Knowles v Winter

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Judge: Member
• Judgment Date: 17 March 1977
• Date: 17 March 1977
• Court: Industrial Court (Antigua)

Industrial Court

Harper, J. (Chairman); De Freitas, J. (Member); Techeira, J. (Member)

Knowles

and

Winter

Appearances:

Mr. Henson Stevens for the employer

Industrial Law - Severance Pay — Counsel for the employer expressed amazement at being unable to find any indication in the Hearing Officer's report that the worker had given evidence and the interpretation of section c 43 of the Labour Code — Decision that the worker should be paid compensation as awarded by the Hearing Officer.

Points of Appeal the Employer:

House for Pogson:

1 The worker could not have been employed for more than 5 weeks, since he was brought in only to assist in putting in the partitions and the ceiling, and was not present for the entire period of construction (3 months).

Maurice Michael's:

2 This was one of the instances where the worker was recommended for the job, which was his own. His payment was channelled through Mr. Winter. The actual period was not disputed.

Cecil George John:

3 The worker was employed by Mr. Winter for 2 days only, to repair the roof of the building. The other week was his own. Again, his pay was channelled through Mr. Winter.

House for I. Winter's Home:

4 This was a duplication of No. 12 (Ickford Winter's Home).

Mamie Branch's Home (Mrs. Blanchard):

5 The worker was employed for 1 week only.

Selvin Walter's Home:

6 This was the worker's own job, even though his money passed through Mr. Winter.

Shoul's Campsite:

7 The worker was employed by Mr. Clem Winter, working under the supervision of Mr. Winter.

• vi. Counsel disputed the worker's claim of termination, since there was no evidence in the reocord to support this allegation. Mr. Winter regretted that he had mis-placed his record-book pertaining to the period of 1974.

Conclusions:

• i. Although the Board considers it unfortunate that the worker did not give personal testimony before the Hearing Officer, this failure does not in our opinion, invalidate presentations made on his behalf by his representative. The fact is that the employer did not make total objection to the union's submissions, presenting opposing arguments only on certain details.

• ii. The Board totally rejects the interpretation placed on “section C 43” of the Code by counsel for the employer.

• iii. The Board was divided on the issue of the employer's inability to produce employment records relative to certain periods of the worker's service. While the majority...