Man takes NP to court over firing

His attorney Douglas Mendes SC, argued that the judge made ‘impermissible findings’ and did not fully consider the evidence she had before her.

Callender’s contract with the company was terminated on April 15, 2011 after credit was extended to one of the company’s former gas station dealers without appropriate approvals, NP claimed as it reasons for the firing.

It also claimed the Board had lost confidence in him.

But in his submissions before Justices of Appeal Allan Mendonca, Prakash Moosai and Andre des Vignes, Mendes said as CEO his client’s conduct could not be characterised as deliberately flouting the terms and conditions of his contract.

He said Callender was only acting in accordance with the NP Board’s policies when he extended the credit to the former gas station dealer.

“It cannot be said he was wilfully repudiating Board policies,” Mendes submitted. In his wrongful dismissal and breach of contract claim, Callender sought damages and special damages in excess of $1.7 million. He claimed NP breached the contract of employment by its own conduct toward him, which was calculated to and which did destroy the relationship of trust and confidence which should exist between them.

Callender further contended that his firing was the culmination or final act of “oppressive conduct’ by NP against him and was motivated by political reasons following the general elections which were held in May 2010, because of perceived political affiliation to the former Government.

In his arguments before the judges, NP’s attorney Seenath Jairam, SC, held that Callender was fired for reasonable cause because of breaches of his duty as CEO in the disregard for NP’s credit policy in favour of Trebro Holdings, which owned and operated two service stations.

It is NP’s contention that under Callender’s watch as CEO, Trebro managed to rack up a debt of $1.6 million despite all the inbuilt checks on the digital system, despite all the processes and rules under the policy to secure and protect the Company from harmful credit exposure.

NP also argued that the debt was allowed to accrue even under a cash on delivery arrangement, in the absence of an application for credit and a credit evaluation, in the face of a limit for the grant of credit of up to $750,000.00 by the CEO, through direct billings which were not generally allowed and a credit override which was granted without an application by Trebro, with no justification.

The judges will give their decision Callender’s appeal later this month.