Tonge v Antigua Beach Hotel

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Court: Industrial Court (Antigua)
• Judge: James, J.
• Judgment Date: 13 February 1980
• Date: 13 February 1980

Industrial Court

James, J. (Hearing Officer)

Tonge

and

Antigua Beach Hotel

(1) DISPUTE: EULYN TONGE vs ANTIGUA BEACH HOTEL

(2) Issue: Unfair Dismissal

(3) Appearances:

(i) For worker:

Mr. B. Spencer Assistant General Secretary – Antigua Workers' Union.

Ms. E. Tonge Worker.

(ii) For Employer:

Mr. C. Cumberbatch Director,

Antigua Employers' Federation.

Mr. Gonsalves Manager

Antigua Beach Hotel.

Industrial Law - Dismissal — Worker was dismissed for violating clause 21(4) (6) and (13) of a collective agreement between the A.H.A and the A.W.U. — Court found that more respect should have been shown for managements authority — Dismissal warranted.

(4) Place and Date of Hearing:

1 Labour Department, Wednesday 13 ^th February, 1980.

A.

• (i) The dispute centers around the dismissal without notice of this worker from the employ of Antigua Belch Hotel. She had been working as a receptionist since March 1 ^st, 1977 and was terminated on April 25 ^th 1979 by letter dated April 26 ^th 1979. The letter was received by post on May 9 ^th 1979. It was unsigned and postmarked May 8 ^th 1979. A number of allegations were levied against the worker in the letter and the Union's view was that if they could not amount to summary dismissal the dismissal was unfair and unreasonable and this will be shown.

• (ii) The worker was acquainted with Mr. Pat Gonsalves who she knew was the Managing Director's father. He had issued instructions to her from time to time. The worker was on the afternoon shift on April 23 ^rd 1979 and had some discussions with Ms. Hadler about going for dinner. Ms. Hadler's position with the company she did not know, however she proceeded to the coffee shop but after being informed by Mr. Pat Gonsalves that he had informed the kitchen not to issue her any food, she returned to the office.

• (iii) That same day a guest named Mr. Reider checked in. He was not given a questionnaire at that time but did subsequently receive it.

• The worker was never questioned about this in the presence of the guest but was informed about it by the manager on the night of April 25 ^th.

• (iv) The room numbers with their occupants are displayed at the front desk, Room 3 showed O'Hara on April 23 ^rd so on the following morning the worker punched in the night's charge to the bill. At about 2.30 Ms. Hadler inquired if there was anyone in Room 3. The worker told her yes. She subsequently checked and found no one there so a credit was rang on the bill. She (the worker) had no knowledge of when the O'Hara's checked out:

(5) Case for Worker:

A.

2 (2) On April. 25 ^th the worker, was changing some currency for a guest when the phone rang, but she was unable to answer it as she could not leave what she was doing at that time. That same night the Managing Director called her to his office and informed her that he was made to understand that the phone rang five (5) times and he believed she couldn't answer it because she was attending to a guest. When he said this she laughed and he inquired what was so funny. She told him that he had answered the question himself. He said he still didn't understand what was so funny and was told that he shouldn't ask such a question. He then told the worker that she was suspended for two (2) weeks. At this point she told the Managing Director that it was past midnight so she was leaving. With that she left the office. Knock off time is 12 midnight.

• (vi) The worker explained that the switchboard was newly installed and she had not been taught how to operate it. After the Managing Director spoke to her about not being able to get a line, she fiddled with the switchboard and did the right thing.

• (vii) As she was leaving the office the worker said that she remarked “that these people behave like crazy people”. She then turned off the lights, which was a usual thing. She explained that the turning oft of the lights did not pose any problems for people in the inner office to see when they were leaving.

• (viii) She was aware of the five (5) warning letters between December 78 and April 79, but most of these concerned the incompletion of duties. As far as she was aware the Managing Director's Secretary was Mss. Delaney.

B. Cross-Examination:

• (i) Mr. Peters, the office manager had never told the worker about Ms. Hadler arriving and that she would be the Managing Director's Secretary.

• (ii) Meals were taken when it was convenient to both the operation and the individual.

