Ingraham v Ruffins Crystal Palace Hotel Corporation Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Bahamas
• Court: Supreme Court (Bahamas)
• Judge: Osadebay, Sr. J.
• Judgment Date: 08 June 2000
• Docket Number: 808 of 1997
• Date: 08 June 2000

Ingraham

and

Ruffins Crystal Palace Hotel Corp. Ltd

Osadebay, Sr. J.

808 of 1997

Supreme Court

Employment Law - Dismissal — Whether the plaintiff was wrongfully dismissed having been suspended and later fired for job abandonment — Whether the plaintiff was entitled to the sum due under unexpired portion of the contract.

Appearances:

Mr. Wayne Munroe and Mr. Obi Ferguson for the plaintiff.

Mr. Andrew Forties and Mr. Philip Mckenzie for the defendant.

Osadebay, Sr. J.

1 The plaintiff who was employed by the defendant at its hotel on West Bay Street, Nassau, Bahamas, as the Controller, in this action claims damages for wrongful dismissal.

2 Background Facts and Evidence:

3 The background facts as gathered from the evidence of the parties are as follows: The plaintiff who is a Certified Public Accountant by profession was in 1993 or thereabout employed by an International Accounting, firm known as K.P.M.G. as an Assistant Manager. KPMG had the responsibility, as external auditors, to audit the accounts of the defendant company and the plaintiff was one of the Accountants assigned by K.P.M.G. to audit the defendant's accounts periodically. In the discharge of his duty at the defendant Company's work place, the plaintiff became aware of the fact that the post of Controller and Chief Financial Officer at the defendant's hotel was vacant. The plaintiff approached a Mr. Ruffin, who, it would appear, was the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the defendant company and indicated his interest in the position. The plaintiff and Mr. Ruffin entered into negotiations. They discussed the terms of the employment with an initial contract for two years. It would appear that they reached agreement, for on the 7th. March, 1997, the plaintiff wrote to Mr. Ruffin as follows:

“KINGMAN R. E. INGRAHAM

Certified Public Accountant

P.O. Box N-4485 Tel. (242) 328-5384

Nassau, Bahamas Fax. (242) 328-5384

BY HAND

March 7, 1997

Mr. Phillip Ruffin

Owner & Chairman

Ruffin Group

Cable Beach

Nassau, Bahamas.

Dear Mr. Ruffin,

Re: Chief Financial Officer and Hotel Controller vacancy

With reference to our discussion of today's date regarding the position of hotel controller, I look forward to becoming a member of your team. I would like to give KFMG one month's notice from March 14, 1996. However, before I can do this I need to get something in writing from you.

During our discussion we agreed on a annual salary of $85,000 and inclusion in the bonus pool, however, there is still a need to confirm the two year initial contract and the amount of the initial training budget.

I wish for us to meet again at your earliest convenience.

Very kind regards,

Kingman Ingraham

Kingman R. E. Ingraham

O.K.

Ruffin”

Exhibit P.1.

4 It is noted that, Mr. Ruffin placed his signature at the left bottom of the letter Exhibit P. 1.

5 The plaintiff stated that upon receipt of his letter, Mr. Ruffin agreed to 9, R; his demand for an initial contract of employment for two (2) years certain and put his signature on his letter signifying his consent or agreement. The agreement was therefore concluded. Upon the conclusion of the agreement, the plaintiff then quit his employment with KPMG and commenced employment with the defendant on or about the 20th. March, 1997 upon the terms which he had agreed with Mr. Ruffin who acted for the defendant. plaintiff stated that although he was aware of the existence of an employee handbook through the discharge of his duty as an Auditor previously, he was not told at the time of his employment with the defendant that his employment was subject to the terms and conditions stated in the employee handbook nor was a copy given to him at the time of his employment. plaintiff. stated that for his employment, he had negotiated with Mr. Ruffin only. No other person witnessed the negotiations. It was Mr. Ruffin who employed him. Up till the time that his employment came to an end in June, 1997, he had functioned as the Controller and Chief Financial Officer at the defendant's hotel at Cable Beach. It was his duty to oversee and supervise the overall accounting of the defendant's Group.

