Jarvis v Blue Water Hotel

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Court: Industrial Court (Antigua)
• Judge: Lewis, P.
• Judgment Date: 31 August 1977
• Docket Number: No. 8 of 1977
• Date: 31 August 1977

Industrial Court

Lewis, P.; Ford, J. (Member); Caines, J. (Member)

No. 8 of 1977

Jarvis

and

Blue Water Hotel

Appearances:

The Antigua Workers' Union ( D. Halstead) for the employee

The Antigua Employers Federation ( C. Cumberbatch) and F.E. Kelsick, Solicitor, for the employer

Labour Law - Termination of Employment — Dismissal.

Lewis, P.

1 These proceedings were initiated by a reference to the court filed on 26 ^th April, 1977, under section 19(2) of the Industrial Court Act 4 of 1976 which empowers a party to a trade dispute to refer the dispute to the court in the circumstances therein set out. Acting under the powers contained in the said section, and adopting the form of reference sect out in Form I of the Schedule to the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules 1976 (S.R.O. 1976 No.24) (hereinafter referred to as Athe rules”), a party to the trade dispute filed the instant reference with the court and herein set out the names of the parties thereto as Strickland Jarvis, the employee, and Blue Waters Hotel, the employer, and stated that the issue in dispute between the parties was “dismissal”. The issue in our view should more correctly be stated as Aunfair dismissal”. The reference was filed by the employer.

2 Rule 6 of the rules requires each party to a reference to file a memorandum within such period as the President of the court may direct, not being less than seven days after the date of such direction. In this rule the parties are referred to as the claimant and the respondent. The President, treating the employee as te claimant, directed that a memorandum should be filed on his behalf in accordance with paragraphs 2(a), (b) and (d) and 3 of a leaflet containing information on procedure relating to the Industrial Court; and this direction was conveyed to the employee's “duly authorised representative” (to adopt the language of section 9(2) of the Industrial Court Act) by a letter from the Registrar dated 25 ^th April 1977, containing a copy of the said leaflet. The actual time given by the President for filing the employee's memorandum was ten day after the date of his direction.

3 The employee's representative instead of complying with the direction to file a memorandum on the employee's behalf, sent a letter dated May 4 ^th 1977 to the Acting Registrar in which he stated inter alia that at the hearing of the dispute before the Labour Commissioner, the employer was represented by the Antigua Employers Federation and that this federation had referred the dispute to the court. “It would seem, therefore,” he said, “that the party referring to the matter to the jurisdiction of the court becomes the claimants, and further that as such they should submit their memorandum setting out their claim arising out of the references by them.” This letter reads as follows:

4 ^th May, 1977

Mrs. June Hill

Acting Registrar

Industrial Court

Parliament Building

St. John's, Antigua

Reference No.6 of 1977

Madam,

I am instructed by the Antigua Workers' Union on behalf of Strickland Jarvis, former employee of Blue Waters Hotel, to refer to your letter dated April, 26 ^th.

The union has asked me to point out to you that acting for Mr. Jarvis, it had referred the dispute involving his dismissal to the Labour Commissioner in accordance with the provisions of the Labour Code. At the hearing before the Labour Commissioner, the Antigua Employers Federation represented the Management of Blue Waters Hotel.

By reference dated 15 ^th April, 1977, in the nature of form (1) of the Industrial Court Rules, the said Antigua Employers Federation referred the dispute to the court. It would seem, therefore, that the party referring the matter to the jurisdiction of the court becomes the claimants, and further that as such they should submit their memorandum setting out their claim arising out of the reference by them.

Very truly your,

Donald Halstead (Sgd.)

Labour Consultant

4 The Registrar replied to this letter by a letter dated 6 ^th May and pointed out that as the employee had referred the latter to the Labour Commissioner he was the claimant before that officer and the mere fact that the dispute had been moved from one forum (the Labour Commissioner) to another form (the Industrial Court) did not alter the employee's position as claimant even though the reference to the Industrial Court was made by the employers, and that in the circumstances it was right and proper for Mr. Jarvis, the employee, to file his memorandum setting out his claim against the Blue Waters Hotel, the employers. The employee's memorandum expired “today” (i.e. on May 6 ^th). This letter reads as follows:

“May 6 ^th, 1977.

The Labour Consultant

The Antigua Workers' Union

Newgate Street

St. John's

Dear Sir,

Re: Reference No.8 of 1977

I hereby acknowledge your letter of the 4 ^th instant in connection with the above mentioned reference. Your letter disclosed that Mr. Jarvis had referred the dispute between himself and the Blue Waters Hotel to the Labour Commissioner for settlement. The dispute concerned is his dismissal by the hotel.

It is clear, therefore, from these facts that Mr. Jarvis was a claimant and was contending that his dismissal was unfair.

The mere fact...