BWIA to pay engineer $50,000 in damages

A $10,000 per month BWIA engineer, who was suspended with full pay for 14 months and was reinstated after the company found there was no misconduct on his part, is to to be paid $50,000 in damages. Today is the deadline for BWIA to pay by order of the Industrial Court. In addition, BWIA is to pay to Brian Matthew costs fit for counsel to be agreed between the parties, or in default assessed by the court. The court also ordered that the company reinstate to the benefit of the worker, seven days’ annual leave entitlement, or make monetary payment to the effect; pay to Matthew the sum of US$75 as summer bonus for the year 2000, and deliver to Matthew rebated travel tickets in respect of the years 2000 and 2001. Matthew has had 19 years’ service with the company.

In its judgment, the court found that “Sorry, come back to work” was nowhere near adequate atonement for what was done to Matthew, and more importantly, how it was done. “In the absence of formal evidence, it is not possible to hold that a person who is bundled out of his office and off his workplace during working hours by security personnel when, presumably his colleagues are present, is at least exposed to suspicion of wrongdoing, embarassment, humiliation and mental trauma of some sort,” said the court. The gist of the matter is that sometime between September 27 and October 7, 2002, BWIA received a series of electronic mail transmissions threatening action which it believed was aimed at compromising the safety and security of its fleet of aircraft. Over the same period, the company said it experienced technical problems similar to those transmitted, causing disruptions and/or cancellations to its scheduled services. Matthew was suspended with full pay, in order to facilitate further enquiry into the matter.  The matter reached the Industrial Court, and Matthew was represented by the Communication, Transport and General Workers’ Trade Union (CTGWTU).

In its submission to the court, the company argued that the worker’s suspension was a normal procedure. In its letter to Matthew, absolving him from any misconduct, the company wrote, “We have undertaken a thorough review of findings to date, and the information gathered with your help, does not implicate or indicate any misconduct by any active employee, you included.” Notwithstandiang this, the court held that the suspension of the worker was effected in circumstances that were harsh and oppressive, not in accordance with the principles of good industrial relations practice, and in breach of the Collective Agreement. It also found that where suspension is a disciplinary measure, the duration of such suspensison must be clearly stated. “Indefinite suspension is tantamount to dismissal,” it said. The court’s quorum was Gregory Baker and Judy Rajkumar-Gualbance.