Warner v Mill Reef Club

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Court: Industrial Court (Antigua)
• Judge: Hearing Officer
• Judgment Date: 18 December 1978
• Date: 18 December 1978

Industrial Court

James, J. (Hearing Officer)

Warner

and

Mill Reef Club

Appearances:

Mr. D. Jonas, Paulston Warner for worker

Mr. T. Keasbey, Mr. C. Wade for the worker

Industrial Law - Dismissal — Company's vehicle capsized while the worker was driving it — Worker was summarily dismissed for reckless driving — Held that the worker had only himself to blame — Dismissal fair.

Case for the Worker:

Summary for the Worker:

1 In Summation the union said that it did not deny that the worker had been previously warned about his driving, however they strongly felt that as a result of those previous warnings the Club made no serious effort to properly investigate the incident, which took place on October 13th. The matter was not sufficiently and properly investigated so that the company could have made the decision it did. They contended that the company made their decision to terminate the worker not on the basis of the incident, but oil the basis of his previous record. If the company could not and they did not prove that the worker was in fact driving recklessly the previous warnings could not be used to influence any dismissal. The offence for which the worker was actually dismissed wits not proved so the previous warnings could not be used against him at that time.

2 Had the Club made thorough and proper investigations it was quite possible that a completely different light would have been thrown on the incident. The relationship which now exists between the worker and the Club does not promote reinstatement; hence the worker should be compensated in lieu of reinstatement.

Case for the Employer

• (i) The worker had been employed at Mill Reef Club for 7 years during which time in addition to several verbal warnings and suspension from work for dangerous and reckless driving the worker had received 6 disciplinary letters for the same cause.

• (ii) On October 13th when tile vehicle capsized. The General Manager and Chief Maintenance worker visited the scene and after investigations, which entailed all examination of skid marks, leaking a sample run i.e. driving a vehicle at 25 m.p.h and stopping in 13ft. The skid marks from the accident were 39 ft and the speed limit within Mill Reef is 15 m.p.h. These factors satisfied The General Manager that the worker had been driving in excess of the speed limit resulting in the vehicle capsizing.

• (iii) At no time during the investigation did the worker mention that the vehicle was defective and the fact that it was driven by Head Maintenance worker who determined whether it was road worthy or not indicated that the vehicle was alright.

• (iv) The extent of the damage to the vehicle, the method it was placed back on its wheels and other persons arriving at the scene were not relevant to the issue. The inquiry warranted summary dismissal to maintain the safety and protection of other workers and persons on the compound. After having reviewed the previous letters concerning similar incidents the worker was dismissed. The fact that similar incidents had occurred over the past 4 years was indicative of Management's reluctance to dismiss him. Under those circumstances compensation would not be justifiable.

Case for the Employer

Summary for the Employer:

3 In summation the Club said it felt entirely justified in dismissing the worker. During the last four years the worker had given the Club the necessity to discipline him in connection with his dangerous and reckless driving. His had been a chronic case of disobedience and neglect. He was suspended for the very act of dangerous and reckless driving. The union has...