$81,000 in damages to dismissed worker

THE Industrial Court has awarded $81,000 in damages to Ronald Charles, whom the court deemed was wrongfully dismissed from his job at Gopeesingh’s General Contractors Ltd, despite working there for 30 years. The decision has been called historic by Industrial Court officials in light of the fact that it took under a week to be made. The court ruled Charles was fired in “circumstances exceptionally harsh in light of his 30 years’ service.”

According to the Court order, Gopeesingh’s General Contractors Ltd has until today to pay the sum to Charles who is also to receive $370 as costs. Charles was fired in July 2001. The judgment was given on April 2, by Her Honour E Donaldson-Honeywell, one of the newest members of the court. It is regarded as the shortest period taken by the Industrial Court to give a judgment at the end of a formal hearing. Because of the failure by the company and the Contractors and General Workers’ Union (CGWU) to reach a settlement after months of conciliatory talks at the Ministry of Labour, the union applied to the court for determination of the dispute. Both parties appeared in court on two occasions for a pre-trial hearing and a date was fixed for actual hearing on September 29, 2003.

Although both parties filed Evidence and Arguments and the union was ready to proceed, an application was made on behalf of the employer for adjournment of the hearing. On the next hearing date on March 4, the employer failed to appear and no explanation was forwarded. The matter was therefore heard ex-parte in accordance with provisions of the Industrial Relations Act (IRA). On March 17, two days before the date set for delivery of judgment, the employer filed documents seeking to be excused for prior non-appearances. The Court found the reasons given by the employer both for the failure to attend and the delay in communicating reasons to the Court, to be invalid. The court nevertheless allowed hearing of the matter to be resumed, “inter partes.” While the union contended Harris’ dismissal by oral communication and without stated reasons to be “harsh, oppressive and justified,” the employer said Harris was dismissed for “behaviour that amounted to disrespect and insubordination.”

The court found that through his testimony and demeanour, Harris was a witness of truth. “He displayed excellent composure under cross-examination, such that the employer’s allegation as to his unruly conduct on the day in question, lacked credibility. His version of events that led to his dismissal was also far more believable than that stated by the employer,” said the court. The court also found that the employer failed to support essential aspects of its Evidence and Arguments. The court rejected the employer’s allegation that the worker was disrespectful and insubordinate.