Godfrey Bowe v I.C.S of the Bahamas Company Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Bahamas |
| Judge | Madam Justice G. Diane Stewart |
| Judgment Date | 12 November 2021 |
| Court | Supreme Court (Bahamas) |
| Docket Number | 2018/COM/LAB/00010 |
IN THE SUPREME COURT
COMMERCIAL LAW DIVISION
The Hon. Madam Justice G. Diane Stewart
2018/COM/LAB/00010
Mr. Obie Ferguson for the Plaintiff
Mr. Darren O. Bain for the Defendant
This action is a wrongful and unfair dismissal claim by the Plaintiff, Mr. Godfrey Bowe (the “Plaintiff”) arising out of his employment and subsequent dismissal by the Defendant, I.C.S. of The Bahamas Company Limited (the “Defendant/Company”).
The Plaintiff commenced his employment with the Defendant on 30 th July 2012 and was terminated on the 6 th October 2017, having been employed some five years and two months.
The Defendant terminated the Plaintiff summarily and without payment in lieu of notice.
At the time of termination the Plaintiff was employed as Chief Supervisor earning an annual salary of $29,380.00. He was initially employed as a shift leader but was promoted to the position of Supervisor, then to Assistant Chief Supervisor and finally to Chief Supervisor within a five year period.
The Plaintiff alleged that he was never given any warning that his employment was in jeopardy, nor provided with any of the documents evidencing the complaints made against him and which were relied on by the Defendant. He alleged that the Defendant, in breach of Section 34 of the Employment Act failed to act fairly and that he was entitled to notice, termination pay and other funds owed in the amount of $15,641.91.
The Defendant denied that the Plaintiff was unfairly dismissed and maintained that as the Plaintiff failed to plead wrongful dismissal he could not claim it now.
The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff was terminated summarily for abuse of authority, mistreatment of the Defendant's employees, abuse of the Defendant's assets/vehicles and abuse of company time.
Whether the Plaintiff was unfairly terminated and if so what compensation would he be entitled to or whether the Defendant had cause to summarily dismiss the Plaintiff?
The Plaintiff did not call on any other witnesses to give evidence on his behalf and relied solely on his evidence. The Defendant on the other hand relied on several witnesses in support of its position.
The Plaintiff testified that he supervised the security staff assigned to the Bahamas Telecommunications Company, JFK location (“BTC JFK”) and Sandals Royal Bahamian hotel. On the 4 th October 2017, the Defendant's Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Stephen Greenslade (“Mr. Greenslade”), informed him and another employee, Mr. Troy Lewis (“ Mr. Lewis”) that he had received written complaints about them (the “4 th October Meeting”).
Based on those complaints, Mr. Greenslade suspended him until Friday, 6 th October 2017 however, he never saw the complaints made against him and was asked to hand over his duties to another of the Defendant's employees. Thereafter, he left the Company's premises and, went home. He was called back to work and was told to speak with Mr. Greenslade.
Upon his return, he met with Mr. Greenslade, Mr. Chance Farrington (“Mr. Farrington”) and Mr. Lewis. He was informed that the decision to suspend him had been reversed to avoid embarrassment and that he would instead be demoted with no loss of pay and reassigned to the Investigation and Internal Audit department which dealt with debt collection to generate revenue for the company. The Plaintiff was also told that he would have the opportunity to regain his previous position.
After Mr. Greenslade had informed him that they would not be dealing with any line staff due to the number of security officers who had resigned, the Plaintiff told him that he had no control over the number of officers who had resigned from the security complement stationed at BTC JFK as he could only save some but not all. In turn, Mr. Greenslade responded with profanities and told him that he wanted him to save all and that he had many meetings with Human Resources regarding the complaints lobbied against him. The Plaintiff stated that he had no knowledge of the meetings and requested evidence of the meetings.
The Plaintiff further stated that Mr. Greenslade perused his file and acknowledged that there was nothing documented on his file but insisted that he had heard things about him. Mr. Greenslade then told him to go home and sleep on the offer to be transferred and if he agreed to return the following day. The following day he returned and was given a brief detail of his duties and responsibilities.
