Bessie Mae Lloyd v The Hotel Corporation of the Bahamas {d.b.a. Radisson Cable Beach Casino & Golf Resort}
| Jurisdiction | Bahamas |
| Court | Industrial Court (Bahamas) |
| Judgment Date | 18 December 1997 |
| Docket Number | No.99 of 1997 |
In the Matter of The Industrial Relations Act
No.99 of 1997
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
NASSAU
The Applicants Bessie Mae Lloyd and Lanette Allen were at all material times Security Guards of the Respondent, and commenced employment with the Respondent on 6th March, 1989, and 18th January, 1987, respectively.
By written Notice dated 10th November, 1993, Bessie Mae Lloyd was suspended from work without pay on the 12th, 13th and 14th November, 1993, purportedly in accordance with the terms of an employee handbook which formed a part of her otherwise unwritten contract of employment.
The reason given by the Respondent for her suspension was that while she was on duty during the 4:00 pm — Midnight shift on Saturday, 30th October, 1993, a quantity of bed spreads and drapes belonging to the Respondent “went missing” from room #217 which was being used as a storage room.
The suspension Notice further stated that she was seen entering the said room without authorization, and that she “did not do an effective job in securing the company's property”, and that she was to report to the Human Resources Department of the Respondent on Monday, 15th November, 1993.
By written Notice dated 10th November, 1993, Lanette Allen was also suspended from work in like terms and for the same reasons on 12th, 14th and 15th November, 1993, and she was directed by the Respondent to report to its Human Reources Department on 16th November, 1993.
The suspension period for both Applicants was extended to 17th November, 1993, by written Notice pending further investigation.
By written Notice, Bessie Mae Lloyd's employment was subsequently terminated by the Respondent effective 23rd November, 1993, for “collusion with fellow employees resulting in hotel property being removed without authorization”, and by written Notice, Lanette Allen's employment was also terminated by the Respondent effective 23rd November, 1993, for “failure to cooperate with a security investigation, including entering a guest room area without authorization.”
Bessie Mae Lloyd and Lanette Allen were respectively 42 years old and 28 years old at the time of their dismissal from employment.
The Applicants allege that they had done nothing wrong to warrant their summary dismissal, and hence they were wrongfully dismissed.
Further to the written Notices from the Respondent to the Applicants as to the reasons for their dismissal, the Respondent avers in its Defence that the Applicants were guilty of “theft of and/or failure to properly secure hotel goods and supplies. Failure to faithfully, honestly and diligently carry out tasks and functions of security officers.”
Each of the Applicants claim damages {inclusive of loss of benefits} in the aggregate amount of Nine Thousand Four Hundred and Forty-three Dollars {$9,443.00}.
Representative for the Applicants — Mr. Obie Ferguson Jr.
Counsel for the Respondent — Mrs. Rionda Y. Godet
Dismissal of Application of Samuel Saunders:
The Representative for the Applicants informed the Tribunal that he was no longer instructed by Mr. Samuel Saunders, and in view that he has not appeared at the Hearing of this matter, and neither has anyone else appeared on his behalf, we herewith dismiss his Application for want of prosecution pursuant to Rule 12(1)(f) of the Industrial Relations {Tribunal Procedure} Rules, 1997.
Bessie Mae Lloyd testified that she had reported to work for the 4 pm. — midnight shift on 30th October, 1993, and that as she commenced her duties, she heard Ms. Eloise Albury, {the Assistant to Mrs. Mae Symonnette, the Executive Housekeeper of the Respondent} say that “the things are in room #217”, but no one was to touch anything in the buggie, because they belonged to Mr. Earl Bethel, the General Manager.
One of the Respondent's security investigators, Hansel Black, did corroborate Ms. Lloyd's statement in this regard; he said that Ms. Albury did in fact confirm that Mrs. Symonnette instructed her to issue spreads from room #217, but that the buggie load of draperies was not to be touched.
Mr. Michael Davis, a Security Supervisor and Chief Locksmith of the Respondent, also stated that on Saturday, 30th October, 1993, at about 4 pm., Ms. Albury came to the Security Office with a number of items and said that “the stuff is in room #217 if you all want any, but just leave the goods in the two buggies for Mr. Bethel.”
