Jackson v Antigua Public Utilities Authority

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Court: Industrial Court (Antigua)
• Judge: Chairman
• Judgment Date: 01 March 1977
• Date: 01 March 1977

Industrial Court

Benjamin, J. (Chairman); Christian, J. (Member); Rodgers, J. (Member)

Jackson

and

Antigua Public Utilities Authority

Appearances:

Mr. Bradley Carrott for the worker

Mr. Cyril Cumberbatch for the employer

Industrial Law - Unfair dismissal — Union appealed the decision of the Hearing Officer on the grounds that the worker had not been afforded the opportunity to give evidence, the dismissal was politically motivated and the Hearing Officer based his decision purely on circumstantial evidence — Majority opinion was that the case against the worker was too weak to warrant dismissal — Worker unfairly dismissed.

Points of appeal--the worker:

1 The Union based their case on appeal on the following points.

• (a) The worker had not been afforded the opportunity to give evidence before the Hearing Officer, even though it was his right to be allowed to do so. His rights had therefore been infringed.

• (b) The workers' dismissal was politically motivated, and had been engineered by supporters of the Progressive Labour Movement at the plant.

• (c) No one had seen the worker moving oil on the night of August 6, 1976. The Hearing Officer had based his decision purely on circumstantial evidence.

Points of conflict--the employer:

2 Management denied that the worker had been dismissed for political reasons, and said that there had been no political overtones during the earlier Hearing. No such points had been raised.

• (ii) In Management's view the worker's rights had not been infringed, since he had not been denied the opportunity to testify in his own behalf. Since the very beginning of the investigations into the issue, the worker had been given ample opportunity to speak, but had not done so. During proceedings before the Hearing Officer the representative of Management had posed several questions to the worker, but the Union representative had answered for him. Thus if any infringements took place, it was the Union who had denied the worker the right to give evidence, and not Management or the Hearing Officer.

• (iii) Management agreed that the worker had not been seen moving oil on the night of the disappearance, However, 3 workers had stated that they had seen him carrying oil to his car on previous occasions. Since the duty operator had used no oil during the entire shift, circumstances pointed to the worker as the mover of the oil. The fact that no one saw him on the night in question did not...