Solomon v Antigua Beach Hotel

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Judge: MR. C. H. Sampson,Hearing
• Judgment Date: 26 January 1979
• Date: 26 January 1979
• Court: Industrial Court (Antigua)

Industrial Court

Sampson, J. (Hearing Officer)

Solomon

and

Antigua Beach Hotel

(2) Issue: Demotion

(3) Appearances:

A. For the worker:

(i) Mr. Hudson Joseph -Industrial Officer; Antigua Workers' Union;

(ii) Mr. Elsworth Solomon

B. For the employer:

(i) Mr. C. M. Cumberbatch - Director, Antigua Employers Federation.

(ii) Mr. Brian Gonsalves - Managing Director or, Antigua Beach Hotel.

Industrial law - Demotion — As a result of what management considered his failure to properly arrange a staff meeting, the worker was demoted to Assistant Headwaiter — Finding that the action by management was necessary, but the specific action taken was too harsh — Worker suffered unfairly as a result of management's handling of the matter and deserved a further opportunity to prove himself in his former position — Worker reverted to position of Headwaiter.

1 (4) Witness: Mr. Ronald Francis - Antigua employers' Federation

2 (5) Hearing Officer: MR. C. H. Sampson - DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER

3 (6) Place and Period of Hearing: Labour Department, 9 ^th – 26 ^th January, 1979.

(7) Case for the Worker:

• (i) The worker had been employed by Antigua Beach Hotel for eleven years. For Six of these years-until August 25; 1978 — he had served as Headwaiter/Maitre-D, at a weekly wage of $68.25. He was serving as Headwaiter at the time when the present management took over the hotel on April 1, 1975.

• (ii) On August 21, 1978 the Headwaiter was asked by the Managing Director to arrange a meeting of the staff of his department for August 25 ^th. He informed all the staff members who were on the job, verbally and by placing a notice in a conspicuous position in the dining room where staff could not help but see it.

• (iii) Of the dining room staff, two were off duty, one being on vacation and the other on rotation. The Headwaiter made no effort to contact the vacationing staff member; believing that she had gone to the United States Virgin Islands on personal business. He asked a member of staff from another department to take a message to the staff member on rotation.

• (iv) On August 25 ^th three workers did not attend the staff meeting. These were the vacationing staff member, the staff member on rotation, and one other, Mr. Ronald Francis. In the case of the worker on rotation the staff member who had been asked to contact her had not done so, and so advised the Headwaiter. In the case of Mr. Francis, who had both seen the notice in the dining room and been verbally advised of the meeting by the Headwaiter, this worker did riot attend the meeting because he had other business to attend to, and so advised the Headwaiter.

• (v) As a result of dissatisfaction with the Headwaiter's handling of the arrangements for the staff meeting, the Managing Director informed him that he was demoted to Assistant Headwaiter at $54.50 per week with effect from August 25 ^th 1978.

• (vi) The Union was unable to understand how the worker could be deemed to have failed to properly arrange the meeting when (A) a bulletin was put in a conspicuous place (the table where dining room wares were kept, weighted down by two glasses), (B) verbal contact was made with staff, and (C) a message was sent to the worker on rotation. In this latter case the only other action that the Headwaiter could have taken was to contact the off-duty worker personally, but since they lived at Cedar Grove and Ottos respectively and the Headwaiter had no personal transportation, this was too much to expect.

• (vii) The Union denied management's charge that the worker had “consistently failed” to properly discharge the duties of Headwaiter over a period of time. The worker admitted that the Managing Director had once spoken to him about “firmness” low levels of efficiency among dining room staff. The worker also knew of complaints from guests about dining room service, but maintained that if such conditions existed, this was the case only in his absence. The worker had also been warned on several occasions by the Food & Beverage Manager, who had said it was possible that staff did not listen to the Headwaiter. The worker stated that staff meetings were held occasionally, but that he remembered making the arrangements only once.

• (viii) The worker objected not only to the demotion itself, but to the reduction in his pay, which he claimed now placed his earnings below two workers, who were named.

• (ix) Supported by statements made by the witness, the worker maintained that he had served as Maitre-D' in addition to being Headwaiter. He had he said, been given a Maitre-D' badge (Exhibit D) by a named member of management. This badge was produced in the Hearing. In addition to this he had been given the appropriate jackets for both the Headwaiter and wore Maitre- D' jacket at night. He had never received a written appointment to the post. Based on these submissions the union demanded retroactivity in pay and benefits for the period the worker performed as Maitre-D.

• (x) In closing the union charged, on the basis of statements made by the witness that the original written statement had been secured under duress. The Union believed that the worker should be replaced in his position, with all his benefits restored to him. The demotion, the union emphasized, was unwarranted, and the worker had been unfairly dealt with. The Union felt that if found inefficient, rather than being demoted the worker should have been severed arid given the opportunity to re-apply for employment as a waiter.

(8) Case for the Employer:

• (1) Management submitted that the Headwaiter had been told on August 21 ^st to arrange a staff meeting for August 25 ^th. On that date three members of staff were absent, having not been informed of the meeting.

• (ii) The Headwaiter, management charged, had made no attempt to contact one worker who was on vacation at the time, and who had not, as he assumed, left the country. In another case, the Headwaiter had asked a worker from another department to take a message to a staff member on rotation. The worker who was asked to take the message suggested that another person with more access to the staff member be the message-bearer. Nothing was done along these lines, and the message did not in fact reach its destination. In the third case one of the dining-room staff denied in a written statement (Exhibit C) that he knew anything about the meeting or had seen any notice pertaining to it in the dining room. This worker gave evidence at the Hearing.

• (iii) The Headwaiter, management noted, had received a written warning dated 26 ^th January, 1978 (Exhibit A) which served as a final warning of demotion if he should again fail to carry out his duties satisfactorily. This letter, management pointed out, followed a series of verbal warnings.

• (iv) Management referred to clause 21 of the Antigua Hotels Association/Antigua Workers' Union collective agreement (sub-paragraph 4), which provided that the penalty for consistent failure to perform satisfactorily may be dismissal without notice. Management felt that the worker's history had been such that their decision to demote the...