Fraser v Coconut Creek Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Barbados
• Court: High Court (Barbados)
• Judge: Williams, J.
• Judgment Date: 05 February 1969
• Neutral Citation: BB 1969 HC 1
• Docket Number: No. 242 of 1967
• Date: 05 February 1969

High Court

Williams, J.

No. 242 of 1967

Fraser

and

Coconut Creek Ltd.

Mr. H. deB. Forde for the plaintiff instructed by Messrs. R.S. Nicholls and Co.

Mr. H.B. St. John for the defendant instructed by Messrs. Carrington and Sealy.

Employment law - Termination of employment — Dismissal.

Williams, J.

1 The defendant, a Bahamian company registered in Barbados, is the proprietor of the Coconut Creek Hotel in St. James. In September, 1966, Mr. Thomas Mugleston, its President, made an agreement with the plaintiff whereby the latter would become manager of the hotel. This agreement was confirmed in writing by a letter dated September 21, 1966 from Mugleston to the plaintiff.

2 The plaintiff pursuant to the terms of the agreement took up his duties as manager on October 1, 1966. However, the relationship between him and his seniors in the company did not prove to be as pleasant as may have been expected. There was the incident over the purchase of supplies for the hotel. According to Mugleston, the plaintiff, when questioned about the orders he had prepared, became very angry and was rude to him. Mugleston went on to say that on that occasion he dismissed the plaintiff though he reinstated him after an apology. The plaintiff's version of this incident was very different. He denied that he was rude to Mugleston or that Mugleston dismissed him. I refer to this incident, however, merely to indicate the general picture. The relationship between the plaintiff and Mr. Duchak, the general manager of the defendant's hotels in Barbados and the plaintiff's immediate superior, was no better. This to my mind is illustrated by all the wrangling engendered over a simple matter—Duchak's copy of the plaintiff's agreement with the defendant had been mislaid and he wanted to look at the plaintiff's copy; this request was refused by the plaintiff.

3 The plaintiff himself said that he was not happy in his job and that he told Mugleston in early January that he would not be staying on after the end of April. On January 10, 1967, he was given by letter three months' notice of termination of his contract on April 15, 1967. In late February there was an incident involving the plaintiff and Duchak and the plaintiff was suspended from his duties by Duchak. He received a letter on March 15, 1967 terminating his appointment as of that date. He is claiming in this suit –

• (a) that he was wrongfully dismissed by the defendant and is therefore entitled to salary for the months of March and April; he had been paid to the end of February and has no basis for a claim in respect of any period after the end of April since he had given notice that he would not be continuing in the service of the defendant after that date;

• (b) rental of accommodation and cost of utilities;

• (c) 89 days meal allowance for himself, his wife and his child at $11.25 per day; and

• (d) holidays' pay.

4 I will consider first the matter of the dismissal. The defendant seeks to justify it on the ground of misconduct by the plaintiff in refusing to obey the lawful instructions of the managing director, Duchak, and in neglecting his duties. The particulars of misconduct as pleaded are:

• “(a) by wilfully disobeying the lawful and reasonable orders of the defendant company in the course of his employment;

• (b) by being insolent to the defendant company's managing director and the governing director in the course of the said employment.”

5 Further and better particulars of these matters were requested and given and the gist of the misconduct which was being relied upon by the defendant was–

• (i) that instructions had been given to the plaintiff by Duchak as to the system to be used for keeping the accounts of the hotel; that these accounts included the daily journal records — called the Analysis of Sales and Cash Receipts—; that he made mistakes in keeping these accounts; that the plaintiff was also responsible for the making out of bills for guests and that on one occasion he had made out one such bill wrongly and caused a loss to the defendant;

• (ii) that on January 10, 1967, the plaintiff was insolent to Mugleston, telling him “if you did not have the money you should never have started the hotel”;

• (iii) that around February 27, 1967 the plaintiff was insolent to Duchak when the latter requested to see a copy of his contract of employment. The allegation is that the plaintiff said “it was his own contract and to get the defendant's own copy of the contract” and that on the same day the plaintiff also asked Duchak “How come you got a job like this and you not knowing anything about the hotel business?”

6 With respect to the accounts, the plaintiff admitted in his evidence that he was expected to keep the Analysis of Sales and Cash receipts which was made up daily and stated that he did keep these accounts. He also admitted that he was expected to keep guests' accounts as well and said that he did keep them. He further admitted that he made errors at the hotel. He admitted this specifically in relation to guests' accounts. And in relation to errors in the daily analysis sheet, I accept the evidence of Duchak that the plaintiff made errors in respect of February 10, 15, 17, which had to be corrected by him. I also found as a fact that the plaintiff charged one guest at a lower rate than that which ought to have been charged.

7 The question which I now have to determine is whether these mistakes proved provided sufficient justification, either by themselves or in conjunction with other circumstances, for his dismissal.

8 There is a matter here which I consider of importance. Duchak stated that his corrections would have been made not later than February 18. Though Duchak was having to do extra work in checking the plaintiff's figures, there was never even a reprimand for this. There was clearly much talk between the plaintiff and Duchak about the contract, meal allowances and accommodation, but Duchak never apparently took the plaintiff to task over the mistakes he was making in the accounts. The reason for this can only be conjectured. It could have been that the plaintiff was still relatively new in his job and was being given a chance to improve. It could have been that relations between the two were...