Edghill Associates Ltd v Thomas

• Jurisdiction: Barbados
• Court: Divisional Court (Barbados)
• Judge: Puisne, J.
• Judgment Date: 25 January 1985
• Docket Number: No. 14 of 1984
• Date: 25 January 1985

Supreme Court — Divisional Court

William. J. Husbands, J.

No. 14 of 1984

Edghill Associates Ltd

and

Thomas

Appearances

Mr. Mark Goodridge of Messrs. Peter Evelyn & Co. for the appellant.

Mr. Alwyn Archer for the respondent

Industrial law - Contract of service — Termination — Wrongful dismissal.

Facts: This was an appeal against decision of magistrate that the appellant company wrongfully dismissed the respondent — The company's reasons as given in the dismissal letter were that the respondent used threatening language on the site from time to time and showed a complete lack of cooperation in being frequently absent from work — One of the company's directors in giving evidence for the company also stated that he was of the opinion that the respondent was also working elsewhere and may have told him so on the day of the dismissal — The respondent stated that he had been absent on account of illness five times between February 1978 and June 1981 and had also been absent on other unspecified days but management had never expressed dissatisfaction with his work or complained about his absence — The company did not dispute this information — No attempt made by the company to support any of the grounds given in the dismissal letter.

Held: From the evidence of the company's director the real reason for the respondent's dismissal was concern that he was working elsewhere when he should have been on the appellant's work site. The magistrate had found the supporting evidence “flimsy, unreliable and unconvincing”. The company director's testimony was that he “felt” the respondent was working elsewhere. In the circumstances the magistrate's decision was upheld. Appeal dismissed.

Puisne, J.

1 This is an appeal by Edghill Associates Limited against a decision of a magistrate who awarded Emile Thomas $2 400 and $250 costs in a case of wrongful dismissal brought by him against the company.

2 The evidence disclosed that the company employed Thomas as a carpenter from the 20th of February, 1978. On the 5th of June, 1981 he turned up for work but Angus Edghill, one of the company's directors, stopped him from working and instructed him to report to the office. There he was given this letter dated the 4th of June, 1981

“Dear Sir,

I regret that we find it necessary to terminate your services with this firm with immediate effect.

You have used threatening language on site from time to time, and now you are showing a complete lack of cooperation in being frequently absent from work. This constitutes a bad example, and makes you unsuitable to work with this firm.”

3 Thomas was also given $117.84 in cash for work ending on the 2nd of June he was absent on the 3rd and 4th; $2.25 for half an hour's work on the 5 ^thand a cheque for $190.94 vacation pay.

4 Thomas's evidence is that he never used threatening language on the site; he never refused to cooperate with management but did as he was told never refused a job given to him; and he had not been absent work frequently though he had been absent due to illness. He testified that he went to Dr. Ramdass on the 3rd of June and was given 2 days' sick leave to resume work on the 5th. He said that his hand had been injured on the site on the 13th of May 1981, that he was given sick leave up to the 15 ^th May but that he returned to work on the 15th of May; the visit to Ramdass on the 3rd of June was in connection with the injured hand. He also testified that during the period between February 1978 and June 1981 he was off sick twice in addition to the periods mentioned. He concluded evidence in chief by saying that management never expressed dissatisfaction with his work performance nor was there any complaint about his absence or his language on site.

5 In cross-examination he admitted that there were days when he to leave the site to do things like paying bills He did so, he said, because Mr. Edghill did not give time off. He also stated that in 1981 he was not ill other than the two occasions he had mentioned but he was absent the on other days.

6 Angus Edghill gave evidence for the company. He testified that if a carpenter did not turn out to work it would affect the progress of the work and cause them to finish late and incur a penalty. Thomas, he said, a good carpenter — there were no major disputes over his work. He admitted that he dismissed him on the 5th of June. In his words “I felt he was working on another job. I saw him working on another job. On Wednesday 3rd June and the following day 4th June… I am sure it is Thomas I saw … they should have been on the Casuarina site then. I did not give them permission to go on to another job”. Edghill said that he did not give instructions as to the contents of the letter, which was given to Thomas at the office. He went on to say that he was Mad that morning because Thomas and others were working somewhere else and turned up on his site expecting him to give them work. He also said that he told Thomas he was being...