Sacked manager awarded $100,000

The court found that Delicia Pinard’s dismissal was harsh, oppressive and in breach of the principles of good industrial relations practice. It also ordered that her dismissal letter be removed from her records at the company.

Noting that the worker found employment within six months of her dismissal and has had several engagements since, the court said, "The company is fortunate that she was able to find employment quickly and mitigate her loss."

The court said reinstatement was not an option and that the award of damages was more than an adequate remedy.

Following her dismissal, Pinard sought the assistance of the National Union of Government and Federated Workers (NUGFW) which fought the matter on her behalf. She told the court she was employed by the company on August 1, 1995 and at her dismissal on July 27, 2000 she held the post of manager of agency sales. Her dismissal stemmed from her preparation of certain documents which had financial implications.

The court said Pinard acted to recover monies due and owing to her employer and did not secure any advantage for herself. "She acted, not to cover up any wrongdoing on her part," said the court.

It noted too that she acted on certain advice, however misguided, "and as she kept other managers in the company appraised of what was happening, it is difficult to see how all the responsibility could be properly placed on her shoulders."

The court said the company’s portrayal of the worker as a dishonest, corrupt, malevolent, incompetent employee, appeared misplaced.

"The worker was no thief."

The court advised, "Good industrial relations practice requires the taking of progressive discipline for workers’ misconduct. On the facts of this case, summary dismissal, the gravest penalty which can be meted out to a worker by an employer, was not in our view justified. In these difficult times, employers should not abuse their right of dismissal."