Clark v Supreme Industries Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Barbados
• Judge: Douglas, J.
• Judgment Date: 11 July 1986
• Neutral Citation: BB 1986 HC 52
• Docket Number: No. 959 of 1985
• Court: High Court (Barbados)
• Date: 11 July 1986

High Court

Douglas, C.J.

No. 959 of 1985

Clarke

and

Supreme Industries Ltd.

Mr. F.G. Smith, Q.C. for the plaintiff

Mr. E.D. Mottley, Q.C. for the defendant

Employment law - Contract of service — Termination — Dismissal — Whether the plaintiff misconducted himself by neglecting his duties and failing to perform them thereby justifying dismissal without notice — Whether the negligence of the plaintiff in leaving a key in his office resulted in pilferage from a container — Plaintiff was a traffic manager at his firm and his duty was to account for all shipments — Finding by court that neither the General Manager nor the plaintiff had any reason to suspect that leaving the key in the plaintiff's office would result in pilferage from the container — Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $30,097.80.

Douglas, J.

1 The plaintiff entered the service of the defendant company on the 8 ^th April 1971 when the company started operations. At first he performed the duties of supervisor, then he worked as a salesman and latterly as traffic manager at a salary according to him of $2,068 a month together with a monthly allowance of $50. As traffic manager his duties were to account for all shipments, to keep inventories, to arrange transportation, and to dispatch shipments inland as well as to the port for shipment overseas.

2 The plaintiff was to go on leave during June 1985. On the 22 ^nd of May, prior to his leave, he received the following letter from Mr. Goodridge, the General Manager:–

“Dear Harry:

This letter will confirm our discussion on May 21, 1985 regarding our 1985–86 Operating Budget and the changes necessary to operate within this Budget.

As discussed with you, in keeping within the guidelines of the budget to reduce overhead cost, it will be necessary to lay you off work, effective July 1, 1985.”

3 On the 20 ^th of June 1985 the plaintiff's services were terminated. In its defense, the employer pleaded that the plaintiff misconducted himself in the service of the defendant by neglecting his duties and failing to perform the same. The particulars pleaded are as follow:–

• i. Not ensuring that container packed on April 16, 1985 containing shipment of goods to Peter De Montbrun of Trinidad was properly packed.

• ii. Permitting the said container to be shipped without the correct consignment.

• iii. Not ensuring that the said container was adequately secured after it had been packed:

• iv. Failing to take any or any adequate precautions to ensure that the container had been properly secured.

4 The procedure on receiving an order for shipment overseas is this: The order goes to the plaintiff who sees to it that the items are put on the packing table and checked. Then cartons are selected and the items are put into the cartons and/ contents of each carton are listed on the outside. The cartons are sealed and sent down the chute to be conveyed to the container for shipment.

5 The plaintiff checked the majority of the cartons but he confirms that 270 cartons were packed into the container. The packing list which is exhibited in the case, was written by Anderson Nicholls and showed 270 cartons with a description of the contents of each. The container was closed and the lock was put on by Anderson Nicholls.

6 The system employed at the defendant's factory is that the key to the lock on the container is kept on a ring hanging in the traffic manager's...