Peters et Al v Wolfe

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Court: Industrial Court (Antigua)
• Judge: Simmons, J.
• Judgment Date: 14 June 1977
• Date: 14 June 1977

Industrial Court

Simmons, J. (Hearing Officer)

Peters et al

and

Wolfe

Appearances:

Mr. Mike Tyrell, Mr. William Archibald for the company

Mr. James T. Rose for the workers

Industrial Law - Unfair dismissal — Union contended that the workers were dismissed rather than laid off and as a result claimed reinstatement without loss of pay — Employer stated that their actions under the circumstances were reasonable — Workers refused to work on Saturdays — Finding that the fact that workers were laid off indefinitely and less than three months had elapsed showed that they were not redundant — Unfair dismissal did not arise.

Case for the Workers:

1 The Union submitted that the workers Ellsworth Joseph, Eustace Peters and Glentis Henry mechanics, were employed by the Company for the past three years; three years and one year and four months respectively. The Union stated that two weeks prior to 29th April, 1977 the workers were contacted by the manager, who requested that they should commence working on Saturdays. The workers refused.

2 In continuing its submission, the Union pointed out that some time ago, the then manager, Mr. Burns requested that the workers should no longer continue working on Saturdays since the day's out put was comparatively small. This they added was agreed by amendment made to the Collective Agreement.

3 The Union further submitted that on the 25th April, 1977, on the workers report for duty, they were again contacted by the manager who again requested that they should start working on Saturdays. The workers refused, as a consequence were told to go home. The Union was contacted and it was agreed that they should return to work the following day (i.e. Wednesday 27th April, 1977). They did not work the preceding Tuesday.

4 It was further submitted by the Union, that on 29th April, 1977; the workers upon completing the day's work received a letter dated 29th April, 1977 terminating their services temporarily. The Union argued that the workers were unfairly treated since the company had continued to employ other workers with as little as three months service, but who were willing to work on Saturdays. They argued that if it was a matter of genuine lay-off the normal practice of last in first out should apply.

5 The Union contended that the workers were dismissed, rather than laid off, and as a result claimed reinstatement without loss of pay.

Case for the Company:

6 Management, in presenting their case, stated that the company for the past months had been...