Simon v Hyatt Halcyon Hotel

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Court: Industrial Court (Antigua)
• Judge: James, J.
• Judgment Date: 01 October 1979
• Date: 01 October 1979

Industrial Court

James, J. (Hearing Officer)

Simon

and

Hyatt Halcyon Hotel

(3) Appearances:

For Worker:

Mr. T. Rose-General Secretary, Antigua Trades and Labour Union

Ms. C. Simon – Worker

For Employer:

Mr. C. Cumberbatch – Director, Employers' Federation

Ms. S. Walling – Personnel Manager.

Mr. L. Maginley – Food & Beverage Cost Controller.

Industrial Law - Dismissal — Employee was dismissed by letter for inefficiency and irregularities — Held that the evidence clearly supported irregularities on the part of an employee dealing with money and this could not be condoned — Dismissal justified.

(4) Place and Date of Hearing: Labour Department, Monday 1 ^st October, 1979.

(5) Case for Worker:

B. Cross Examination:

1 The worker stated that the cost of the 5 breakfasts would have been $89.70 and the 5 continental $44.85. If a check was to be cancelled, the captain or some other person in authority would usually sign as witness. The duplicate was given to the guest and the original torn up. When the guest saw the bill he said he was unable to pay. The others had gone on to breakfast with the otter check however she wrote another for 5 continental breakfasts. Mr. Maginley never said that the money was short, but that the tally was out by 5 continental breakfasts and she would have to pay for them. She had had other shortages and had paid for them.

(6) A. Objection:

2 Mr. Rose objected to the idea of Mr. Maginley giving evidence since he was present while the worker was giving testimony and he had teen taking notes. This he continued would be unfair and would not ensure justice on the worker's behalf. Mr. Cumberbatch indicated that Mr. Maginley was a part of management and was the one directly involved so along with Mss. Walling he was going to present management's case.

3 Mr. Rose said that he would not cross-examine any testimony given and further he did not want to listen to anything said by management. At this point Mr. Rose left the room without permission and in defiance of the Hearing Officer's orders.

4 A short adjournment was had after which Mr. Rose returned. The Hearing Officer indicated to him that his behaviour was t becoming and that such action was tantamount to him abandoning his clients case. His attitude towards management's representatives was very puerile and his implied impression of injustice to the worker did not conform to precedents set by the Labour Department and its Officers.

(7). Case for Employer:

5 Mr. Maginley – Food & Beverage Cost Controller.

• (i) The Food and Beverage Cost Controller stated that on the morning of April 23 ^rd he made his routine collection of duplicate checks from the cook. These he said, indicated how many breakfasts would have been served that morning. He noticed there was a discrepancy of 5 breakfasts when the duplicates were checked against the worker's food control sheet. He called the worker and drew it to her attention and asked for an explanation. There were inconsistencies in her statement so she was shown the duplicate check, which she had initialled but she seemed at a loss.

  She agreed that she had received cash for 5 breakfasts and that she would repay it.

• (ii) Continuing he indicated that he had gathered all that facts – the day's sales and...