Petrojam employee goes to court to fight to remain on job

A Petrojam Limited employee who was informed this month that she is to be retired in December at age 60 has filed a claim in the Supreme Court seeking a declaration that under the Pensions (Public Service ) Act of 2017 it is illegal to retire her before she attains age 65.

Sheryl Blair, an administrative assistant with 33 years of service, has brought the claim against respondent Colin Barnett, Secretary of the Board of Trustees and Manager of Human Resource Development and Administration at Petrojam.

She is seeking an interim injunction to remain on the job until the Judicial Review Court hears and determines the matter.

Attorney-at-law Hugh Wildman, who is representing Blair, told The Gleaner that the application for an interim injunction and the application for leave to go to the Judicial Review Court will be heard on November 4.

Blair states in court documents that she wishes to continue until age 65 as provided for by the Pensions Act which became effective on April 1, 2018.

She outlined that at the time when the Act became effective, she was 53 years old. 

She outlined that the Act and the Schedule specifically stated that the retirement age will be 65 years for any public officer who was 55 years or under at the time when the Act came into effect on April 1, 2018.

She said she was born on November 16, 1964, and was 53 years old at the time.

Blair said she wrote a letter to the respondent on March 15, 2024, stating that she needed not to apply for an extension to continue to work beyond 60 in regards to the Pensions Act of 2017.

She said she received correspondence from the respondent on October 7 stating that the position was clearly outlined in Petrojam's Trust Deed and Plan Rules and further highlighted in the Company's Termination Redundancy Services Policy and the Employee Handbook and by virtue of that her retirement would take effect on December 1, 2024.

According to Blair, that explanation from the respondent contradicted the Pensions Act 2017, thus being illegal for her to be relieved of her duties before the age of 65.

Blair is seeking a declaration that based on the amendment to the Pensions Act she is not eligible to be retired before age 65. 

She wants the court to declare that the decision to retire her is null and void and of no legal effect.

She is also asking for an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the respondent to retire her before age 65.

- Barbara Gayle

Follow The Gleaner on X, formerly Twitter, and Instagram @JamaicaGleaner and on Facebook @GleanerJamaica. Send us a message on WhatsApp at 1-876-499-0169 or email us at onlinefeedback@gleanerjm.com or editors@gleanerjm.com.