Peters v Ministry of Health

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Court: Industrial Court (Antigua)
• Judge: Mr. C. H. Sampson
• Judgment Date: 25 January 1979
• Date: 25 January 1979

Industrial Court

Sampson, J. (Hearing Officer)

Peters

and

Ministry of Health

(2) Issue: - Unfair Dismissal.

(3) Representing the Worker: –

(i) Mr. D. Hamilton-Bird & Bird

(ii) Mr. B. T. Carrott-Antigua Trades & Labour Union.

(iii) Mr. Reuben Peters.

(4) Representing the Employer: –

(i) Mr. R. Merchant Deputy Hospital Administrator;

(ii) Mr. L. Belle-Housekeeper, Holberton Hospital..

Industrial law - Dismissal — Employee was dismissed as a result of misconduct — Decision that notwithstanding the difficulties encountered by the worker in pursuing his claim he behaved in a manner which may only be termed destructive of the employment relationship — Dismissal justified.

1 (5) Hearing Officer: - Mr. C. H. Sampson-Deputy Labour Commissioner.

2 (6) Place and Date of Hearing:–Labour Department, Thursday 25 ^th January, 1979.

(7) Case for the Worker: –

• (i) The worker was employed at the Holberton Hospital as a Night watchman from April 14 ^th, 1976 to the time of his dismissal on 2 ^nd June, 1978. His last basic rate of pay was $56.87 per week.

• (ii) The worker had been experiencing difficulty over a period of time in collecting extra pay due him for work done on public holidays. He had for some time been unsuccessfully shuttling back and forth between the Housekeeper and Deputy Hospital Administrator, and has in fact been told by the Deputy Hospital Administrator that it was not the hospital's policy to pay holiday pay. In May, 1978 the worker extended his efforts as far as the Ministry Headquarters, where he was assured by the Assistant Secretary-Finance that the extra pay was in fact due, and would shortly be forthcoming.

• (iii) During this period also, the worker consulted the Antigua Trades & Labour Union, who began efforts to discuss the matter with the Hospital Authorities. On Thursday 4 ^th May 1978 a meeting was at last held between the worker, his representative and Housekeeper. The Housekeeper was uncooperative, and stated that the documents relating to the worker's pay had been sent to the Ministry. This, the worker's side stressed, had been said on several occasions, but was quite untrue.

• (iv) The worker was intensely provoked by the Housekeeper's attitude, and an exchange of words ensued in which both men made use of substantially the same form of address. The meeting broke up in confusion.

• (v) In the evening of May 25 ^th the worker received written notification of a meeting called by the Deputy Hospital Administrator for 10:00 a.m. on May 26 ^th. During the course of that morning, while the worker was tending his animals, he remembered the meeting, and rushed off as he was to find his representative and go to the hospital. As a consequence, he appeared at the meeting barefoot, roughly dressed and carrying his stick. The Deputy Hospital Administrator took particular objection to the stick, and it was placed outside the office.

• (vi) During this meeting the worker was again provoked by the attitude of the hospital authorities toward his pay problems, and another violent exchange of word ensued. The worker's side stressed that the worker was particularly peeved with the deputy Hospital Administrator, who had accused him of sleeping on the job and had said that (the DHA) could come onto the hospital compound on any night and remove hospital property and the worker would be held responsible.

• (vii) Subsequent to this meeting the worker received a letter of dismissal he was given notice to June 2 ^nd, and had since received his due vacation pay and the holiday pay which had been at the bottom of the whole affair.

• (viii) The worker's side charged that the dismissal was wrongful for two basic reasons. First, the worker was never given an opportunity in a fair hearing to answer the charges of misconduct alleged to have taken place on May 4 ^th and May 26 ^th. Second, the misconduct, if any was not sufficient to justify the dismissal. Referring to Section C 61 of the Antigua Labour Code, the worker's side stressed that the hospital authorities had failed to justify their actions in the light of the provisions of this section, and were accordingly requesting that the worker be reinstated without loss of pay.

(8)...