Worker awarded $3.5m, reinstated after unfair dismissal ruling

A UC Rusal employee wrongfully fired two years ago, despite being cleared of intentionally taking scrap metal from his employer, has been awarded $3.5 million and will be reinstated after the Industrial Disputes Tribunal (IDT) ruled his dismissal was “harsh and unjust”.

Paul Brown, a former facilities repairman, is set to return to his position by December 6 and will be paid all outstanding wages since his termination on November 29, 2022, excluding his travel allowance.

The tribunal determined that, given Brown’s over 10 years of unblemished service, it was “morally impermissible” to dismiss him for the removal of waste metal. The judgment stated that such a punishment was “harsh to the point of being unjust” and inconsistent with the Labour Relations Code.

Brown was fired after five pieces of fabricated steel and metal were found hidden behind the seat of a vehicle he had driven. He denied placing the metal in the vehicle, claiming he had no knowledge of its presence but admitted to not checking the vehicle before it left the premises as he had done so earlier that morning. However, Brown stated his responsibility was limited to checking the vehicle’s fluid levels, lights, and tyres, not the contents behind the seat.

Following a disciplinary hearing, Brown was deemed not “culpable” of intentionally removing the metal and was instead recommended a warning letter for failing to properly inspect the vehicle. This was after the panel concluded that he did not have access to the tools and equipment that would have enabled him to fabricate the steel plates.

Despite this recommendation, he was dismissed two weeks later, prompting him to appeal the decision twice, but the company upheld his termination.

FAILURE TO RESOLVE DISPUTE

The matter was then referred to the tribunal after the Ministry of Labour and Social Security failed to resolve the dispute.

UC Rusal’s lawyers – Kelley Wong and Stephen Nelson – argued that the dismissal was fair, citing previous court rulings, while the Union of Clerical, Administrative, and Supervisory Employees, which represented Brown, argued that the company failed to prove he had attempted to steal the metal. The union president, Vincent Morrison, also contended that the company had not provided sufficient evidence. It highlighted that vehicles are regularly used by other employees, with Brown neither keeping nor having control over the keys.

In its ruling, the tribunal found the company’s decision to override the disciplinary panel’s recommendation unfair, stating that it should have conducted an internal review of the panel’s recommendation before issuing a final decision. The tribunal also questioned whether the “double jeopardy” principle applied, given that Brown had already been judged by the panel.

“The company, in overturning the recommendation of the disciplinary panel should at least have given Mr Brown the opportunity to hear its arguments as to why it cannot accept a warning letter,” the tribunal stated.

Additionally, the tribunal said that the company failed to demonstrate what “exceptional circumstances” existed which entitled it to disregard the recommendation, especially in the circumstances where the “charge letter” to Brown had advised him that a range of sanctions would be looked at, including the warning letter.

Finally, the tribunal noted that while company policy prohibits the unauthorised removal of company property, scrap metal could not be considered company property requiring permission, as reflected in the charge letter’s mention of multiple potential sanctions.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com