Court sides with unfairly dismissed Sandy Lane worker but reduces payment

The Court of Appeal has upheld a 2022 ruling by the Employment Rights Tribunal (ERT) that luxury resort Sandy Lane Hotel unfairly dismissed a former employee, but reduced his payment to just over $50 000.

In their 30-page judgment handed down on Wednesday, appellate Justices Francis Belle, Margaret Reifer and Jacqueline Cornelius Thorne unanimously dismissed Sandy Lane’s appeal and awarded reduced damages of $50 001.60 to former laundry supervisor Alfred Branch.

 In doing so, the court reversed the ERT’s original award of $54 734.34, removing $4 732.74 previously granted as wages in lieu of notice.

That was the only one of the seven grounds advanced by the appellant that the panel of judges upheld. The hotel’s counsel had argued that the Tribunal erred in law by awarding a payment in lieu of notice, even though Branch had not specifically claimed it—only that he had been unfairly dismissed.

Branch, who had been employed at the west coast property for 11 years, was terminated in February 2014. The resort claimed a letter he wrote the previous month—requesting a meeting with the chairman to raise outstanding concerns—contained language that management deemed threatening.

However, the Court of Appeal found no breach of discipline in the letter, nor in Branch’s reference to “bringing the good name of Sandy Lane Hotel into disrepute.”

Sandy Lane had submitted that Branch failed to reassure management that any action he might take after the proposed meeting would not harm the hotel’s reputation. But the court rejected this reasoning, finding that it “shows a weak understanding of the nature of industrial relations and the rights of employees, which include the right to protest issues where the employee feels that his rightful requests are being ignored.”

The judges noted that “such disagreement could inadvertently reach the public domain and thereafter, its impact would be unknown. Mr Branch was therefore fortified in not giving reassurance. It was not all up to him.”

They found no single act of gross misconduct, but rather a gross and unreasonable misunderstanding of a reasonably stated request for a meeting.

The court said Sandy Lane was obligated to adhere to the disciplinary procedures set out under Section 29 of the Employment Rights Act, 2012-9, and concluded that Branch was not afforded a fair hearing, having been instructed on what he could and could not say.

There was no real dialogue, it stated, or fair process, but rather, a ticking of boxes for the purpose of compliance with Part A of the Fourth Schedule of the Act.

The court also awarded costs to be assessed, if not agreed.

Michael Koeiman of the law firm Dentons Delany appeared for Sandy Lane, while Yasmin Brewster represented Branch, in association with Rhea Cheltenham and Courtni Holder.

emmanueljoseph@barbadostoday.bb