Sherreck Forbes v Reliable Janitorial Cleaning Company Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Bahamas |
| Judge | Keith H. Thompson |
| Judgment Date | 18 June 2012 |
| Docket Number | IT/NES/1324/09 |
| Court | Industrial Court (Bahamas) |
HIS HONOUR Keith H. Thompson, VICE PRESIDENT
IT/NES/1324/09
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
NEW PROVIDENCE
APPLICANT IN PERSON
Merdina Atherley and Dwight Atherley—RESPONDENTS
This matter came on for hearing on the 7 th day of March, 2012. The Applicant's claim is for Wrongful Dismissal. Included in the claim is a claim for Notice Pay, Vacation and Holiday Pay.
Ms. Forbes, the Applicant, began employment with the Respondent in or about December, 2005 and she was terminated April, 2009. The Applicant was employed some three and a half (3 1/2) years. Her salary at the time of termination was $250.00 per week. There were no other benefits. However, national insurance contributions were deducted from her salary and at the time of her termination it was paid up to date. After termination, the Applicant did receive unemployment assistance.
According to the Applicant, she was due two (2) weeks vacation but she wasn't paid. She says she only received a cheque for $246.00 but she didn't know what it was for. The Applicant went on to explain what transpired on the day she was terminated.
Her evidence is that in April, 2009 there was a conflict between her and a co-worker. According to her, her co-worker told her husband that she was having an affair with an immigration officer. She brought this to the attention of Ms. Atherley and Ms. Davis the sister-in-law of Ms. Atherley but they didn't take it seriously. It is her further evidence that she told them that her husband was abusing her at home because of the situation.
It is her further evidence that when her co-worker came to work after she had informed her supervisors, she pulled her co-worker on the side and asked her why she told her husband that because he was abusing her at home as a result of it and she was being scandalized at work. After this, she says her co-worker went outside and told Ms. Atherley that she was trying to fight her. Ms. Atherley then called both of them outside.
The Applicant started to talk and told Ms. Atherley that they were taking this lightly because they didn't know what she was going through at home. After that Ms. Atherley said since the Applicant had the most say, she could go home. The Applicant says she then threw her jacket over her shoulder and caught a taxi home. At the time of this incident, the Applicant was stationed at the airport in the domestic departure section. The Applicant was working as a cleaner.
According to the Applicant, they didn't tell her not to come back, she didn't hear from them so she returned to work. She says she went back to work the next day. When she went back she says she heard that she wasn't supposed to be there so she went to Ms. Davis and asked her because if she wasn't supposed to be there she would have gone back home. The Applicant was asked by the court if she needed an I.D. for her job and she said yes and that Ms. Atherley didn't take it from her.
Her further evidence is that Ms. Davis told her that she was supposed to be at work. After about two days she says she received a phone call from Ms. Atherley telling her to meet her by the office along with her colleague with whom she had the conflict. The office is located on Meeting Street. When the Applicant went there she says she tried to explain to one Ms. Brown what had happened but someone had already filled her head with lies.
The Applicant's further evidence is that, while she was telling Ms. Brown what had happened, Ms. Brown told her if she wasn't carrying on like a slut this would not have happened. After that, she says she was told by Ms. Brown that she was terminated. Upon hearing this, the Applicant says she then asked Ms. Brown for a termination letter but she was never given one. The Applicant says that when she got up to leave, Ms. Brown told her it was no use of her going to the labour board because she wasn't going to get any satisfaction from there. The Applicant then told Ms. Brown; “you meet me and my children eating and you going to leave us eating.” The Applicant then left and went home.
A couple days later the Applicant went to the labour board. She told them the situation and they asked her for a termination letter but she told them that they didn't give her one. They then took information from her and promised to call her back. At the conciliation at the Labour Department, Ms. Sherman told her that they didn't have any money for her.
The court asked the Applicant if she recalled any instances when she was insubordinate and she responded by saying; “no sir not in front of tourists.” The Applicant then went on to explain that she remembers only one time when she asked Ms. Toni to leave early so that she could pick up an affidavit for her daughter. Mr. Toni told her that she was just hot up to go be with man. After that the Applicant says that Ms. Toni approached her and said “give me this I.D.” The Applicant says that she then told Ms. Toni that she didn't pay for the I.D. so she couldn't take it and that she was going to leave without her permission. The Applicant says she had to go to the passport office so she left the job site and went to the office on Meeting Street to explain to Ms. Brown what happened but she still received a warning letter.
The other situation she says she recalled was with her co-worker however, she couldn't remember what it was about because it was quite a long time ago. She did recall however, Ms. Atherley speaking to both of them in the corner and after she had done this they were told to go back inside.
The third incident she recalled was while Mr. Atherley was driving them to work at the airport in his truck, she was having an argument with one of her co-workers Tasha. Tasha turned around and punched her in her mouth so she hit her back and they started fighting. The police were in the back of them and asked Mr. Atherley to pull over. Mr. Atherley took them to the Airport Police station because the police asked him to. The police spoke to them and told them if they fought again they would both be arrested.
It is the further evidence of the Applicant that at the time of giving evidence, she was employed with Frank Hanna and was assigned at the hospital. She commenced employment with Frank Hanna in February 2010. Her salary at the time of giving evidence was $835.00 per month. There was no...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations