Sundry Workers v Castle Harbour

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Court: Industrial Court (Antigua)
• Judge: Mr. Lincoln M. Simmons
• Judgment Date: 09 November 1979
• Date: 09 November 1979

Industrial Court

Simmons, J. (Hearing Officer).

Sundry Workers

and

Castle Harbour

SUNDRY WORKERS v. CASTLE HARBOUR

(2) Issue: Unfair Dismissal

(3) Appearances:

i. For the Worker:

(a) Mr. J. T. Rose - General Secretary – A.T. & L. U.

(b) Messrs N. Maynard; S. Michael, L. Josiah and M. Weste - Workers.

ii. For the Hotel:

Mr. A. Valardi - Manager.

Industrial Law - House rule required workers to be clean shaven — No letter of dismissal issued to the workers for their refusal to obey the house rule — There was a breakdown of proper communication in the management/employee relationship but it did not necessitate the discontinuance of employment for the workers.

(4) Place & Date of Hearing:

1 9 ^th November, 1979, Labour Department.

(5) Delivered by:

2 Mr. Lincoln M. Simmons – Labour Relations Officer

Case for the Workers:

3 The Union submitted that five employees (absent from above Mr. Samuel) employed at Castle Harbour as Croupiers (Dealers), sometime during the last season management requested that the workers be clean shaven. The workers at different times gave different reason why they were unable to shave. Sometime in late February 1979 management issued a letter giving them an ultimatum, the workers again refused this time giving their reason for not shaving. The Hotel was closed in June for vacation.

4 The Union said that on the workers report for duty subsequent to their vacation they were not allowed to work, subsequently they received letters informing them of their abandonment of employment due to their noncompliance of the request to be clean shaven.

5 At this point the Union introduced the workers to state their reasons for not shaving.

• (a) Mr. N. Maynard said that he was allergic to shaving. The remaining three workers gave also as their reason allergy to shaving.

6 The Union in closing said that the circumstances was not sufficient to warrant dismissal and should cause the workers to loose their years of service.

7 The Union requested compensation for the workers' years of service.

Final submission:

8 (a) The Union – In its final submission the Union said that the workers were unprepared to shave, therefore will not return to work. He emphasised that the workers refusal due to allergy was not sufficient to warrant dismissal. The Union requested that its claim be uphold.

(8) Case for Hotel:

9 Management submitted that on February 2 ^nd 1979 at meeting with all Casino employers they requested that the employees be clean shaven. He pointed out that having had been the hotels policy since its inception. Further, on February, 22 ^nd 1979 another meeting was held at which time letters were issued to all the employees confirming in writing management's request be said that the letters were individually handed to each employee by the cashier, five of the six employees. (The five aggrieved workers) accepted their letter and having read it threw it back at the cashier in the office. Management pointed out that the sixth employee one Mr. Stanfield Donawa conformed to the request and continued to work. The other five refused and was given as an ultimatum discontinuation of employment.

10 Continuing management said that on 17 ^th July the workers were requested to report back to work, however, on their report it was found that they were not shaved and that they continued to refuse to do so, constituting that they were not ready for work. According to management they felt that the workers refusal effectively by their own volition effectuated their own dismissal. Management said that they had not dismissed the workers and that their jobs were still available and they were free to report at anytime whenever they conformed with the request.

(9) Final submission:

11 The Hotel – In its final submission management said that the crux of the matter was shave or not. He said that when the employees took up employment with the Hotel they understood that shaving was part of the employment arrangement. (He submitted into evidence the Casino House rules). He emphasised that management had not and will not dismiss the workers. He requested that the workers be clean shaven and return to work immediately.

(10) Cross Examination:

• i. Mr. N. Maynard admitted that he was accustomed to...