Yvette Ferguson v B.M.P. Three Ltd D.B.A. Crystal Palace Casino

• Jurisdiction: Bahamas
• Court: Industrial Court (Bahamas)
• Judge: Keith H. Thompson
• Judgment Date: 04 May 2012
• Docket Number: IT/NES/1504/10

Between:

Yvette Ferguson

Applicant

and

B.M.P. Three Limited D.B.A. Crystal Palace Casino

Respondent

Before:

His Honour Keith H. Thompson

IT/NES/1504/10

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

New Providence

Appearances:

Mrs. Terrel Butler, Counsel for the Applicant

Mr. Kenneth Light bourne, Counsel for the Respondent

DECISION

1 This matter was set down for hearing on June 15 ^th and 16 ^th, 2011. However, the Applicant's attorney did not appear on the 15 ^th June, 2011 due to a mix up in her schedule. In any event, the Applicant's claim is for Wrongful Dismissal and in the alternative Unfair Dismissal. There is also a claim for a reference letter. There was one witness for the Applicant, that being the Applicant herself.

EVIDENCE OF YVETTE FERGUSON:

2 The Applicant's employment commenced in or about October, 1988. She was terminated in or about May, 2010. The Applicant's evidence is that she was told that she was terminated for being dishonest. However, she denies ever being dishonest with the Respondent. At the time of her termination, she held the position of Shift Manager, a position she held for some three (3) years. — The Applicant listed her main responsibilities as being responsible basically for the whole property. If the Casino Manager was absent the Applicant was responsible for the cage, surveillance, hotel complaints, casino staff, security staff etc. Her responsibilities also included whatever happened on the shift e.g. on the casino floor, adherence to all the policies etc. The Applicant says that she had the discretion to overrule what the outcome of any situation was. She was able to make final decisions.

3 The Applicant, at the time of giving evidence did not have a copy of her contract of employment.

4 Upon termination, the Applicant was presented with a document to sign which she refused to sign and a copy of which she did not receive. The Applicant received unemployment benefits from the National Insurance Board based on the execution of a “TERMINATION OF SERVICE/LAY OFF CERTIFICATE” by Ms. Pamela Rahming the Human Resource Manager of the Respondent. When asked if she recalled what information the form contained, the Applicant said that she thought the document stated when she started working and when she was terminated. The Applicant also identified Pamela Rahming's signature affixed to the document. The Applicant pointed out that the reason given on the form was summary dismissal and dishonesty. This document was entered into evidence as Exhibit “Y.F. 1”.

5 The Applicant then went on to explain that on the 04 ^th May, 2010 she was requested to attend a meeting at Crystal Palace to discuss a new table which was being implemented. The Applicant entered through the front door of the casino. It is the Applicant's evidence that the reason why she entered through the front door was because she was off duty and she was given permission by the Casino Manager Ms. Denise Rahming to enter and exit the front door as she was off duty. The Applicant also exited through the front door.

7 The Applicant returned to work after the meeting. She began her usual routine. She spoke with Michelle Turnquest later on during the day which was the day after the meeting. The Applicant's further evidence is that she had asked Michelle Turnquest to conduct a review for her regarding a guest complaint about the time they played on the casino floor. It was after that that the Applicant saw Michelle exiting through the side door. The following day the Applicant says she jokingly said to Michelle; “I saw you leaving through the side door and you didn't bother completing the information I asked you for but that's ok.” The Applicant says that that was the extent of their conversation.

8 Shortly after this, the Applicant took some days off to go and visit her son in Florida. She returned to work on May 12 ^th, 2010. The Applicant went in to work at about 2:00 p.m. She had to go into the card and dice room to bring out the supplies for the day. An operator named Vanessa McDonald called the security asking if the Applicant left her phone in the room. The Applicant responded by saying no, she doesn't carry a cell phone. As the Applicant was about to mark the dice, she had to notify surveillance about the numbers on the dice. Vanessa, who works in surveillance, told the Applicant that she liked the dress that the Applicant had on the day before at the meeting. That was, she said the extent of their conversation. The Applicant confirmed that she had prepared written statements for the Respondent and the first and second statements are set out in full below:

“May 12, 2010

INCIDENT REPORT:

On Tuesday May 4, 2010 I came in at 2:00 pm to discuss procedures regarding the new Mini Crap game. I entered and exited the Casino front door which was authorized by Ms. Denise Rahming (if we-shift mangers are off duty we are allowed to utilize that entrance).

