Ex-manager’s case against SCJH heads to IDT

A FORMER manager at the Sugar Company of Jamaica Holdings (SCJH), who is contending that he was unjustly dismissed in 2020, is to have his matter heard by the Dispute Tribunal after the SCJH failed to have it aborted.

The hearing is set for July 22.

The company claimed that Lancelot Naraynsingh had accepted his termination without challenge after indicating that he understood that the SCJH was having financial challenges. The company added that he had accepted a Christmas bag of goodies with a “pleasant exclamation”.

But Naraynsingh claimed that he was left in shock when he was handed the letter of termination and that he had not been notified prior of the decision to do away with his post.

He also claimed that “the sudden decision forced him into financial arrears with his mortgage company, causing him severe embarrassment and anxiety”.

The SCJH, which had sought a judicial review of the labour ministry’s referral of the dispute to the tribunal, was contending that Naraynsingh had waived his right to have the matter disputed by his lack of protest and his acceptance of the severance-payment package without objection.

The company claimed that the ministry had no jurisdiction to refer the matter as there was no dispute.

But in May, the Supreme Court refused the SCJH leave to apply for certiorari to quash the labour’s ministry referral.

Naraynsingh was engaged by the company on November 29, 2019, as a technical services manager on a fixed-term contract for two years.

However, the company claimed that the COVID-19 pandemic adversely affected its finances, resulting in a restructuring of its operations and abandoning some of its posts.

Naraynsingh was informed, on December 16, that his post would be cut, and after fulsome discussion with the company’s human resource director, Kerline Graham, reportedly accepted the decision, indicating that he understood the situation.

He was reportedly handed a letter, which stated that the post was being eliminated from the company’s establishment with immediate effect and that he would be paid two months’ gross salary, accumulated gratuity, and earned but unused vacation leave.

According to the SCJH, Naraynsingh attended a meeting the following day to discuss his separation and benefits and explained that he was fine with the decision to eliminate his post because he fully understood the situation faced by the company.

The company claimed that Naraynsingh had been advised to take a lawyer but opted to attend alone.

ADVISED

On December 28, the company sent Naraynsingh another letter, outlining the final payments that were made to him by wire transfer to his bank account on file.

He was advised to seek clarification, if needed, from Graham but, reportedly, did not raise any objection, hence the company concluded its restructuring exercise and altered its organisational structure.

On January 5, the following year, the SCJH was reportedly surprised by a letter from Naraynsingh’s attorney, Lorenzo Eccleston, demanding his reinstatement and alleging unjustifiable dismissal.

Among the grounds outlined were “not being told of any charges against him relative to any breach committed by him, and/or any allegation of misconduct on his part or being told of any breach of your disciplinary code or being informed of his right to attend a hearing, or being informed of his right to be represented at a hearing by a representative of his choice”.

Naraynsingh also requested an appeal of the decision to “summarily terminate the employment … .”

The matter was brought to the attention of the labour ministry, which invited the SCJH to a conciliation meeting, which the company snubbed, resulting in the matter being referred to the tribunal.

During the hearing, the SCJH submitted that the company justifiably formed the view that there was no industrial dispute as defined in the Labour Relations and Industrial Disputes Act.

It further argued that Naraynsingh waived any rights to later claim that there was such an industrial dispute and that the labour minister was required to consider the question of waiver in determining whether an industrial dispute existed.

But Eccleston countered that the minister had satisfied the pre-requisites of the act in referring the matter.

He also submitted that there was an arguable case of unfair, unreasonable, and unconscionable dismissal by virtue of the SCJH obtaining the finance ministry’s approval to make the post redundant before consulting the employee.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com