Ms. Lloyd said that sometime after 7:30 pm., she called Security Officer Kwame Adderley and asked him to obtain the emergency key from Acting Supervisor of Security, Samuel Saunders. She said that she asked him to get the key in the event that any of the guest doors needed to be “cued in”, i.e. opened while they were on patrol.
She said that about an hour later she accompanied Officer Saunders on foot patrol, and proceeded to the East Wing on the 9th Floor. She said that when they got to the Second Floor, they saw a bus boy collecting dirty trays in the vicinity of rooms 217 and 218.
She said that she also saw the Maid Inspector, Angeline Hanna, emerge from the elevator in the area of room 217.
She went on to say that she and Officer Saunders were heading to the pre-convention area where the Princess Margaret Hospital was having a fashion show. She said that Saunders gave her the key to the chain link fence to let out cars for some people who were leaving the show and that she did in fact do this.
Ms. Lloyd stated that when Angeline Hanna got out of the elevator on the second Floor, she headed East along the corridor, as did the bus boy.
She said that she tdid not enter room #217 at any time, nor did she send anyone there, and that no one took anything from the room under her watch.
She specifically denied that she gave any instructions to Officer, Kwame Adderley to open room #217 in order to allow a kitchen employee to obtain any items therein.
She said that she did not tell Kwame Adderley to get any key to let anyone in room #217.
Lanette Allen testified that she also reported for work at 4 pm. for the 4 pm — Midnight shift on 30th October, 1993.
She said that she was posted in the lobby initially, then on foot patrol between 4 pm. to 8 pm. She said that at about 7:15 pm., she made a check of the East Wing of the hotel, and when she got to the Second Floor, she was approached by the guest from room #218 who complained that his phone was not working.
She said that she told the guest that she would have the phone checked.
Ms. Allen then said that she proceeded to the First Floor, and all appeared to be in order; at 7:30 pm. she took a break, then at 8:00 pm., she assumed her duties as diaress.
She said that she got off at 12 midnight, and that she never entered room #217, neither did anyone enter or remove anything therefrom under her watch.
According to a written statement from Officer, Kwame Adderley {who did not give evidence at the Hearing of this matter}, he had received a call from station 30 {manned by Bessie Mae Lloyd} in the evening and was asked to obtain the emergency key from Officer Saunders and proceed to room #217 where he was to meet someone from the kitchen, and another person.
Adderley said that he did get the key and proceeded to room #217 where he encountered a kitchen employee who identified herself, and then Lanette Allen, who said that she was also a person whom Lloyd told him to meet in order that she might get a bed spread from the room.
Adderley went on to state that he told the ladies that they couldn't take anything from the two trollies, and they didn't.
As noted earlier, Adderley's statement is inconsistent with the testimony of both Lloyd and Allen.
The Maid Inspector, Angeline Hanna, testified that sometime after 8 pm. on Saturday, 30th October, 1993, she saw Lanette Allen standing outside room #217, and she asked her if someone was in there. She said that just as she asked her that, a new “fair skinned” security officer emerged from the room.
She said that she then proceeded down the corridor to examine the vacant rooms, and noted that at the time, there were guests milling about the corridor, and entering and leaving the various rooms.
She said that on her way back, she saw Samuel Saunders, Bessie Mae Lloyd and Judy Cartwright {Room Service Cashier} outside of room #217.
She said that when she passed the room and got to the fire hydrant, she heard a door shut, and when she turned around she did not see anyone and so she assumed that the trio went inside the room.
She said that it was no way that the trio could have gone past the corridor and escape her notice by the time that she had reached the fire hydrant.
The Tribunal took the trouble to visit the location of room #217 on Sunday 30th November, 1997, and opines that indeed it was quite possible for the trio either to have gone into the elevator, or down the stairs. Room #217 is indeed virtually proximate to the elevator, and only about three or four strides from the staircase.
It is therefore quite possible that none of the trio entered the room, and what Hanna in fact may have heard was another quest room door slam, given her earlier observation that there were people milling about the corridor.
Mrs. Mae Symonnette, the Executive Housekeeper, testified that she recalled giving instructions to her Executive Assistant Housekeeper {Ms. Eloise Albury} sometime in November [sic], 1993, that the bedspreads in room #217 were to be distributed to the staff, and the remainder was to be locked up in that room until further instructions on the following day or the following week. {It is noted from the statement of the Security Investigator, that Ms. Symonnette stated that she issued these...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations