Roberts v Global Travel and Tours
| Jurisdiction | Antigua and Barbuda |
| Judge | Murdoch, C.,Hood, M.,Benjamin, M. |
| Judgment Date | 12 March 2001 |
| Docket Number | 4 of 2000 |
| Court | Industrial Court (Antigua) |
| Date | 12 March 2001 |
Industrial Court
Murdoch, C.; Hood, M.; Benjamin, M.
4 of 2000
Jackie James — Solicitor for Employee.
E. Ann Henry — Solicitor for the Employer.
Employment law - Dismissal — Summary dismissal — Letter from employee to employer which was capable of amounting to serious misconduct — employer acted reasonably and was justified in dismissing employee
The Employee was employed by the Employer as a cashier in June, 1994.
On 10th February, 1995 some nine months after the employment commenced, the Employee was dismissed from the employment by the Managing Director of the Employer following an incident that had occurred in which the Employee failed to deal with a call which came into the office after her 4:15 p.m. closing time, and after which she was reprimanded by the Managing Director and wrote a letter in response to the Managing Director's reprimand.
The Employee claims that she was unfairly dismissed and claims compensation for her unfair dismissal.
The Employee filed a memorandum on 29th February, 2000 claiming unfair dismissal. In the memorandum the Employee included (In paragraphs 5 to 7 thereof) facts relating to the reference of the dispute to the Labour Department and facts relating to the outcome of those proceedings.
At the trial the Counsel for the Employer objected to any evidence. being adduced relevant to the proceedings in the Labour Department and this Court ruled that the Employee was not permitted into evidence any matters arising out of the hearings which had been held at the Labour Department.
The Employee's evidence was that she was employed by the Employer (a travel agency) in June, 1994. That the Managing Director of the travel agency was one Rosemarie McMaster (who was to all intents her employer). That on 10th February, 1995 she was dismissed as a result of an incident which occurred on 2nd February, 1995, in which one Novella Sheppard who managed a travel agency branch of the Employer called in a record locator after 4:15 p.m. and the Employee failed to take the Information. The Employee admitted that she had refused to take the record locator as it was past 4:15 p.m. the end of her work day, and Novella was in fact calling in several and not one record locator.
On cross-examination the Employee was asked about the importance of a record locator. She gave evidence that the record locator is an identification code usually made up of six characters (normally letters) which was used to identify the booking and travelling details of a passenger who was travelling, and from which tickets relating to the particular booking, were to be printed. She stated on cross-examination that she did not know what would have been the consequence of her failing to take the information re the record locator from Novella Sheppard as she did not directly deal with bookings.
In her evidence the Employee stated that the day after the incident, the Employer held a staff meeting in which the incident involving the Employee was discussed, and that at the end of the meeting the Employer presented the Employee with a memorandum dated 3rd February, 1995, in which the Employer discussed the issue that had occurred and advised the Employee that the behaviour which she exhibited during the incident was not conclusive to unity or co-operation in the workplace.
The Employee also gave evidence that this memo was given to her without her having been given all opportunity to explain her side of the incident, and that she felt belittled, humiliated and embarrassed by the Employer's handling of the incident, although she gave no specific evidence of what was said or done in the meeting to create those feelings.
The Employee stated that because of her feelings about the Employer's handling of the matter, i.e. her failure to allow her an opportunity to explain herself, and the memo which was handed to her, she wrote a letter dated 6th February, 1995 to the Employer to express her feelings.
The Employer's evidence was given by the Managing Director of the Employer Mrs. Rosemarie McMaster. She gave evidence that she received a complaint from Novella Sheppard on the afternoon of February 2nd 1995, indicating that the Employee had refused to take a record locator which had been admittedly called in after 4.15 p.m. The Employer stated that she herself took the information from Novella and had the tickets relating to the record locators prepared and delivered to Novella as they were in respect of tickets for persons who wished to travel early the next morning.
She stated that she was greatly concerned by the Employee's failure to take the record locator because it was past 4:15 p.m. since her failure would have resulted in passengers being unable to travel if the tickets were not issued.
The Employer stated that she had a meeting the next day with all members of staff and that the subject of the meeting was “staff unity and co-operation”, and that she emphasized the necessity for staff to go the extra mile to get the job done, especially in view of the economic downturn which the company was experiencing due to competition and other factors.
She gave evidence that after the meeting, she asked if anyone had anything to say and that the Employee did attempt to explain what had transpired. She admits that despite the fact that the Employee was not given a full opportunity to state her side of the incident she gave the Employee the memo dated 3rd February, 1995. She also admitted that the memo had been written and prepared prior to her holding the meeting.
The Employer stated that she told the Employee that despite the fact that she would attempt to contact Novella Sheppard to clarify the matter she was still giving the Employee the memorandum so that the Employee could see her thoughts on the matter.
The Employer stated that on 6th February, 1995, the Employee reported to work but that she did not speak with the Employee that day. She further stated that the Employee approached her on the afternoon of Tuesday 7th February, 1995, and advised her at about 1:30 p.m. that she was going to lunch and handed her the letter dated 6th February, 1995, stating “This is yours”. She also stated that 1:30 p.m. was not the usual lunch time for the Employee and that the Office practice and policy was for staff to make a written request on established forms for change in lunch hour to have the same approved by the Managing Director prior to the lunch hour being taken. This procedure the Employee failed to follow and had simply changed her lunch hour and informed the Managing Director of it only as she was leaving.
The Managing Director also gave evidence that when she read the contents of the Employee's letter of 6th February, 2000 she was shocked and stunned, as she had always previously had a good, even motherly relationship with the Employee.
She stated that on Wednesday 8th February, 1995 she approached the Employee and asked her how she could have written such a letter because she had been corrected. She stated that she told the Employee that she was convinced that the Employee had an attitude against correction and that the Employer had previously drawn to the Employee's attention that she was always resentful when corrected. She stated that the Employee stared at her during this interview in a very direct and disrespectful manner.
The Employer also stated that she drew the Employee's attention to the part of the Employee's letter in which she discussed her concern of unity and asked the Employee how she could work for a boss for whom she had no respect based on the contents of her letter. She stated that she requested the Employee to give her some guidelines as to how there could be unity in the office, and that the Employee advised her, that that was a matter for her (the Employer), which response so shocked her that she then ended the meeting. She said she had no other talk with the Employee, but the Employee's attitude was creating a problem as she was uncommunicative except for saying good morning or good afternoon and that there was a tense atmosphere in the office as a result.
The Employer stated that she thereafter further considered the matter, consulted with her Board and a decision was taken to terminate the Employee to maintain a smooth working relationship in the office.
At the end of the evidence for both sides Counsel for both...
To continue reading
Request your trial