On 6 th October 2017, he reported for work and was called into a meeting with Mr. Greenslade who asked him if he was comfortable and at ease as he was considered valuable to the company and wanted him to do his best in the new area. Further, Mr. Greenslade told him that he would think about returning him to his former position nd giving him his title back but would hold off for a while.
After working a full day, he received a telephone call around 5:55 p.m., telling him that Mr. Greenslade had made the decision to terminate him effective immediately and without any formal notice being given to him. On 11 th October 2017, he was asked to and return his uniforms and keys to the Defendant. On 11 th October 2017, he received a call from the Defendant to collect a cheque. Upon his arrival, he was given a termination letter which he signed to acknowledge receipt of the cheque and he wrote on it without prejudice.
The termination letter stated that he was summarily terminated because his behavior was repugnant to the fundamental interest of the Defendant and included abuse of authority, mistreatment of employees, abuse of assets and vehicles and abuse of company time. During his tenure with the Defendant, he maintained that he was never reprimanded or warned about his job performance.
The Plaintiff averred that he was never given an opportunity to be heard on any of the allegations stated in the termination letter and that he learned of many of the documents used against him when they were forwarded to his attorney.
During cross-examination, the Plaintiff confirmed that he was given an employment handbook when he commenced his employment with the Defendant and that he understood the policies contained therein. As a Chief Supervisor he was second in command at the BTC JFK location to Mr. Lewis, who was the Executive Director. They were both responsible for the day-to-day security operations, with a staff complement of approximately ninety-nine individuals.
He was also responsible for the staff at Sandals which had a staff complement of approximately forty individuals. Whenever there was a complaint, he would direct that complaint to Mr. Lewis. A part of his responsibilities was to meet with his line staff to update them of new developments, training and policies and basically any communication from the Company's head office. He was able to give direct orders to and reprimand line staff.
During the 4 th October Meeting, Mr. Greenslade explained to them the exact reasons for the meeting and that based on the reports received he had made the decision to suspend him. He had queried which reports were being referred to as he had never had a conference with Human Resources.
The Plaintiff averred that when he had to discipline staff, he would meet with the individual, question him about the situation and try to obtain information on the situation before a report was made. He agreed that that is what Mr. Greenslade did during the 4 th October Meeting with the exception of providing him with the reports.
The Plaintiff agreed that he could be dismissed for the conduct set out in the Defendant's employee handbook denied having conferences with the Human Resources Department about allegations made against him by staff members. He also denied directing the Company's patrolmen to use the Company vehicle to take food to his pastor but explained that if he did make a stop he would receive permission from Mr. Lewis to do so as he was not able to make such decisions. If he did, it would be when the vehicle did not have any assignments.
During re-examination, Mr. Bowe stated that he had lunch delivered in the Company's vehicle twice and that he had received permission for Mr. Lewis to deliver the food.
Mr. Greenslade, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company testified that on Tuesday, 4 th October 2017, he met with Mr. Brenden Glinton, an officer of the Company (“Mr. Glinton”) who advised him that he had received complaints against the Plaintiff from staff members. They claimed that they were mistreated and verbally abused by the Plaintiff and another senior officer at the BTC JFK location.
As a result he called both the Plaintiff and Mr. Lewis to his office to have a conversation with them about the complaints made and to request and receive reports from Mr. Gary Greenslade (“Gary”) about the mistreatment and/or verbal abuse by the Plaintiff. However, some staff were reluctant to make a formal statement for fear of being victimized by the Plaintiff.
He instructed Mr. Glinton to compile a full report of all of the claims against the Plaintiff in addition to making a personal inspection and investigation of the day to day operations at BTC JFK. He met with the Plaintiff and Mr. Lewis the same day and outlined the reason for the meeting. Mr. Greenslade stated that he commended the men for having good skills however they did not have people skills to manage staff members at their level. He recalled specifically telling the men that the meeting was about the consistent flow of verbal reports of alleged mistreatment, verbal abuse and undesired management style and to get their views on these reports.
Mr. Greenslade stated that the Plaintiff said that he did nothing...
To continue reading
Request your trial