Charlton v Home Fabrics Ltd

JurisdictionBahamas
CourtIndustrial Court
JudgeLockhart, P.
Judgment Date18 Feb 2015
Docket Number1508 of 2010

Industrial Tribunal

Lockhart, P.

1508 of 2010

Charlton
and
Home Fabrics Limited
Appearances:

Counsel for the applicant - Serfent E. J. Rolle Esq.

No appearance by or on behalf of the respondent.

Employment Law - Industrial dispute — Termination of employment — Dismissal — Allegations of incompetence/dishonesty — Whether applicant dismissed for just cause — Dismissal found to be wrongful — Damages awarded.

Lockhart, P.

[Whereas Notices Of Hearing pursuant to Rule 8 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunal Procedure) Rules, 2010, were duly served upon the parties hereto; and

Whereas neither did the respondent nor anyone on its behalf appear at the Hearing of this matter; and

Whereas no lawful excuse or excuse whatsoever was tendered to the Tribunal by or on behalf of the respondent for its failure to appear at the Hearing;

Pursuant to section 59(1)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act, Chapter 321, the Tribunal proceeded to hear this matter in the absence of the respondent].

THE FACTS:
1

The applicant was at all material times employed as the respondent's Warehouse Manager at a net salary of $315.00 per week ($1,350.00 per month).

2

The applicant commenced employment on or about October 1, 1998 and was summarily dismissed by the respondent on or about July 1, 2010.

3

By Originating Application dated January 7, 2011, the applicant alleges that he was wrongfully dismissed by the respondent and claims damages for wrongful dismissal and/or reinstatement of his employment.

4

By Defence dated February 11, 2011, the respondent alleges that the applicant was dismissed for just cause viz.., “incompetence/dishonesty”.

5

The respondent further alleges that as Warehouse Manager, the applicant was “responsible for the Company's inventory. Inventory items went missing [and] were being sold by the applicant's brother on the streets of New Providence.”

6

The applicant testified that while employed as the respondent's Warehouse Manager, he was never accused of improper inventory practices or incompetence; and further, at all material times he had an estranged relationship with his brother and was not in any way responsible for dishonestly disposing of the respondent's inventory and/or aiding and abetting his brother in the theft or conversion thereof.

7

The applicant further testified that in his capacity as the respondent's Warehouse Manager, he had supervisory responsibility for 5 - 8 line staff...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT