Kranston Roger Key v Global Custom Brokerage Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Bahamas
• Court: Industrial Court (Bahamas)
• Judgment Date: 08 June 2005
• Docket Number: No.835 of 2005

In the matter of the Industrial Relations Act

and

In the matter of the Employment Act, 2001

Kranston Roger Key

Applicant

and

Global Custom Brokerage Limited

Respondent

No.835 of 2005

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

NASSAU

Representative for the Applicant — Mr. Kendal Mills (under guidance of Arthur D. Hanna Jr. Esq.).

No Appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent.

DECISION AND REASONS

1 WHEREAS:

• A. By Notice of Hearing dated March 30, 2005, pursuant to Rule 8(1) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunal Procedure) Rules, 1997, the parties were duly notified that the subject trade dispute was scheduled to be heard at the Industrial Tribunal commencing on Monday, May 30, 2005, and continuing through May 31, 2005.

• B. By letter dated May 19, 2005, counsel for the Respondent advised the Tribunal as follows:

  “The Secretary

  Industrial Tribunal

  Monument Building

  Thompson Boulevard

  Nassau Bahamas

  Your ref: IT/NES/835of 2005

  Dear Sirs:

  We acknowledge receipt of Notice of Hearing in the above matter regarding hearings set for 30th and 31st May, 2005 respectively.

  Unfortunately, I will be away on those dates and would request that a new date be scheduled. I will also be traveling during June but am available during the entire month of July.

  I look forward to hearing from you.

  Yours truly,

  J. KENNEDY FITZGERALD & CO.

  Jerome K. Fitzgerald.”

• C. By letter dated May 26, 2005, as an accommodation to counsel for the Respondent, the Tribunal re-scheduled the matter to commence at 10:00 a.m. in Court No.l on Wednesday June 8th and to continue through June 9th, 2005.

• D. By letter dated May 30, 2005, counsel for the Respondent replied to the Industrial Tribunal as follows:

  “The Secretary

  Industrial Tribunal

  Monument Building

  Thompson Boulevard

  Nassau Bahamas

  Your Ref: IT/NES/835 of 2005

  Dear Sirs:

  We acknowledge receipt of your letter of May 26, 2005 faxed to us today.

  With regard to the rescheduled date noted therein, please refer to our letter of May 19, 2005, copy attached, in which it was indicated that the month of July would be preferable as I will be traveling extensively during the month of June.

  We would be grateful if the hearing could be rescheduled for a date in July.

  Yours truly,

  J. KENNEDY FITZGERALD & CO.

  Jerome K. Fitzgerald”

• E. By letter dated June 2, 2005, the Industrial Tribunal advised that while it reschedules fixtures exceptionally as an accommodation to parties, the re-scheduled dates, viz., 8th and 9th June 2005, remained fixed.

• F. By letter dated June. 7, 2005, counsel for the Respondent replied to the Tribunal as follows:

  “The Secretary,

  Industrial Tribunal

  Monument Building

  Thompson Boulevard

  Nassau Bahamas

  Your ref: IT/NES/835 of 2001

  Dear Sirs:

  I acknowledge receipt of your letter of June 2, 2005, and am pleased that you refer to the letters I have previously sent in this matter. I am very surprised if you have set this date bearing in mind the professional courtesy I have showed from the beginning to notify you of the dates that were convenient for me.

  You will note I was very clear that the month of June would not work for me as I intended to be off the island. In fact, I will be away for two weeks' vacation beginning on Friday, June 10, 2005. I have a number of pressing matters which pre-date this matter and, quite frankly, take precedent (sic) over it.

  On the other hand, I also made it very clear from the beginning that any time in the month of July would be convenient for me and, while I appreciate your efforts to expedite this matter as quickly as possible, I am unavailable to deal with it before July 2005.

  Under the circumstances, I am unavailable to appear on 8th and 9th June 2005 and look forward to your reply with a date that is convenient for me to attend.

  Yours truly,

  J. KENNEDY FITZGERALD & CO.

  Jerome K. Fitzgerald”

• G. Neither did the Respondent nor a representative on its behalf appear at the Hearing of this matter on June 8, 2005.

• H. In the circumstances, and by virtue of its authority under section 59(1) (a) of the Industrial Relations Act, Chapter 321, the Tribunal proceeded to hear and determine this matter on June 8, 2005, in the absence of the Respondent.

The Facts:

2 By Originating Application dated February 8, 2005, the Applicant alleged that he was wrongfully and/or unfairly dismissed from his employment by the Respondent on September 16, 2002, and further, that he suffered injury on the job due to the Respondent's negligence.

3 In the circumstances the Applicant claimed compensation from the Respondent with respect to the said wrongful and/or unfair dismissal, and injury occasioned by the Respondent's negligence.

4 By an undated Defence received by the Tribunal on March 16, 2005, the Respondent averred that the Applicant was not wrongfully and/or unfairly dismissed from his employment or dismissed at all, and further, that the Respondent while admitting that the Applicant was injured on the job, denies that the Applicant's injuries were occasioned by the Respondent's negligence.

5 The Applicant testified that he commenced employment with the Respondent as a truck driver in 1988.

6 He said that after working for about 10 years with the Respondent he was promoted to the position of Supervisor with specific responsibility for trucking services to be provided to Burns House Limited under its contract with the Respondent.

7 For the most part he was stationed at the trucking area at the Burns House Warehouse on Bethel Avenue.

8 The Applicant testified that his duties included overseeing the dispatch of all trucks under the Burns House contract with the Respondent, and he was the supervisor of all of the truck drivers and helpers who manned the trucks. Altogether he had...