Court: UWI worker was author of her own demise

THE INDUSTRIAL Court has found it unfortunate that a certain worker, who from all reports, was competent and efficient, ended up being the author of her own demise. 

The Court’s sentiments were expressed in a judgment relating to the termination of the services of Brenda Mayers by the Institute of International Relations of the University of the West Indies, St Augustine. The Court found that Brenda Mayers exhibited utter disregard for her employment, her employer, and for the employer/employee relationship. Mayers lost her job in September 1997. It also noted the disrespectful attitude of the worker to her employer. She tried to get it back through the Industrial Court, using the Oilfields’ Workers Trade Union to fight her case. The Union asked the Court to find the Institute’s action of termination to be harsh, oppressive and contrary to proper industrial relations since the worker was not given the chance she was promised. But  the Court said that on the totality of the evidence, it could not support the union’s claim.

In dismissing the dispute, the Court commented: “If the Institute erred, it was in its tardiness in taking decisive action at an earlier date.” It was after a series of absenteeism, unpunctuality, failures to advise her seniors of her whereabouts and in general, displaying a behaviour considered to be inimical to the well-being of her workplace that her post was declared vacant. And in coming to its conclusion, the Court took note of such history. A sumarised version of the facts of the case shows: The worker was given permission to proceed on annual vacation leave from September 5 to November 3, 1997. Two days before her leave started, Mayers was informed by the Director of the Institute that a review of her attendance record as well as her punctuality showed an alarming pattern of absences. He also noted that as far back as 1992, the worker had been informed about this problem on several occasions. He indicated that he was prepared to give the worker one last chance before taking disciplinary action, and he was going to monitor her performance closely on her resumption of work from vacation leave.

Ignoring the Director’s warning, Mayers took two days off, immediately prior to her leave. The Institute decided to consider the two days as part of her leave. In Court, Mayers admitted that she was aware of the Institute’s policy that casual leave should not precede vacation leave.  On this score the Court commended the Institute. It said: “There is good reason for any prudent employer to institute such a policy, since prior to an employee proceeding on vacation leave, there must be some handing over or steps taken to ensure the continued smooth running of the employer’s business during approved leave period.” Mayers also admitted that casual leave was not to precede vacation leave, since she had been previously warned. She admitted that she was not always ill, but she also cared for her mother who had to be taken to the clinic. She therefore used some of her sick leave entitlement for these purposes “since there is no provision for leave for parents”. The Court comprised Ramchand Lutchmedial — Chairman; Herbert Soverall and L Harris, Members.