David Ramsey v M & T Construction Company

• Jurisdiction: Bahamas
• Judgment Date: 30 May 2002
• Docket Number: No.601 of 2002
• Court: Industrial Court (Bahamas)

In the matter of the Industrial Relations Act

David Ramsey

Applicant

and

M & T Construction Company

Respondent

No.601 of 2002

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

NASSAU

Counsel for the Applicant — Edward B. Turner Esq.

Counsel for the Respondent — W. Warren Watson Esq.

DECISION AND REASONS

The Facts and Evidence:

1 The Applicant, a labourer, was employed by the Respondent during the month of September 2001 as a part of the Respondent's demolition team with respect to a demolition project for which the Respondent was engaged by Sun International {Bahamas} Ltd., viz., the demolition of Ocean Towers.

2 The Respondent paid wages to the Applicant by cheque dated September 13, 2001, with respect to the work week ending on Friday, September 14, 2001.

3 The Applicant alleges that he misplaced the said cheque and requested Mr. Maxwell Hamilton, the beneficial owner of the Respondent to write a replacement cheque in lieu thereof.

4 Mr. Hamilton testified that he put a stop order on the alleged misplaced cheque and informed the Applicant that he would write a replacement cheque as soon as he heard from the bank.

5 During the following week, the Applicant produced the alleged misplaced cheque, and Mr. Hamilton thereupon tore it up and replaced it with cheque # 1308 dated September 18, 2001 in the amount of $420.00.

6 Less than two weeks later the Respondent purported to pay to the Applicant his wages with respect to the week ending on Friday, September 27, 2001, by cheque of even date.

7 The Applicant alleged that he mistakenly only collected the counterfoil of his pay cheque from his supervisor, Cornelius. He said that he only realized that he did not collect his cheque when he reached the security checkpoint.

8 He returned to Cornelius who told him that he did not have the cheque.

9 He said that he requested Mr. Hamilton's secretary to cancel the said cheque, and she said that she would take care of it, but in the meantime he should make a notation on the counterfoil to the effect that the cheque was stolen.

10 Mr. Hamilton testified however that his secretary called the bank in the interim and a teller confirmed that the cheque was in fact cashed, and also further indicated that the person cashing the cheque fitted the description of the Applicant.

11 The Tribunal noted that the endorsement on the back of the cheque appeared to be the signature of the Applicant but for the letter “s” in his name.

12 Furthermore the...