Dismissed funeral home worker collects $$; court upholds decision to fire abusive employee

A PORT-of-SPAIN funeral home has been ordered by the Industrial Court to pay to a dismissed worker the sum of $82,834 which represents outstanding wages, overtime and vacation leave during his tenure of service with the company. The money is to be paid before February 29. George Thomas, Manager/Supervisor at the company, was dismissed by Nella’s Funeral Home on February 27, 2002. The Managers and Supervisors Association of Trinidad and Tobago (MASATT) pursued the dispute on behalf of Thomas and hearing of the matter took place on July 21, 2003. The company was not represented at the hearing and the Court heard the matter ex parte. In its evidence and arguments, the union stated that Thomas was employed by the company for about 12 years. He was verbally dismissed when he requested payment for work done during the week ending February 23, 2002 and up to February 27, 2002, together with the payment for outstanding annual leave.

Further, the union stated that Thomas worked seven days per week (365 days per year) and was only allowed four weeks vacation leave and utilised one week sick leave during his service. Promises of more vacation leave never materialised. The union contended that the dismissal of the worker was harsh, oppressive, unconscionable and/or wrongful. Accordingly, the union claimed payments for work done by the worker and outstanding vacation leave and/or any other relief as the Court deemed fit. Thomas told the court, that like the other workers at the company, he was not given a letter of appointment when he was first employed, but that he was entitled to two weeks vacation leave per year from 1992 to 1995 and four weeks’ per annum for 1996. Regarding his dismissal, the worker stated that when he asked the director/Owner, Junior Allen about the monies owed to him, he received a very abrupt reply at the end of which, Allen told him he was fired. The union’s representative, in addressing the Court, stated that the union did everything in its power to contact and to meet with Allen, but he never responded.

In its judgment, the Court noted that from start to finish, the employer showed no interest whatsoever in the dispute with the union. “The court views this behaviour as an extremely unacceptable manner of treating with employees and their complaints. “Although the court is constrained from applying any further sanction for his callous disregard of good industrial relations principles, it is the type of behaviour that no other employer should emulate. “Hopefully, the authorities would correct this loophole in the law, sooner, rather than later, so that recalcitrant employers or trade unions would better appreciate their obligations in management/labour relations.” The court said that in making its ruling in favour of the union, it considered both written and oral submissions of the union. It warned that it was unlawful for an employer to deprive a worker of his wages and benefits which he had earned, and to which he was entitled. “The Court has repeatedly emphasised the fact that it can only make a determination in any matter, based on the evidence presented by the parties and any relevant precedents which may exist. In this dispute, absolutely no evidence was proffered by the company,” it said.

In the circumstances, it said, it could have only relied on the uncontroverted evidence of the worker, and accept the basis of his claim for the outstanding sums due and payable to him by the company. Court member, Patrick Rabathaly read the judgment . Other members of the quorum were S Ramparas and F Regis. There was another dispute involving another funeral home, which also dealt with the dismissal of a worker. In this case, the Court in its judgment found that the summary dismissal of a worker by K Allen and Sons Funeral Directors Limited saw the company emerging in winner’s row. The Court found that the dismissal of Vernessa Gregg, a mortician with the company, was fully merited. She was dismissed for being insolent to senior management of the comany.

The Managing Director of the Company, Kenwyn Allen told the court that Gregg was a very nice girl — quiet when she joined the company. But he found that in course of time, she developed a poor attitude which was manifested in several ways. She refused to say good morning to staff, she was verbally abusive to customers and there were many complaints about her misconduct. In dismissing the dispute, the Court said it was a matter of the worker’s word against her boss’. It found that the worker’s version of the circumstances that led to her dismissal was improbable and it accepted instead, the evidence of  Allen. It also found that language used by the worker to her boss was improper, unacceptable, foul and obscene. “In our view, the worker deliberately and purposefully overstepped the acceptable bounds of acceptable discourse with the Managing Director.”
The Court comprised H Sovereall, F Regis and B Mahabir.