Latoya Poitier v Star Track Meat Ltd and Manassah Smith

• Jurisdiction: Bahamas
• Judge: Keith H. Thompson
• Judgment Date: 27 September 2013
• Docket Number: IT/NES/1351/09
• Court: Industrial Court (Bahamas)

Between:

Latoya Poitier

Applicant

and

Star Track Meat Limited and Manassah Smith

Respondent

Before:

His Honour Keith H. Thompson

IT/NES/1351/09

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

New Providence

APPEARANCES:

The Applicant in Person

No appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent

DECESION

1 The Originating Application at paragraph 11 states the claim as being for Constructive Dismissal. Firstly, we are satisfied that the Respondent was duly served but has willfully decided not to attend. In fact, we have in our possession where documents have been signed for by agents of the Respondent on more than one occasion. In addition to that the process server from the Tribunal found the owner to be a magician in that even though he would be present at his place of business he wasn't. The owner was served by registered post, the receipt for which is set out below:-

2 Because the Respondent chose not to appear, the Tribunal of its own motion joined him in his personal capacity to the action pursuant to firstly Section 65 (2) of the Industrial Relations Act Chapter 321 and also pursuant to Section 16 (1) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunal Procedure) Rules 2010. Both sections are respectively set out below:

S. 65 (2)

“The Tribunal may, during the course of any dispute pending before it direct that any agents of the employer or any successors to or any assignees of, the business of the employer who is a party to the dispute shall be joined or substituted as a party to the dispute, and any order or award of the Tribunal in such dispute (whenever made) shall, save to the extent that it is otherwise expressly provided in such order or award, be binding on the successors or assignees of the employer.”

S. 16(1)

“The Tribunal may at any time on the application of any person made by Notice to the Secretary in Form M in the Schedule, or of its own motion, direct any person against whom any relief is sought to be joined as a party, and give such consequential directions as it considers necessary.”

EVIDENCE OF THE APPLICANT:

3 The Applicant testified that she commenced employment with the Respondent on December 06 ^th, 2003. She started as a cashier. At the time of termination she was earning $270.00 per week. The only other benefit she received was two weeks vacation. According to the Applicant, her schedule was that she would work six (6) days and have one (1) day off. The work days were set on shifts which were either 7:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m. or 3:00 p.m. – 10:00 p.m. Her fixed day off was Wednesday however, sometimes the Applicant would be called in to work on her day off. She however, was paid double time whenever she worked on her day off. The Applicant's employment ended on December 12 ^th, 2008.

4 The Applicant went on to explain the reason she ended up leaving Star Track Meats. She explained that Mr. Manassah Smith the Owner was having a dispute with another cashier who had taken him to court. At the time the Applicant was the Head Cashier. All of the staff would approach the Applicant on all matters or issues they were having in the work place. One Stephanie Cooper had a matter before the court. She developed renal failure and Mr. Smith was putting her on a one day work week with no National Insurance being paid. He was not paying the National Insurance before that. When asked how she knew the National Insurance wasn't being paid she said she went to one Mr. Bachus and she also called Mr. Algernon Cargill and they made sure that Mr. Smith paid it up.

5 As to why she left, she explained that when the court date came up regarding Stephanie, a phone call came in for Mr. Smith and it was the Police. Mr. Smith was right there and she told them that he was because they asked if he was there. She passed him the phone. Mr. Smith spoke with them and when he was finished he told her he was going to deal with me.

6 The following Sunday he made up the schedule which he never used to do. There wasn't a need to make up a schedule because everyone knew their schedule as it was always the same. Upon looking at the schedule, the Applicant noticed that she was only scheduled for two days. The reduction of the Applicant's work week was never discussed with her before it was reduced. When the Applicant presented herself for work on the Monday, she was told by Mr. Smith that he didn't need her to cash anymore and that she would just supervise the shelves. The Applicant says she just sat down for the whole afternoon. The following day was Friday and the Applicant helped the guys with the shelves. At the end of the shift the Applicant noticed that Mr. Smith had another schedule. This new schedule showed the Applicant working one day. Upon seeing this, the Applicant went to the Department of Labour and filed a Trade Dispute.

7 Immediately subsequent to this, the Respondent hired a cashier full time and the Applicant was on a one (1) day week schedule. According to the Applicant, she was the Respondent's longest serving employee at the time. The further testimony of the Applicant is that they were not even allowed...