Court orders BWIA to pay ex-worker $125,000

THE Industrial Court yesterday ordered that a security guard who was dismissed by BWIA in 1993, be awarded $125,000 in compensation. The court comprising Members Gregory Baker and Mrs J Gualbance ordered that BWIA  pay the compensation to dismissed guard Narine Changoor by February 14. Changoor’s case was taken up by the Communication, Transport and General Workers Union. Dr Charles Seepersad appeared for the union while Industrial Relations Consultant Percy Cezair represented BWIA. On August 14, 1993, Changoor had been employed with BWIA as a security guard. The workers’ shift on that day consisted of 13 guards including supervisor Abel Rangai. However, only seven guards reported for duty that day.

Changoor was posted at the main gate of the BWIA compound that day. Obliquely opposite to Changoor’s post was the entrance to the car park, which was manned by security guard Lezama. When the time came for Changoor to have lunch at 12.40 pm, he was relieved at his request by Lezama. Rangai was not consulted on this move. There had been several instances of theft from the car park around this time and the company issued circulars on the topic, stressing the need to keep the car park gate closed when the security booth was unmanned. On this occasion, when Lezama went to relieve Changoor, he left the gate to the car park open.

A vehicle was stolen and it was at the conclusion of investigations and hearings into the theft that Changoor was dismissed. The investigation was carried out by security guard R Kallipersad and a report was submitted to management dated August 17, 1993. According to the court, it was foreseeable by management that the car park might have to be left unattended for one reason or another hence the duty placed on the car park attendant by the company through circulars to ensure that the barrier gate was kept closed, especially when the car park was unmanned.

From Kallipersad’s report, the court said it was clear that the operative cause of the thefts on August 14, 1993, was the failure of Lezama to observe instructions to close the barrier to the car park when the car park was left unmanned. “It appears harsh and oppressive that the principal Lezama should be disciplined more leniently than Changoor in this case (two weeks’ suspension v dismissal). The court found that the 24-hour security personnel referred to in Kallipersad’s report certainly were not on Changoor’s shift. The court found that on the day in question, Changoor’s shift was short-staffed and that the situation was exacerbated by the need to secure a sterile holding area for a flight to the USA.