6 At about 5:30 p.m. on Thursday the 26th. June, 1997, the plaintiff was summoned to the office of Mr. Scott Cornelius, the General Manager. On his arrival there he met Mr. Cornelius and Mr. Henry Williams, the Director of Security at the hotel. Mr. Cornelius informed the plaintiff that it had been alleged by someone that he was at Raddison Hotel on Paradise Island where he had discussed a contract for air-condition at Crystal Palace with a Contractor and that he had demanded a “kick-back.” The plaintiff told Mr. Cornelius that although he was at Raddison Hotel on Paradise Island where he had discussions with someone, he had not demanded any “kick-back” from anyone. Mr. Cornelius told the plaintiff that the allegation or report would be investigated and that he needed time to investigate the matter. The plaintiff asked if it was alright for him to continue to come to work while the matter was being investigated. Mr. Cornelius told the plaintiff not to come to work and that a meeting would be held the following Tuesday to discuss the outcome of the investigations. He was to hand over “the keys” and leave the premises.

7 At that stage the plaintiff was escorted by the Director of Security, Mr. Williams, to his office where he collected some of his personal effects from his desk and was escorted out of the premises. Before leaving the premises the plaintiff sought to know from Mr. Scott Cornelius what in fact “was going on.” He was told by Mr. Cornelius that “the old man did not like his decision” - the old man being Mr. Ruffin.

8 The plaintiff stated that nothing in writing was given to him stating the allegation made against him nor was he asked to reply or give an answer to any charge in writing against him. He, was never told that he was suspended with pay pending the completion of the expected investigation. Nor was he told to come to collect his wages as usual during the interval. He was simply told that a meeting would be held the following Tuesday (1st. July, 1997) to discuss the outcome of the investigations. He was not asked to return to work on Tuesday following. He was told that he “would get the result of the investigation.” It was a Thursday afternoon. On Friday, the next day, the plaintiff went to consult with his attorney-at-law.

9 By a letter dated the 29th.. Tune, 1997, plaintiff's Attorneys wrote to the defendant as follows:–

“29th June, 1997

Ruffin Hotel Group (Bahamas) Ltd.

dba Marriott Crystal Palace Hotel

Cable Beach

New Providence, Bahamas

Attention: Scott Cornelius

General Manager

Dear Sir;

Re: Our Client: Kinsman R. E. Ingraham

Please be advised that we represent the above captioned client who was the Chief Financial Officer of the property. We are instructed that on the 26th June, in the presence of Henry Williams, you informed our client that he was under investigation for soliciting a kickback. You further advised our client that he was suspended and barred from the property until Tuesday 1st July. We are instructed that our client was then escorted by security officers from your office to his office in full view of the staff then present and the personnel in the surveillance (sic) room.

In the premises we would advise that our client accepts your repudiation of his contract of service. We would therefore advise that on our attending your offices on 1st July we would expect a cheque for the sum of $189,715.00 representing the balance of our client's contractual salary together with benefits together with a cheque in the, sum of $20,000.00 representing legal fees.

We would further advise that our client categorically (sic) denies the criminal imputation made by you in your capacity as general manager. We would therefore demand that you publish a complete apology and retraction to the entire property.

We would further demand the sum of $750,000.00 as compensation for the damage done to our client's reputation in his office as a certified public accountant together with $65,000.00 representing legal fees.

Yours truly,

LOCKHART & MUNROE

Sgd.______________________

Wayne R. Munroe

cc.: Philip Ruffin

Chairman”

10 Exhibit P. 2

11 By a letter dated 30th. June, 1997, the Attorneys for the defendant replied as follows:

“CHRISTIE, DAMS & CO.

(Incorporating the former Partnership of Christie, Ingraham & Co.)

COUNSEL AND ATTORNEY-AT-LAW

NOTARIES PUBLIC

June 30, 1997

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Lockhart & Munroe

Chambers

Elizabeth Avenue

Nassau, Bahamas

Attention: Mr. Wayne Munroe

Dear Sirs:

RE: KINGMAN R. E. INGRAHAM

Your letter of June 29, 1997, addressed to our client has been passed to us for reply.

A meeting was held on June 26, 1997, which was attended by your client, the Director of Security, Mr. Henry Williams and the General Manager, Mr. Scott Cornelius.

During the meeting your client was appraised of complaints made against him by other persons and told to leave the premises until the investigations of the complaints had been concluded.

You would appreciate that due to the nature of the complaints your client could not be allowed to continue to occupy his office whilst the investigations were on going. Your client was escorted by a single security officer to his office and off the property. During this entire episode the security officer walked along side your client and did nothing unusual to cause embarrassment to him. You would appreciate that our client cannot and could not be held responsible for your client's conscience.

Our client will address the other concerns in your referenced letter when the investigations have concluded. Suffice it to say, that at this particular time our client denies any and all claims made by your client.

Yours sincerely,

CHRISTIE, DAMS & CO.

Sgd. ________________________

Philip Mckenzie”

(Exhibit P. 3) (Emphasis - Provided)

...