Silston v Antigua Beach Hotel

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Judge: Simmons, J.
• Judgment Date: 04 April 1979
• Date: 04 April 1979
• Court: Industrial Court (Antigua)

Industrial Court

Simmons, J. (Hearing Officer)

Silston

and

Antigua Beach Hotel

(2) Issue: Unfair Dismissal

(3) Appearances:

(i) For the worker

(a) Mr. James T. Rose - General Secretary, Antigua Trades & Labour Union.

(b) Mr. Steve Silston

(ii) For the Hotel:

(a) Mr. Cyril M. Cumberbatch - Director, Employers' Federation

(b) Mr. Brian Gonsalves - Managing Director.

Industrial Law - Unfair dismissal — Worker violated company's house rule — Worker was dismissed by letter which specified that his employment had been terminated — Clause 4 (4) of the Collective Agreement was not put into operation when enforcing the house rule — Court failed to agree with management's interpretation that such misdemeanour was of a serious nature — Dismissal unfair — Awarded $5,312.50.

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

(6) Case for the worker:

• (i) The Union stated that the worker started working with Antigua Beach Hotel from sometime in August, 1975 until he was dismissed on July 30 ^th 1978, he was employed as a maintenance foreman and received a weekly wage of one hundred and twenty-five dollars ($125.00).

• (ii) The Union claimed that on July 6 ^th, 1978 management posted a house rule on the Notice Board which stated inter alia “all members of staff leaving on the afternoon shift are requested not to board the bus before 4.00 p.m. Naturally if transport arrives late for the 4 o'clock shift there will be a waiting period of ten minutes after the arrival of the transport before boarding”. On 15 ^th July, 1978 on the completion of his days work at 4:00 p.m. the worker found that the bus was late and did not arrive until approximately 4:25 p.m. at which time the worker boarded the bus immediately. The worker was subsequently warned by letter dated 15th July, 1978.

• (iii) According to the Union the worker proceeded on vacation from July 15 ^th – 30 ^th 1978. Subsequently by letter dated 14 ^th August, 1978 the Company terminated his employment with effect July 30 ^th 1978.

• (iv) In closing his opening remarks, Mr. Rose stated that the offence committed by the worker was not sufficient to warrant dismissal. He referred to Clause 21 (22) of the Collective Agreement, which stated.

  “It is agreed that the employer has the right to dismiss without notice for proven acts of serious misconduct including the following: violation of a house rule or regulation, if of a serious nature, or persistent violation or violation after warning and suspension.”

• (v) The Union claimed reinstatement without loss of pay.

(7) Case for the Hotel:

• (i) Management stated that on July 6 ^th, 1978 a house rule was posted on the Notice Board and on that same day the worker disregarded it. He was warned verbally.

• (ii) On 15 ^th July, the worker again disregarded se rule and was subsequently issued a letter of warning referring to his disregard on 14 ^th and 15 ^th July, 1978.

• (iii) Management stated that the worker proceeded on between July 15 ^th – 30 ^th, 1978 and immediately upon his returned to duty he again violated the house rule. He was therefore dismissed by letter dated 14 ^th August, 1978 but effective 20 ^th July, 1978.

• (iv) Management referred to Clause 21 (22) of the Collective Agreement.

(8) Cross-Examination:

• (i) Upon cross-examination, the worker said that from the onset he did query the house rule. He admitted that he did disregarded it on the 6 ^th, 14 ^th and 15 ^th of July, 1978 but denied that he did violate it on occasions between 6 ^th and 14 ^th July, 1978 and admitted that he never reported the house rule to any union.

• (ii) Upon cross-examination by the Union management admitted that the worker did query the house rule. They agreed that the house rule was not...