BLPC to decide on reinstatement or compensation for unfairly dismissed employee

By Marlon Madden

Seven years after Jepter Lorde was terminated by the Barbados Light and Power Company (BLPC), the Employment Rights Tribunal (ERT) on Tuesday ruled that he was unfairly dismissed.

However, a ruling on whether he will be reinstated or compensated has been delayed but could be made by next Tuesday.

ERT chairman Kathy Hamblin has given the BLPC’s lawyer Rene Butcher up to Friday to come back with a decision after Lorde said he was seeking reinstatement or reengagement.

She said she was prepared to give a final ruling by September 8 once Butcher and Lorde’s lawyer Nailah Robinson provided vital information, including the recalculation of compensation.

“When we hear from the Barbados Light and Power on what their position is on reinstatement or re-engagement, we will make a ruling once and for all to dispose of this matter,” Hamblin said.

“In the event that we have to go the route of a compensatory award, I want to say to both attorneys, go back and review those submissions you made with respect to quantum . . . . Both of you used incorrect formulae to arrive at your figures.

“If the decision is one for compensation, we will not consider any claims that are not properly documented. The tribunal has been forced to do too much of the parties’ work for them . . . . So get back to us on or before September 1, 2023 . . . and if you get those documents to the tribunal secretariat and to each other by September 1, 2023, I will commit to have the panel review your submissions and get back to you within seven days of [that] date,” Hamblin added.

The chairman complained that the ERT was “forced to devote an inordinate amount of time and resources to this complaint, depriving many other waiting litigants of a timely hearing”.

Lorde had worked at the BLPC as a plant attendant for 19 years, starting June 1, 1997. He was terminated on July 25, 2016.

He was also the Secretary of Light & Power Division of the Barbados Workers’ Union (BWU) and claimed that he was “in the vanguard of advocating on behalf of labour” about various issues and he was targeted by the company as a result.

Lorde believed he was dismissed on “several trumped-up charges”.

Prior to his dismissal, he was sanctioned by the company on three separate occasions. However, no disciplinary meetings were held in the case of the first two incidents and he had no opportunity to respond to the allegations against him.

On June 24, 2016, Lorde went to the Wildey, St Michael office of Sagicor to conduct business and was accused of engaging in “verbally abusive behaviour” towards a security guard in the car park while wearing his company uniform.

He was suspended, investigated and disciplinary hearings were held and he was then terminated, prompting him to take the matter before the ERT.

Hamblin explained that following the hearings from the various sides and the defendant’s witnesses, the ERT found that the company satisfied the reason for dismissal under the Employment Rights Act.

However, she said the dismissal was unfair, explaining that the utility company unreasonably relied on three warning letters and the parking lot incident to dismiss Lorde.

Hamblin added that the final dismissal letter was issued in “bad faith” and Lorde was not notified in the first two warning letters that he was able to appeal those warnings.

The ERT chairman said there was also a lack of corroboration between the statements of witnesses and video footage and in unsigned statements relating to the final incident leading to Lorde’s dismissal.

“We conclude that in view of the many inconsistencies in the Sagicor witnesses’ statements – which not only conflicted with the video footage but with the statements of the other witnesses for Sagicor – that the claimant ought to have been afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the makers of those statements because those witnesses never showed up for the disciplinary hearing,” she said.

“The tribunal finds that the respondent did not discharge its burden of proof and its dismissal of the claimant was, accordingly, unfair.”

When asked by Hamblin what remedy he was seeking, Lorde said, “I am requesting reinstatement or re-engagement pertaining to the Act.”

However, Butcher asked for the opportunity “to get further instructions on that” as his client had indicated a “definite preference against reinstatement or re-engagement”.

Though informing Butcher that she would only give him up until Friday to come back with a response, Hamblin expressed disappointment that after 18 hearings and one year, the defendant was not ready.

marlonmadden@barbadostoday.bb