He permitted cops to fingerprint the dead

A FUNERAL agency worker who was fired because he took out a body from the company’s mortuary refrigerator for the police to take fingerprints, is to receive $32,000 because his dismissal was deemed to be “harsh and oppressive” by the Industrial Court. The court found that Earl De Four’s dismissal was harsh and oppressive and ordered his employer, Simpson’s Funeral Home, to pay the money before March 31. When the matter was heard by the court, it was learnt that sometime in July 2003, the  body in the mortuary’s refrigerator belonged to Marcil’s Funeral Home.

The owner of Simpson’s, Faith Simpson-Johnson, testified that there was nothing unusual about a body not belonging to her company being kept in the refrigerator. Simpson-Johnson admitted that Marcil’s had been allowed on occasion to store bodies in Simpson’s refrigerator on payment of fees.

Robert Simpson, brother of Simpson-Johnson, who was the original owner of the refrigerator, also kept bodies there, and sometimes Marcil’s would pay Robert, instead of the company, for storage of bodies. Simpson-Johnson testified that she was unaware on that day, and remained unaware as to how this particular body got into the refrigerator.

De Four, on the other hand, testified that the body was brought there by Robert. The major area of concern that arose before the court, and which ultimately resulted in the worker’s dismissal, was that the body was taken out of the refrigerator for police officers to take finger prints, without seeking the instructions of Simpson-Johnson. She said that although it was expected that the police would seek to examine bodies, particularly of shooting victims, the procedure to be followed was that her instructions had to be given.

She said this applied even where the body did not belong to her funeral home. The court found that even if the worker had let in the police officers and taken out the body, this would not have amounted to gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal. “It would be in the court’s view have been more appropriate for the employer to have warned him specifically not to assist in this way in future, without first seeking instructions.