy discussions among Messrs. Richards, Henry and one Mr. Grant it was agreed that the worker should continue working. (Mr. Richards is contracted to Mr. Grant). The worker continued working.

5 The Union stated that on 6th March, 1978 on the worker's report for duty as usual an argument arose concerning the servicing of the truck and the worker was told that he was not needed any longer, he paid the worker his salary for week ending 3rd March, 1978 and drove away again his car. The Union stated that the worker waited for some time and found that Mr. Richards had returned with a new driver for his truck, as a consequence he contacted his Union. It was pointed out here by the Union that they requested on behalf of the woken that the employer furnish the worker with a letter stating the reasons) for his dismissal plus the precise date of the commencement of his employment. The Union stated that the same was not received.

6 In concluding the Union referred to “section C 10 (1). (2), (3) and (4)” of the Labour Code. They also stated that at no time during the worker's employment period that he was given vacation or payment in lieu of same. The Union stated that the worker was unjustifiably dismissed and claimed (a) compensation for period of employment and (b) payment for vacation.

Presentation of Employer's case:

7 Mr. Richards stated that the worker was not employed for three years and five months as indicated and added that some time in September, 1977 the worker walked off his job and returned some time in October, 1977.

8 Mr. Richards submitted that he knew nothing of the worker discussing anything about employment on the 24th February, 1978. He, however, stated that on 3rd March, 1978 the worker did not collect his weeks salary but borrowed some money from him and promised to return the next day (i.e. Saturday 4th March, 1978) to service the truck.

9 Continuing, Mr. Richards stated that the worker never showed up until Monday 6th March, 1978 at which time he gave the worker his weeks salary (i.e. for week ending 3rd March) and told him that he cannot work since his vehicle was not serviced. He drove away in his car and returned later with a new driver.

10 Mr. Richards submitted that on his return at approximately 10:25 a.m. he found that the worker had left. He pointed out here that it was not the first time he drove away left the worker and he (the worker) had always waited until he had returned.

11 In concluding Mr. Richards stated that some time subsequently he saw the worker along with Mr. Jonas on worksite at Johnson's Point at which time he told Mr. Jonas that he had nothing to discuss since he had not dismissed the worker.

Case for the Union:

• i. The Union's final argument was that Mr. Richards was annoyed because the worker had not returned on...