Jarvis v Schaaf

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Court: Industrial Court (Antigua)
• Judge: James, J.
• Judgment Date: 16 February 1979
• Date: 16 February 1979

Industrial Court

James, J. (Hearing Officer)

Jarvis

and

Schaaf

(3) Appearances: For Worker.

Mr. A. W. Archibald-Solicitor.

Miss J. Jarvis-Worker.

For Employer:

Mr. Louis Lockhart-Solicitor.

Mr. Wolfgang Schaaf-Employer.

Ms. Gisela Schaaf.

Ms. Carola Dunning.

Industrial Law - Unfair dismissal — Employer dismissed employee for taking money from his wife's purse — Court found that there was no sufficient incriminating evidence to support the allegation and no investigation was carried out of other possibilities to narrow the chances of error — Dismissal unfair.

(4) Place and Date of Hearing: Labour Department, 15th & 16th February, 1979.

(5) Case for the Worker:

(6) Cross Examination:

1 Under cross-examination it was established that the worker's basic wage was $30. She did not know of any losses by guest there on any other incident involving the loss of money. She was not told how much money was missing from the purse, but was subsequently given a cheque for $60 as holiday pay, however she had not been satisfied with it as she did not consider it two weeks pay at her last wage. Her working relationship was a happy one and there were never any complaints about her work there was no other reason for her dismissal besides the incident with the missing money. She could not say if anyone came to the house while she was in the bedroom and she did not see any guests that day. The worker sought employment at various places, but not as a domestic. Presently her average take home pay is around $151 per week.

(7) Summary:

2 If it was true that the employer's wife kept money in the kitchen as a matter of course and had much larger sums at time, then it was reasonable to infer that the worker had abundant opportunities to extract larger sums. The employer's wife is not as familiar with money as she ought to be and she could have paid more to someone than she should have, the pest control officer for example. The $100 has not been satisfactorily explained and as there other ways, in which the money could have been lost, then there is not enough reason to claim it was the maid who had taken it. Finally the wife's behaviour is not consistent with one who had been cautioned about being careless with money.

(8) Objection:

3 Archibald objected to Mr. Lockhart's application to give co-employer status to Mr. Schaaf stating that she could give evidence, but only as a witness on her husband's behalf. The timing of the application was suspect in that after the complainant had already given evidence and had been excused from the Hearing. In the circumstances the Hearing Officer has to decide what weight can be placed on her evidence in light of her having been present throughout the Hearing.

(9) Case for the Employer:

• (i) The worker was employed by the household. Her wage was $30, but anytime there were guests she would be given something additional and this was dependent on the number of guests that were present. During her employment there were four (4) occasions on which there were guests and they stayed an average of about 3 weeks each time:

• (ii) He dismissed the worker on 10 ^th May as it was obvious that she had taken money from his wife's purse on should have known if any other person bad access to the purse. Previously, a guest at his home had complained that U.S. $51 was missing from his purse in the bedroom which he occupied at that time. The worker was not aware of this. They searched everywhere for the money, but did not find it. They discussed the incident in the house and could not imagine where the money had gone. The only other person who had access to the bedroom was the worker so it had to be suspected that she had taken it. He then cautioned his wife to check money carefully when she received it or paid anyone.

• (iii) On the 9 ^th May, his wife called him about 1:30 p.m. and told him that E.C. $20 was missing from her purse. He returned home about 4:30 p.m. but the worker had already left. When the worker arrived for work the following day he told her the employment relationship could not continue, as it was obvious that she was responsible for the missing money. He told her of the $20 and the U.S. $51 from his friend's purse, but she denied any knowledge of either and asked why had she not been told of this before. He told her that he could not tell her as it was only a suspicion that she was involved. She requested her holiday pay and compensation. He told her she would be entitled to $16 for her 2 day's work and that he didn't know if she was entitled to holiday pay compensation but that he would investigate it. A cheque for $60 as holiday pay was subsequently sent to her.

• (iv) The employer's wife stated that she had given her $100 dollars to pay the pest control and do anything else necessary. After making the payment of $17 someone up arid asked for some information. The maid was in the kitchen and she was going to the telephone directory to locate the information so she left the purse on the kitchen cupboard. The worker had completed her work and left, when on making preparations to go shopping she checked her purse and found $20 missing.

• ...