Richards v Ministry of Education

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Court: Industrial Court (Antigua)
• Judge: James, J.
• Judgment Date: 21 January 1980
• Date: 21 January 1980

Industrial Court

James, J. (Hearing Officer)

Richards

and

Ministry of Education

Dispute: VERE RICHARDS vs MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

2. Issue: Unfair Dismissal

3. Appearances:

(i) For worker:

Mr. W. George – Industrial Officer,

Antigua Trades & Labour Union

Mr. V. Richards – Worker

(ii) For Ministry of Education:

Mr. W. Harris – Chief Education Officer

Mr. S. Matthew – School Bus Supervisor

Industrial Law - Unfair dismissal — Worker was employed as a school bus driver — Worker took the bus to the workshop — Worker was not seen again that day — Supervisor requested the school bus tickets and handed him a letter which stated he was dismissed — Decision that the worker was not absolved from being reprimanded but the manner in which the dismissal occurred left much to be desired in standard industrial relations practices — Dismissal was harsh and unfair — Awarded $1105.00 in lieu of reinstatement.

4. Place and Date of Hearing:

1 Labour Department, January 21 ^st, 1980.

5. A. Case for the worker:

• (i) The worker had been employed with the Ministry of Education as a bus-driver since November 14 ^th 1977. His last basic wage was $125 per week.

• (ii) On October 5 ^th 1979 he reported for duty at around 6 a.m. and went about his duties delivering school children. During the journey several difficulties were experienced i.e. engine and brake problems, however he completed the rounds and returned to the East Bus Station. A report was made to the Supervisor about the bus, resulting in the worker being asked to take it to the workshop, have his breakfast, report back to the workshop at around 11 a.m. to find out the position with the bus and then transmit this information to the Supervisor at the East Bus Station.

• (iii) Around 11.30 the worker returned to the East Bus Station but did not find the Supervisor. His car was there, but he could not be found. The worker met one of the conductors from whom he inquired the whereabouts of the Supervisor. The information received was that he had left in a bus. The worker then had lunch after which he returned to the workshop.

• (iv) On the way to the workshop the worker saw the Supervisor coming down in one of the buses but he still continued his journey as he was of the opinion that the Supervisor had gone to the workshop. While at the workshop the foreman asked him to make a message, which took him about half an hour. This he did and returned to the workshop where he remained all day i.e. until 4 p.m.

• (v) He reported for work on October 6 ^th 1979 and was presented with a letter by the Supervisor. This he did not read promptly but when the Supervisor asked him to return the tickets he read it and it stated inter alia “that once again an unfavoured report tad been made against him by the Supervisor, School Bus Service and his dismissal was requested. His services were no more needed with effect October 6 ^th 1979.”

5. A. Case for the worker:

B. Summation:

2 The Union was satisfied that the worker was employed from November 14 ^th 1979 and was dismissed by letter on October 6 ^th 1979. On October 5 ^th he showed up for work as usual and having gone through his rounds found the bus defective. He returned to base station where he reported the matter to the Supervisor, who gave him instructions to take the bus, to the workshop, have his breakfast then check the position with the bus and report to him at the East Bus Station. The worker went to report to the supervisor but he could not be found neither did inquiries reveal his whereabouts. He then returned to the workshop. The Supervisor visited the workshop after 1 p.m. saw the worker but did not say anything to him. He went directly to the foreman and then returned to base-station. There he wrote a letter to the Chief Education Officer requesting the worker's dismissal. The worker received a dismissal letter when he reported for work on October 6 ^th 1979.

3 The worker was not asked about the incident. The Supervisor made no attempts to find out why the worker did not report to him on October 5 ^th, but first asked for the tickets and the money then gave him the letter. The Union views this action as harsh and drastic and claims unfair dismissal.

6. Case for the employer:

• A. (i) The Chief Education Officer stated that the School Bus Service was a sensitive area, this fact being explained to everyone who was employed including the worker, who took up duties on November 14 ^th 1977. Unfavourable reports about him started to go to the Ministry and a letter about his neglect and careless driving was written to him on January 25 ^th 1978. Another was written to him on February 5 ^th 1979 about his absenteeism and tardiness. Unfavourable reports still came and the C.E.O. called him and pointed out the reports made informing him that further reports would cause his dismissal.

• B. (i) The School Bus Supervisor stated that the worker reported for work on October 5 ^th 1979 at around 6 a.m. He went to do his rounds and when he returned he complained that the bus was defective i.e. the brakes. He was then given instructions to go to the workshop at 11 o'clock, find out the position...