• (iii) When the guest, Mr. Reider checked in the worker said she did not forget to give him the questionnaire. Although he signed in and took the key he had complained about being tired so she sent him to his room.

• (iv) She did not know if the O'Hara's left owing monies. In fact she never saw them

• (v) The worker said she told the Managing Director that it was 12:15 so she had to leave as it was after midnight, because she had to catch the bus.

• (vi) The worker said she did not resent authority.

B. Cross-Examination:

C. Summary:

3 The question is whether under the outlined circumstances the employee was fairly dismissed. Do the offences individually or collectively amount to grounds for dismissal?

4 The employee says that Ms. Haldler's position with the company was not clear to her but nevertheless on the specific incident when Ms. Hadler approached her she told her she was hungry and proceeded to the Coffee Shop. Mr. P. Gonsalves who normally gives instructions spoke to the worker and she returned to the office.

5 The Managing Director admitted that it was important to give a new arrived guest a questionnaire on their arrival It had not been a proven fact that the guest did not receive one and it affected him or the hotel in anyway, since it is usually tilled out at the guest's leisure and he received one later that day. There is a situation where the employee comes on duty as a receptionist and receives information, which indicates things in relation to guests at the Hotel. The employee genuinely believing that the information was correct proceeded to act upon it accordingly. The chart showed the name of guest as being present in the hotel. Whether or not the employee told Ms. Hadler that the guests were in their room at that time is irrelevant because she could only nave done that from the information received.

6 The Managing Director admitted that he knew why the worker didn't answer the phone and that resulted in the employee laughing. It was important that she complete what she had been doing at that time. During the exchange the employee remarked that the incident was a joke and at that time she was told that she was suspended for two (2) weeks. She then pointed out that it was after midnight and she had to leave.

7 The letter of dismissal was dated April 26 ^th and the envelope was postmarked May 8 ^th and it was received on May 9 ^th. This was approximately two (2) weeks after the incident and it is evident that having suspended the employee the Managing Director changed his mind and made sure she received the letter before she reported to work.

8 The statements made by the members of management could be examined closely. How could both members so clearly state that at no time was the worker suspended and the matter was never discussed before them. If these statements were unsolicited there was no way that identical reference to the two (2) week period claimed by them could be made.

9 If it was customary that when one was leaving they perform a duty how could they be charged for insubordination. There was no evidence to say that anyone was inconvenienced in anyway and it was pointed out that they would not be affected and this was never refuted.

10 The employer wrote five (5) warning letters and most had to do with not being able to complete duties on time. The employer says that most were about incorrectness, there was no evidence to support this.

11 The letter of March 28 ^th dealt with specific matters and any further recurrence would result in disciplinary action and that falls of instant dismissal.

12 Reference was then made to Section C 10 (1) (3) of the Antigua Labour Code, which states: -

• (1) Upon the termination by an employer of any person's employment subsequent to the expiration of the latter's probation period, the employer shall, upon a request being made by the employee within seven days of termination or notice thereof furnish forthwith to said employee a written statement of the precise reason for the action.

• (3) An employer who furnishes a statement of certificate required by subsection ( 1) or (2) respectively, shall be conclusively bound by the contents therein in any proceeding testing the fairness of the dismissal as coveted by Part 5 herein or his liability for severance pay covered by Part 4 therein.

13 Thus any further evidence should be rejected and should be ignored as it was not properly before the Hearing.

14 The employee was unfairly dismissed. She was sent home on a two (2) week suspension and the dismissal letter was about two (2) weeks after i.e. about the time when she should report back to work and this is very pointed. The evidence on many points are not conclusive, thus the necessary remedial action should be taken. The violations have not been conclusive. She was unfairly treated and should be reinstated without loss of pay.

A.

• (i) Ms. Hadler was the Managing Director's secretary at the Hotel and had authority to issue instructions to employees. This had been conveyed to all office employees and heads of department. The worker had carried out Ms. Hadler's instructions on several occasions.

• (ii) All office staff are familiar with the procedure that a guest is handed a key he is also handed a form, which is filled out at the guest's leisure during his stay. It would have not taken up any more of the guest's time to give him a questionnaire.

• (iii) All office staff are familiar with the procedure that a...