Peters et Al v Spanish Main Inn

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Court: Industrial Court (Antigua)
• Judge: Sampson, J.
• Judgment Date: 15 December 1977
• Date: 15 December 1977

Industrial Court

Sampson, J. (Hearing Officer)

Peters et al

and

Spanish Main Inn

Appearances:

Industrial Law - Unfair dismissal — Workers denied statements by the employer that they had set out to disrupt her business by causing dissension among the staff and disobeying instructions — Court found that the case against the workers consisted entirely of a series of unsupported allegations.

1 Mr. Bercham Greene for the workers

2 Mrs. Janice Branker for the employer

Case for the workers: -

• i. The Union submitted that the worker had been employed at the Spanish Main Inn for 8 years and 9 months. Her last basic rate of pay was $20.00 per week.

• ii. On August 5th 1977, when the worker was leaving after having finished her day's work, she was informed by the employer that she was dismissed with immediate effect. The reason assigned for the dismissal was that the worker was disrupting the business. She was accused, among other things, of overloading customers' plates with 10 slices of roast beef when the proper amount was 3 slices. The employer also claimed, that the worker disobeyed orders.

Miss Sylvia Henry.

• i. This worker was employed for 11 years and 6 months. Her last basic rate of pay was $22.00 per week:

• ii. On August 5th 19.77 she went on 1 month's vacation. Upon her return for work on September 5th she was told by employer that she was dismissed for reasons similar to those assigned for the dismissal of Miss Peters.

Conclusion of Case for the Workers.

• i. The workers denied statements by the employer that they had set out to disrupt her business by causing dissension among the staff and disobeying instructions. Referring specifically to the allegation that a customer had been served 10 slices of roast beef instead of 3, Miss Peters claimed that the meal had included corned rather than roast beef; and that the customer had eaten only a part of 1 of 3 slices served.

• ii. The union took the 4 week's wages that the employer gave the workers on August 5th to be vacation pay, and on that basis claimed the following:

  • a Severance pay according to the; Labour Code.

  • b Notice Pay.

  • c. Since the workers' wages were substandard the light of wages paid in the hotel sector, substantial compensation for wrongful dismissal.

Case for the Employer: -

• i. The employer stated that the workers were dismissed because they were not working in the best interests of the business. They were out to create confusion and to undermine the undertaking.

• ii. The employer referred specifically to an incident where a customer left 5 slices of beef on his plate, saying that he was too full to manage any more. The workers, she claimed habitually overloaded plates, serving 10 slices of pot roast instead of 3 (3 ¹/₂ times the proper amount). She had spoken about this on many occasions, with no result. In fact, one of the workers had asked her if she thought she had come here...