Silcott v Grafmueller

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Court: Industrial Court (Antigua)
• Judge: Browne, J.
• Judgment Date: 03 July 1978
• Date: 03 July 1978

Industrial Court

Browne, J. (Hearing Officer)

Silcott

and

Grafmueller

Industrial law - Dismissal — Employee was dismissed for bathing naked in a restricted area — Union submitted that under the circumstances the dismissal was unjustified — Finding that since the bathroom was provided, the worker should have used the facility rather than the bushes where she would subject herself to view by anyone happening to be in that vicinity — Dismissal fair.

Preamble:

1 In accordance with “section B 9 (2)” of the Antigua Labour Code No. 14 of 1975 as amended, the Labour commissioner appointed me as Hearing Officer to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the alleged unfair dismissal of Miss Josephine Silcott by Mr. Albert Grafmueller.

2 The matter was referred for formal handling to be heard n accordance with the provisions of Division C Part 5 of he same Labour Code.

3 The Hearing conducted in accordance with “sections B 10 and 11” of the Labour Code took place at the Labour Department on Monday 3rd July 1978. The worker was represented by Mr. David Jonas; Industrial Officer of the Antigua Workers' Union while the employer was represented by Mr. Cecil Wade.

4 In accordance with “section B9 (5)” of the Labour Code, submit my decision on the dispute.

Union's Case:

5 The Union state that Miss Josephine Silcott was employed as a maid by Mr. Albert Grafmueller of 7th February 1974 at $30.00 per week. On Tuesday 1st March, 1978, the worker was dismissed by Grafmueller after Perlina Watley the Supervisor who was not on good terms with the worker reported to him that she had seen the worker bathing in a so-called restricted area. According to the Union, the worker was told to return to the workplace the following Friday to collect her money. The worker returned to the workplace the following Friday and was given two (2) weeks vacation pay plus additional four (4) weeks ex-gratis pay.

6 The Union stressed that Mr. Grafmueller knew that the worker had bathed in the so-called restricted area prior to Tuesday 1st March 1978, but he had never asked her the son, why she had bathed there. The Union said the dismissal was unfair since the employer had never warned the worker from bathing in that area. He further added that the reason given for dismissal in his view seemed to be an alibi to get rid of the worker. The Union referred to “section C 60 (1)” of the Labour Code which stipulates good cause for dismissal.

7 The Union further pointed out that in accordance with “section C 60 (2)” of the Labour Code, the burden of the proof is on the employer to establish that the actual circumstances which existed In this case and...