Tanya Patrice Dames v Sandals Royal Bahamian Resort

• Jurisdiction: Bahamas
• Judgment Date: 21 January 2002
• Docket Number: No.499 of 2000
• Court: Industrial Court (Bahamas)

In the matter of the Industrial Relations Act

Tanya Patrice Dames

Applicant

and

Sandals Royal Bahamian Resort

Respondent

No.499 of 2000

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

NASSAU

Counsel for the Applicant — Rawson McDonald Esq.

Counsel for the Respondent — Edgar Seligman Esq.

DECISION AND REASONS

The Facts:

1 The Applicant commenced employment on June 28, 1996, with the Respondent pursuant to the terms and conditions of a letter of employment of even date. The terms of the letter included inter alia the following:

“…The terms of your employment are set out in this letter and in the Sandals Royal Bahamian Hotel team members handbook and these documents and your Description will together constitute your contract of employment…

Termination After Probation

After the expiration of the probation period, your employment may be terminated by either party by the giving of two weeks notice in writing, or in the case of the Company, by the payment of two weeks pay in lieu of notice…

Your Duties

Sandals Royal Bahamian Hotel reserves the right to require you to work in another location or position to carry out duties in each case different from those assigned or allocated to you at the date hereof or specified in your formal job description.”

2 In the team members handbook under the rubric, PROMOTIONS AND TRANSFERS, it is provided:

“If you are given a new responsibility, whether by transfer or promotion, you will be on trial for a review period of up to 90 days before the promotion or transfer becomes final.”

3 By memorandum dated November 28th, 1999, from Mr. Cedric Brown, the Duty Manager at the Respondent, the Applicant was promoted to the position of Front Desk Supervisor as follows:

“TO: ALL CONCERNED

FROM: Mr. Cedric Brown

SUBJECT: PROMOTION/CHANGES

DATE: November 28, 1999

I am pleased to announce the appointment of Ms. Tanya Dames to FRONT DESK SUPERVISOR. Ms. Dames will assist Ms. Culmer in the day to day operation of the Front Office.

Miss LaToya Darville has been transferred to the position of RESERVATIONIST. In her new role, Ms. Darville will be responsible for the operation of the Reservation Department.

Ms. Markella Stuart, formally of PBX, will be assisting Miss Darville in the Reservation Department, and FRONT DESK.

Please join me in congratulating all of the above in their new and challenging positions.”

4 At the time of her promotion, the Applicant was told by the Respondent that she would receive a promotional increase in salary effective June 1, 2000.

5 The Applicant was not given the said promotional increase by the Respondent on or after June 1, 2000, and in the circumstances ceased her employment with the Respondent effective June 26, 2000.

6 The Applicant alleges that she was wrongfully and constructively dismissed by the Respondent, and claims damages against the Respondent in respect of the said wrongful and constructive dismissal equivalent to the increments in salary due upon her promotion from the time thereof together with due increments upon gratuities consequent upon her promotion.

7 The Respondent denies that it wrongfully and constructively dismissed the Applicant as alleged or at all, and avers that “In or about November, 1999, the Applicant was promoted to the position of Front Desk Supervisor. She was advised that she would receive a salary increase in June 2000, but resigned before the said increase was implemented.”

The Evidence:

8 It is clear from the testimony of the Applicant that at the time of her promotion on November 28, 1999, to the position of Front Desk Supervisor, she was told little else by her immediate supervisor, Duty Manager, Cedric Brown, than she would be assisting a Ms. Culmer, the present Front Desk Supervisor.

9 The Applicant admitted however that she was told that her promotional increase would be effective June 1, 2000, “the beginning of the budget year.”

10 Out of frustration, the Applicant wrote a memorandum to her immediate supervisor dated April 17, 2000, almost five {5} months after her promotion. She complained as to the cavalier fashion in which her promotion was handled, and in particular {inter alia}, that she received no job description with respect to her promotion, neither was she told the amount of the promotional increase and whether the same would be retroactive to the date of her promotion.

11 The Applicant testified that subsequent to her promotion she was given new responsibilities in conjunction with Ms. Culmer. As Front Desk Supervisor she was responsible for the Front Office which included the Bell Desk, PBX {operators} and the Reservation Department. Her former position was Senior Front Desk Agent.

12 She said that her salary at the time that she ceased employment with the Respondent was $375.00 per week plus gratuities. Mrs. Culmer's salary at the time was $550.00. Her position at the time was Front Office Supervisor.

13 The Applicant testified that gratuities were dependent upon hotel occupancy, and were distributed to employees on the basis of a point system. She said that five points were allocated to the Front Office staff and concierge; six points for supervisor, and seven points were allocated to restaurant staff. As Front Desk Supervisor she was entitled to six points. The range in the gratuity to which she was entitled in her new position was $200.00 — $250.00 depending upon hotel occupancy.

14 The Applicant testified that she spoke with her immediate supervisor on the day after she sent the memorandum to him, and he said that he would speak with Mr. Stephen Ziade, the General Manager, about the matter. He said that Mr. Ziade had sanctioned everything and that by June 1, 2000, she would receive the pay increase.

15 She then spoke with Mr. Ali Bain, the Executive Assistant Manager, and he told her not to worry, and that she should expect the same pay that Ms. Culmer was getting, because she was doing the same work. Mr. Bain had also indicated to her that she had won the employee of the month award, but Mr. Ziade said that she was not eligible for it because she was a supervisor.

16 The Applicant testified that the uncertainty concerning the position persisted, because June 1, 2000, came and went without her receiving the promised promotional increase. She was further concerned because Markella Stuart who reported to her and whose promotion was announced...