Sacked guard awarded $50,000 in damages

THE INDUSTRIAL Court recently ordered a security company to pay a former employee $50,000 in lieu of damages. Samuel Alexander, a former security guard with SWAT Investigations Limited, was dismissed for allegedly violating the company’s disciplinary codes related to “disorderly conduct, bringing oneself and/or company into disrepute and using obscene and/or abusive language.” In making the award, the Court said: “To our mind, the Codes of Conduct were not applied to the constable in an evenhanded way. “That, combined with the company’s failure to provide to the constable an adequate opportunity to be heard, rendered his dismissal harsh and oppressive, or not in accordance with the principles of good industrial relations practice.”

The court said it did not consider it necessary to evaluate the guilt or innocence of the constable, “although, clearly, his conduct would be relevant to an assessment of the quantum of damages to which he would be entitled.”  The Court also considered the age of the constable — 59 years at the time of his dismissal in June 2001 and noted that it would be  difficult for Alexander to find comparable employment in the security field. However, the court found that despite its finding, Alexander’s conduct was not unimpeachable. The case stemmed from Alexander’s posting for duties at a Port-of-Spain supermarket. In the course of his duties, Alexander got into an argument with one of the firm’s employees, whom he alleged was disrespectful to him and who used obscene language to him.

According to SWAT’s evidence, Alexander displayed aggressive behaviour, used obscene language and threatened to shoot the employee. However, Alexander claimed the supermarket employee was the one who was disrespectful and who used obscene language. He denied that he threatened to shoot the employee because he knew that a threat to shoot someone amounted to an arrestable offence. The court stressed that a person accused of an offence must be notified of the alleged offence with adequate particulars of the alleged offence so that he would be able to answer to it. “In not notifying the constable, the company deprived him of a vital ingredient of the right to be heard,” the court said.