Chairman of the Employment Rights Tribunal (ERT), former High Court Justice Christopher Blackman, handed down two rulings yesterday.
Former Barbados Beach Club employee, Norman Grant, was present to hear the ruling on his case yesterday.
A former Duty Manager of Barbados Beach Club was neither unfairly dismissed nor discriminated against due to his age.
This was the ruling handed down by Chairman of the Employment Rights Tribunal (ERT), former High Court Justice Christopher Blackman, yesterday morning to Norman Grant, who claimed he had been unfairly dismissed on October 30, 2017.
Justice Blackman outlined the claimant had worked with the resort from 1996 to 2009 before resigning and was then re-employed in 2010 as Duty Manager under oral contract. However, in April 2013, when a Human Resource Consultant was hired due to the Employment Rights Act 2012 coming on stream, the employer was advised that contracts of employment for employees must be in writing.
He said Grant was said to have been presented with the contract on May 12, 2014, which outlined that the official retirement age for all employees was 65, and requested to sign and return it showing his acceptance of the terms. While Grant contended he had not received such a document, he did acknowledge receipt of a letter dated August 31, 2014 with the official retirement age, but admitted he had not signed it due to concerns related to the retirement age provisions.
Justice Blackman recalled that Grant was abruptly terminated on October 30, 2017 when he was informed that by reaching the company’s retirement age a few days earlier on October 20, he should leave the company’s employ. Grant was only paid accrued vacation pay.
The head of the tribunal pointed out while Section 29 (1) of the Occupational Pension Benefits Act, Cap. 350B explains that normal retirement age under a pension plan should be no later than the year in which a member attains the retirement age specified in the National Insurance and Social Security Act, an overview of the island’s legislation showed there was no “one size fits all structure for persons in the public sector and certainly there is none governing the private sector” regarding retirement.
“In the context of this instant case, the Claimant knew in 2010 of the Respondent’s views as to retirement and which were reinforced by the letters sent in 2014. In our view, the Claimant had the responsibility to initiate the discussion on the issue of the retirement age if he had a contrary opinion as to when retirement ought to be. The position may well have been different if there had never been a written document given to the Claimant, as the hire in 2010 was done orally,” Justice Blackman ruled.
The tribunal however did find that the hotel was “less than generous” in giving Grant notice of its intention to rely on the attainment of the age of 65 as sufficient reason for dismissal and ordered the payment of one month’s salary – $5,000 – in lieu of notice, to be paid within 30 days.
Meanwhile, Justice Blackman also ruled on whether the ERT has jurisdiction to hear the claim for unfair dismissal advanced by Donville Jones against his former employer Bryden Stokes. Jones was terminated on December 2, 2015.
Having been satisfied with the evidence of the claim, the tribunal head said the case of unfair dismissal will be set down for hearing on a date to be fixed. (JMB)