Techeira v Layfield

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

Industrial Court

James, J. (Hearing Officer)

Techeira

and

Layfield

Appearances:

Mr. James T. Rose, Mrs. Lorna Techeira for the worker

Mr. John Fuller, Mrs. Layfield for the employer

Industrial Law - Unfair dismissal — Worker was asked to clean the floor in a restaurant and refused stating she was not employed to perform such — Employment ceased — Finding that the function was not agreed to by both parties — Dismissal unfair.

Preamble:

1 In accordance with the provisions of “section B6 2” of the Antigua Labour Code as amended this dispute was referred on January 13th 1978 by the Honourable Minister of Labour for formal handling by Hearing Officer, the dispute being heard under the provisions of “section C part 5” of the Code, the issue being unfair Dismissal.

Case for the worker:

2 The case for the worker was presented in the form of evidence given by Mrs. Techeira (the worker).

3 The worker stated that she worked with Mrs. Layfield at the Golden Peanut in a boutique from February 1970-November 1973 and at the Anchorage Hotel from December 1973-August 1976.

4 During the annual closure of the Anchorage Hotel in 1976 the worker left the island on September 17th and returned on November 11th. She then visited Mrs. Layfield who informed her that the shop at the Anchorage Hote1 had been taken away from her, thus she was hoping to obtain a place to open a restaurant.

5 Mrs. Techeria, indicated that she assisted Mrs. Layfield with the preparations for the restaurant and about 3 days before its opening Mrs. Layfield informed her that she would be employed as the cashier. This was relayed because the worker asked what her position as regards to employment and she was unable to do continue walking to and fro in an uncertain situation.

6 In addition to Mrs. Layfield, the proprietor, there was another man who said he was the boss. He informed the worker that if she did not want to walk down to look around then there was no work for her to ho however after discussions with the union Mrs. Layfield told the worker to report for work.

7 When the worker reported for work Mrs. Layfield was absent. On arrival Mrs. Layfield informed Mrs. Techeria that she did not want anymore lazing around so she should see the boss.

8 An unstamped agreement to which the worker disapproved was displayed, thus she left to see Mr. Carrott at the Union.

9 It was stipulated that besides being a cashier the worker would also have to serve, her hours of work be 10 a.m. – 4 p.m. – 12 midnight each day. Also she would receive $25 as her basic wage.

10 The worker was dissatisfied with her basic wage thus contacted her union and after discussion it was decided that she would work for $30 per week, would serve and receive tips.

11 One night the worker received $12 tip from a customer and was told by Mrs. Layfield that if she did not share it she could not work. The worker shared it with a member of the kitchen staff and the bartender. The next day the boss informed Mrs. Techeria that Mrs. Layfield was not satisfied with the way the tip was shared thus she had no job. This employment lasted for 2 ¹/₂ weeks.

Cross Examination:

12 Mr. John Fuller cross-examined the worker in the testimony given.

13 Mr. Fuller asked the worker where she went subsequent to August 1977. The worker replied that she had been nowhere. The worker stated that she had never lived in Guadeloupe but had been there for holidays. She could not remember the name of the bartender or the girl in the kitchen with whom the money was shared. The worker replied to Mr. Fuller that Mrs. Layfield was dissatisfied because she thought the money was not shared correctly and was thus subsequently dismissed.

14 Mr. Fuller asked the worker if she had ever worked at another boutique in the Golden Peanut. To this the worker replied no. Finally Mr. Fuller stated that since the period November 1976 – August 1977 the worker never made any claims then she either did not work or had other employment.

Case for Employer:

15 The case for the employer was given in form of testimony by Mrs. Layfield.

16 Mrs. Layfield stated that the worker was employed with her at the Golden Peanut for two years 1971 –...