Prince v Francis

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Judge: Lincoln M. Simmons
• Judgment Date: 18 January 1980
• Date: 18 January 1980
• Court: Industrial Court (Antigua)

Industrial Court

Simmons, J. (Hearing Officer)

Prince

and

Francis

1. Dispute: VICTORIA PRINCE Vs MAURICE FRANCIS

2. Issue: Unfair Dismissal

3. Appearances:

(i) For the Worker:

Mr. H. Joseph Industrial Officer,

Antigua Workers' Union

Ms. V. Prince Worker.

(ii) For the Employer:

Mr. M. Francis Employer.

Industrial Law - Unfair dismissal — Discrepancy concerning money arose and an argument ensued — Before reporting for work the worker was contacted by a co-worker who informed her that her services were no longer required and she was presented with her salary for work done that week — No reasonable ground for dismissal — Awarded $300.00.

4. Place and Date of Hearing:

1 Labour Department, 18 ^th January, 1980

5. Delivered by: Lincoln M. Simmons Labour Relations Officer

6. Case of the Worker:

2 The Union submitted that the worker began working with Mr. Maurice Francis at his Bar at St. John's Deep Water Harbour in January, 1978 before she was dismissed on September 13 ^th, 1979 (a period of 1 year and 9 months her latest salary was $60.00 per week. On 13 ^th September, 1979, while her normal duties she received U.S. $1.25 as service charge from a customer, according to the Union, the worker placed the money under the counter before proceeding to the ladies room, on her return she was confronted by a co-worker who told her about an argument which ensued about the service charge. At this point the Union said that the customer (a sailor on a tourist ship) was still around at the time and was contacted about same and he substantiated that he was the one who gave the worker the service charge. The argument ended and the worker worked until the end of the workday.

3 On 14 ^th September, 1979 before reporting for work the worker was contacted at her home by another co-worker who presented her with her wages for work done that week and informed her that she must not return. The Union claimed that the worker was wrongfully dismissed and requested that she be compensated for her period of employment plus any other entitlements due.

7. Case for the Employer:

4 Mr. Francis submitted that the worker was employed on a job basis and whenever the occasion arose he would go personally and tell her when she could come out. He Francis pointed out that only when ships were in the Harbour the worker was asked to work and she would do so from the time the ship arrive until its departure and any excess hours would be remunerated for.

5 Do the day in question (i.e. 13 ^th September, 1979) upon checking...