Frustrated by what he believed was an error by management in giving him a written warning for a first-time offence, Alfred Branch wrote a letter seeking a meeting with the chairman of Sandy Lane Hotel.
However, some of the language which Branch, a former laundry supervisor at the five-star hotel used, was deemed by his employer to be threatening and he was dismissed with immediate effect.
Those facts were revealed when the matter came before the Employment Rights Tribunal (ERT) this morning in a virtual hearing.
Branch, who worked at the prestigious hotel from 2002 until he was terminated in February 2014, is seeking compensation for wrongful dismissal.
Under examination from his lawyer Rhea Cheltenham, Branch said several meetings with the Chief Labour Officer, the Barbados Workers’ Union (BWU) and Sandy Lane had not resolved the situation.
He said while at one point it was his desire to be reinstated, he no longer felt that way and was only seeking damages.
Branch said while he knew that he could be dismissed with immediate effect under certain conditions, he said there were no provisions in his contract which stated that he could be immediately terminated for penning a letter.
He explained that his problems began in 2010 when he was disciplined for his first infraction. He argued that instead of giving him a verbal warning, management at Sandy Lane gave him a written warning.
Branch said for four years he tried to have the matter resolved because he knew another infraction could result in him losing his job.
Additionally, he said the decision by management to give him a written warning made it difficult for him to join the BWU.
As a result, he wrote a letter to the hotel’s general manager and after receiving no satisfactory response he wrote a letter to the chairman.
In that letter Branch wrote that “he would take the company’s name into disrepute if he was not satisfied” with his discussion with the chairman.
“They viewed it as a threat but I don’t know why,” Branch told the ERT.
He said he had requested a meeting with the general manager and the chairman to “have the matter heard”.
Branch said had either of the two made the time to meet with him he would have taken no further action.
Attorney-at-law for Sandy Lane Hotel Michael Koeiman, is contending that Branch was terminated because Sandy Lane interpreted the language that was used in his letter as threatening. (RB)