The following day I went into the card & dice room, as I returned I called the surveillance room to notify them of the dice I was about to mike. Vanessa asked me if I left a phone in the room. I told her I didn't have a phone she must be talking about the remote for the air condition that was on the shelf. Ms. King the security officer that assisted me can confirm this conversation in its entirety. That was the extent of our conversation. I was informed today in a meeting with Mr. Kevin McGowen, Ms. Denise Rahming, Ms. Pam Rahming, Mr. Yule Hoyt and myself of another conversation which supposedly took place.. I deny these allegations of ever having any such conversation because I am well aware of where to draw the line as we have received emails regarding professionalism with the surveillance team. Again I ask why would I be concerned about walking through the front door if I was granted permission. I am quite aware of the rules and regulations that we are governed by here at Crystal Palace Casino so therefore, I will not tarnish my reputation or another's by not following the proper protocol which I am very knowledgeable and aware of.

Regards,

Yvette D. Ferguson”

“May 12, 2010

INCIDENT REPORT

On Wednesday May 5, 2010 again I called the surveillance room I spoke with Michelle Tumquest regarding the amount of cards' I was taking out. My exact words to her were I asked you about an incident but you never called back I saw you walking out the door. This conversation never pertained me anyway and the Front door of the Casino. Michelle must have misunderstood but again I know my limits and boundaries which I do not cross.

I deny the allegation regarding our conversation with a list of which again I have no knowledge of.

We the Shift Manager were told via email about professional conversations with the Surveillance team. I am quite aware of the rules and procedures that govern the Crystal Palace Casino so therefore I do my endeavor to follow all rules to the best of my ability.

Regards

Yvette Ferguson”

9 After the last conversation, the Applicant says that she was called into a meeting. She could not recall whether it was the same day but the casino manager said to her that they needed to go up and see the Vice President of Operations. The Casino Manager's name was Denise Rahming. When the meeting convened, the Applicant was told about her attire. She was told that she was not allowed to wear Be Be shirts as she might offend customers. However, the Applicant told the Vice President of Operations and the casino manager that she had been wearing them for about ten (10) years but was willing to cease wearing them. The Applicant was then told that her pants were too tight and the Applicant again told her supervisors that she was wearing them for about ten (10) years but was willing to cease wearing them also.

10 It is the Applicant's further evidence that she was promoted during the ten year period of which she spoke. The other issue which was raised was that Mr. McGowen told the Applicant that they also had a claim that a surveillance operator said that she had told the Applicant something however, he didn't say what it was that the Applicant was told. Mr. McGowen then asked the Applicant if she recalled what it was and she said “no” but asked Mr. McGowen what it was that she was supposed to have been told. Mr. McGowen explained that the surveillance operator had told the Applicant that she was going to get written up for walking through the front door but the Applicant respondent by telling Mr. McGowen that she never had that conversation with the surveillance operator and as far as she was concerned and aware, she was authorized to walk through the front door.

11 Mr. Yuel Hoyte was then called into the meeting, he was the Surveillance Director. Mr. Hoyte then explained the stories of the young ladies but the young ladies never came to the meeting. The names of the young ladies were Venessa McDonald and Michelle Turnquest.

12 According to the Applicant, Mr. Hoyte was called into the meeting because Mr. McGowan said there was something he was not clear on. However, when Mr. Hoyte came in he had a different story. The Applicant says that she said to Mr. McGowen; “you are not sure that you have misinterpreted what Mr. Hoyte said, so why wasn't it possible that the conversation between me and Michelle may have been misinterpreted.” The Applicant says that she never spoke with the ladies face to face. They never attended any meetings in which the Applicant was present.

13 The Applicant could not recall what it was Mr. Hoyte said that Vanessa said. However, she recalled that Mr. Gowen said that Vanessa told the Applicant that she was going to be written up for walking through the front door. The Applicant however says that she never had that conversation with Vanessa. What the Applicant does say is that Ms. Denise Rahming authorized all shift managers to walk through the front door whenever they had to attend a meeting.

14 According to the...