Appeal court sides with BPO worker in fight for redundancy payment
Published:Tuesday | July 23, 2024 | 12:09 AMEdmond Campbell/Senior Staff Reporter
The Court of Appeal on July 6 upheld a June 2020 ruling of the St James Parish Court in favour of a former business process outsourcing (BPO) worker who took her employer to court insisting that she is entitled to redundancy payment. The worker was laid off for more than 120 days and subsequently terminated by the company for cause.
In handing down its decision, the Court of Appeal argued that the respondent was entitled to a redundancy payment having been laid off for a period of more than 120 days without reemployment or reengagement.
The court found that there was no evidence Shawna Reid, the respondent, had abandoned her job and there was no conduct prejudicial to the appellant’s interest which could have justified her dismissal for cause.
According to the Court of Appeal justices, Reid’s election to be treated as being dismissed by reason of redundancy was therefore validly made.
“That right having arisen after 120 days had passed without a written offer of reemployment or reengagement, the appellant’s defence that she was dismissed for job abandonment and was thereby not entitled to a redundancy payment, fails,” the Court of Appeal held.
Conduent Jamaica Limited, the appellant, had challenged the ruling of the Parish Court judge, contending that Reid was not entitled to a redundancy payment as opportunities had arisen for reemployment but she had abandoned the job. As a result, the company dismissed Reid for cause.
The judges also stated that the appellant’s suggestion that in any event the respondent’s claim for redundancy payment was statute barred, also failed.
In handing down its decision, the court awarded Reid $548,400.82 in redundancy payment and the sum of $75,000 in costs.
The Court of Appeal judges therefore dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and orders of the judge of the Parish Court that the respondent is entitled to the sum stated for redundancy payment with costs.
The respondent’s case at trial was that she was dismissed by reason of redundancy based on the letter from her employer dated December 29, 2016 which indicated that the account on which she worked would no longer be available.
The appellant is a company in the BPO sector and manages several accounts on behalf of its clients. The respondent was employed by the appellant as a customer service representative on one of its client’s accounts.
At trial, it was highlighted that between March 7 and March 14, 2017, during the period in which Reid was laid off, she left the island without informing the appellant.
Between March 2017 and May 2017 attempts were made by the appellant’s human resources (HR) department to contact the respondent but they were unsuccessful.
On May 12, 2017, a representative of the appellant sent a text message to the respondent asking her to contact the HR department. The respondent contacted the HR department on May 16, 2017 at which time she was asked to attend a meeting the following day.
On May 17, the respondent went to the HR department where she was handed a letter which indicated the department had been conducting investigations into the charge of job abandonment and that disciplinary proceedings would be taken against her.
She was invited to attend a disciplinary hearing on May 22, 2017. The respondent attended the disciplinary hearing during which she made certain admissions but denied that she had intentionally abandoned her job. She indicated a desire to be made redundant.
On May 31, 2017, the respondent was given a letter terminating her employment with immediate effect, citing job abandonment as the reason for her termination.
Justices Carol Edwards, Paulette Williams and Georgiana Fraser presided while the appellant was represented by Gavin Goffe and Jahmar Clarke, instructed by Myers, Fletcher and Gordon. The respondent was represented by Sharlon Dayes.