Charmaine Melbourne v Heritage Christian Academy

• Jurisdiction: Bahamas
• Court: Industrial Court (Bahamas)
• Judge: Harrison L. Lockhart
• Judgment Date: 11 September 2013
• Docket Number: No.1440 of 2010

In the matter of the Industrial Relations Act

And

In the matter of the Employment Act, 2001

Charmaine Melbourne

Applicant

and

Heritage Christian Academy

First Respondent

and

H. Oral Brown

Second Respondent

Before:

His Honour Harrison L. Lockhart, President.

No.1440 of 2010

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

NASSAU

Appearances:

The Applicant pro se. (counsel of record Milton Cox Esq.)

Representative for the First Respondent — Mr. H. Oral Brown.

The Second Respondent pro se.

DECISION AND REASONS

The Facts and Evidence:

1 The Applicant commenced employment on or about August 2004, with the First Respondent as a teacher.

2 The First Respondent was at all material times a pre-school incorporated under the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, Chapter 308.

3 The Second Respondent was at all material times the Principal and “State Overseer” of the First Respondent and conducted the business of the First Respondent.

4 On or about August 1, 2009, the Applicant was dismissed by the Respondents.

5 The Applicant claims redundancy pay pursuant to section 26(2)(a)(ii) of the Employment Act, 2001 (“the Act”), because she said that prior to her dismissal she was notified by the Second Respondent that the First Respondent was closing imminently.

6 In their Defence dated June 21, 2010, the Respondents essentially admitted that the First Respondent was closing and that the Applicant was dismissed because “school not having students for her to be employed, thus no funds.”

7 The Respondents further averred in their Defence that the Applicant was employed at a net salary of $966.00 per month with the First Respondent and they stated “she is claiming 10 weeks at $241.50 (per week) = $2,415.00. At this time it is difficult for the school to pay that amount. It was also expected that since she has been sick for more than seven weeks (in) any given year, the outstanding amount would be greatly affected.”

8 At the Hearing of this matter on September 11, 2013, the Applicant admitted that she was paid a net salary of $966.00 per month by the First Respondent.

9 The Second Respondent maintained however that the school was closed and could not afford to pay redundancy pay to the Applicant. He further informed the Tribunal that the school was owned by Heritage Full Gospel Baptist Church and that the church also could not afford to pay her that amount.

10 The Tribunal informed the Second Respondent that all employers are subject to the provisions of the Employment Act, 2001, and that it was clear that the Respondents owe redundancy pay to the Applicant.

11 The Tribunal indicated that it would make a ruling accordingly and order the Respondents to pay the Applicant redundancy payments in installments over a period of six (6) months in view of the Respondents' cash flow difficulties.

12 As the Second Respondent began to leave the court he adamantly indicated that he did not want the Applicant to contact him at all whether at home or anywhere else.

13 In the circumstances, the Tribunal indicated that it would order that the Respondents deliver the payments in installments to the Industrial Tribunal on behalf of the Applicant.

Relevant Law:

14 Section 26 of the Act provides:

• “26. (1) Where an employee who has been continuously employed for one year or more is dismissed by his employer because of redundancy, his employer is, subject to the provisions of this Part, liable to pay to him a sum (in this Act referred to as a “redundancy payment” or “redundancy pay”) calculated in accordance with subsection (2).

• (2) Subject to...