Stephen Allen v Majestic Tours Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Bahamas
• Judge: Harrison L. Lockhart
• Judgment Date: 15 August 2012
• Docket Number: No.1336 of 2009
• Court: Industrial Court (Bahamas)

In the matter of the Industrial Relations Act

And

In the matter of the Employment Act, 2001

Stephen Allen

Applicant

and

Majestic Tours Limited

Respondent

Before:

His Honour Harrison L. Lockhart, President.

No.1336 of 2009

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

NASSAU

Appearances.:

Counsel for the Applicant — Kahlil D. Parker Esq.

No Appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent.

DECISION AND REASONS

[Whereas Notices Of Hearing pursuant to Rule 8 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunal Procedure) Rules, 2010, were duly served upon the parties hereto on June 29, 2012; and

Whereas neither did the Respondent nor anyone on its behalf appear at the Hearing of this matter; and

Whereas no lawful excuse or excuse whatsoever was tendered to the Tribunal by or on behalf of the Respondent for its failure to appear at the Hearing;

Pursuant to section 59(1) (a) of the Industrial Relations Act, Chapter 321, the Tribunal proceeded to hear this matter in the absence of the Respondent].

The Facts:

1 The Applicant commenced employment with the Respondent in June of 1986 and was summarily dismissed on or about October 17, 2008.

2 At all material times the Applicant was employed in the capacity of Maintenance Manager of the Respondent, and at the time of his dismissal his salary was $350.00 per week.

3 By Originating Application dated August 31, 2009, the Applicant alleges that he was wrongfully dismissed by the Respondent insofar as he was wrongfully held responsible for damage occasioned to one of its buses. He alleged that he was given an ultimatum to either repair the bus or be summarily dismissed. Upon refusing to repair the bus he was summarily dismissed by the Respondent.

4 The Respondent alleges that the Applicant was summarily dismissed for just cause because “he did not pick up the bus as advised by the Respondent's control dispatcher and as a result, the bus was stolen and left in a damaged condition by the person who removed it from Bahamas Mack (Bahamas Mack Truck Sales Ltd.) and the Applicant's refusal to pay for the damage thereto”.

5 In the circumstances, the Respondent alleges that the Applicant is not entitled to damages for wrongful dismissal or any damages at all.

The Evidence:

6 The Hearing of this matter commenced at 10:00am on August 15, 2012, and the Tribunal began by alluding to section 60 of the Industrial Relations Act, Chapter 321, and inquiring as to whether there had been any attempts by the parties subsequent to conciliation at the Department of Labour to resolve the dispute amicably.

7 Counsel for the Applicant indicated that an offer was made to the Applicant by the Respondent (by cheque), but the same was refused insofar as it was below the amount to which he was lawfully entitled.

8 Counsel for the Applicant further indicated that a counter-offer was made to the Respondent on behalf of the Applicant, but the same was rejected by the Respondent.

9 Counsel indicated that the Applicant subsequently reverted to the Respondent's original settlement offer and indicated that he would accept the same; but nothing was paid.

10 Finally, the Applicant testified that he was not paid for the last two (2) weeks which he worked.

11 The Applicant. LesLified that when he was offered the cheque by Mr. William Saunders in the amount of $9,330.00, he did not have his glasses with him and asked Mr. Saunders to tell him the amount of the cheque, which he did.

12 He said that he did not and was not able to read the letter which accompanied the cheque.

13 The Tribunal then read the letter to the Applicant which contained the. breakdown of the cheque which ostensibly included pay in lieu of notice (albeit mis-calculated) pursuant to section 29(1)(b) of the Employment Act, 2001, on the...