Charlton v Home Fabrics Ltd

JudgeLockhart, P.
Judgment Date18 February 2015
Docket Number1508 of 2010
CourtIndustrial Court (Bahamas)
Date18 February 2015

Industrial Tribunal

Lockhart, P.

1508 of 2010

Home Fabrics Limited

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 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).


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


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.


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


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.”


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.


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