Roberts v Michael

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Court: Industrial Court (Antigua)
• Judge: James, J.
• Judgment Date: 12 April 1979
• Date: 12 April 1979

Industrial Court

James, J. (Hearing Officer)

Roberts

and

Michael

(2) Unfair Dismissal:

(3) Appearances:

For Employer:

Mr. Victor Michael

For Employee:

Mr. B. Greene - Industrial Officer, Antigua Workers' Union.

Ms. Ernamay Roberts - Worker.

Industrial Law - Summary dismissal — After the worker had ironed two shirts, the worker was informed that the son was dissatisfied with their condition therefore she should stay away for a few days — On returning to work she was told that her services were no longer required and was handed an envelope with $21.00 — Decision that the permanent damage to the shirts was an occasion for some sort of reprimand to be handed down but in itself it was not a sufficient cause to summarily dismiss the worker — Dismissal was unwarranted and harsh — Awarded $238.00.

1 (4) Place & Date of Hearing: Labour Department, Thursday 12 ^th April, 1979.

(5) Case for the Worker:

2 (i) The worker had been employed as a maid with the Michael's for 1 year and 4 months receiving a weekly wage of $21.00. On February 2 ^nd the employer's son who was making the representation at this hearing asked the worker to wash some shirts telling her that when she was through she should let him know so that he could inspect them to see if they needed ironing. She gave the shirts for inspection and was told to use a cool iron.

3 (ii) On February 5 ^th, the employer told the worker that she wanted to talk to her about the shirts. The worker was told that the son was very annoyed and upset about the way she prepared his clothes and she should not report to work until February 8 ^th. When she reported for work she was given an envelope containing $21.00 as her week's pay and was told that her services were no longer required. The union stated that this dismissal was inconsistent with Section C 9 (1) of the Labour Code and was therefore unfair.

4 (iii) The worker was not here for disobeying instructions, but because she did obey. She was asked to use a cool iron on two shirts of very high cost and there was some dissatisfaction about the ironing of the clothes. It is apparent that the employer acted on pure assumption and not fact in dismissing the worker. She had been employed for 16 months and no one would have tolerated 4 months of poor ironing much less 16 months. The worker was instructed not to iron certain clothing and without even investigating the reason for the shirts changing colour she was dismissed. It must be established what the instructions were and even if a hot iron was used this must also be established

5 (iv) In viewing all the different areas of argument the union was making the following claims: -

1 week's notice

vacation

Compensation for year's service

Compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

(6) Summary:

6 The matter is one of unfair dismissal. The instructions to iron the two (2) shirts came from the employer's son as she could not have ventured to do so if she was not told. There was nothing in the instruction that told the worker not to iron the collars and the reason given for asking her to iron them in the first place was because they had in wrinkles. No evidence was introduced to show that there was an investigation with the worker about the heat of the iron she used and it wad therefore pure assumption that the worker was accused of using a hot iron on the shirts. It must also be pointed out that without looking at the label, which gives washing instructions the worker on instructions from the son, was told to use a cool iron. Not withstanding the cost of the shirts as given, the worker would have been even more careful to protect fabric of rather costly shirts. Taking into consideration that the worker was employed for 16 months it would appear that because of a hard to please employer being dissatisfied with the preparation of clothing the worker was high handedly dismissed. The union reiterates in position that the worker was unfairly dismissed and should be compensated for her years of service.

(7) Case for the Employer:

• (i) The son stated that in January 1979 he returned from Guadeloupe with three (3) new shirts, none which had bean previously washed or ironed. Two had already been used and needed washing. Like all other valuable fabrics the washing and ironing instructions were printed thereupon and...