Ligairi v Permanent Secretary for Education [2011] FJET 4; ERT Misc 28.2010 (4 April 2011)

IN THE SUVA EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
AT SUVA

ERT Misc. Case No. 28/2010.

BETWEEN:

RALISA NAQARANIVALU LIGAIRI
GRIEVER

AND:

PERMANENT SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION
EMPLOYER

Appearances:

Mr. D Nair for the Griever
Ms. S Racaca for the Employer
________________________________________________________________________________

DETERMINATION OF THE TRIBUNAL

______________________________________________________________________________

The Employment Relationship Problem

1. Mr. Ralisa Naqaranivalu Ligairi reported an employment grievance on the premature termination of his employment contract which was duly executed with the Permanent Secretary for Education on 10th March, 2010 effective from 25th January, 2010 to 23rd January, 2011
   
2. Mr. Ligairi is asking the Tribunal to order the Permanent Secretary for Education to compensate the period of his unexpired contract, which is from 21st June 2010 to 23rd January, 2011
   
3. Mr. Ligairi has also asked to be compensated in the sum of $40,000.00 for the humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to his feelings caused by the premature and unjustified termination of his contract
   
4. References for the purpose of this determination:-
   
   • - The griever, Mr Ralisa Naqaranivalu Ligairi shall be referred to as ("RNL")
   • - The employer, Permanent Secretary for Education shall be referred to as ("PSE")
     

Background and Evidence

5. During the hearing of this grievance, Mrs. Kumar, the Director for Secondary Education giving evidence of PSE said that RNL had been a temporary civil servant for twenty-two years and his contract had been regularly extended despite adverse records. She added that RNL should have been retired on 13th December 2009 and through an error, he was given another contract when the error was discovered, RNL was terminated. RNL was terminated due to his age and not for any offence.
   
6. In his evidence RNL told the Tribunal of how a message was left in his pigeon hole at Suva Grammar School by the Principal telling him to report to Secondary Section of the Ministry of Education, Suva where he was told to produce his birth certificate and the fact that he would be sent home
   
7. Mrs. Kumar in her evidence on behalf of PSE cited Section 15(1) of the State Service Decree No. 06/2009 which states – "Notwithstanding anything contained in any written law, the retirement age in the public service shall be 55years." Mrs. Kumar also told the Tribunal that there is a provision for the retention of retirees and that in the Education Department only Principals are engaged not others and right now there are about three hundred and fifty graduates waiting for employment.

On the employment contract, Mrs. Kumar explained to the Tribunal that RNL has been paid a monthly salary in lieu of notice on termination

8. The termination of RNL appointment was confirmed by the Acting PSE in a letter dated 02nd June 2010 where she said in her opening paragraph – "I regret to inform that in accordance with the powers delegated vide State Service Decree 6/2009 and PSC Circular 23/2009, your appointment as Temporary Teacher Secondary, Suva Grammar School has been terminated from 21st May, 2010
   
9. The tone of that letter of termination and the events that transpired between RNL and the Ministry of Education leading up to termination led to the grievance. RNL did not in anyway challenge the application of Section 15(1) of the State Service Decree No. 06/2009. His grievance is in relation to the way he was treated
   
10. Mrs Kumar and the PSE in their evidence submitted that the error in appointing RNL was due to the volume of work the Secondary Section had to do in the beginning of the school year. There was a mistake made and they had to rectify it.
    

Analysis and Conclusion

11. The letter of Temporary Appointment for RNL dated 10th March, 2010 provides for one month's notice on either side or by payment of one months salary in lieu of notice. That has been done by the payment of one month's notice.
    
12. RNL is not complaining about that either. His grievance was the way he was treated: to RNL it was unfair. He was terminated on 21st May, 2010 but received his letter on 02nd June, 2010. To make matters worse his supervising officer the Principal of Suva Grammar School was not aware until the 02nd of June, 2010. Before that his Principal was not sure of this whereabouts and had to contact the Ministry of Education
    
13. The Tribunal finds that RNL was sort of confused of what was happening around him and to complicate matters, his Principal intimated to him that he would allow him to complete his contract at Suva Grammar School if the Minister agreed
    
14. The Tribunal agrees with RNL about "civil servants nor doing their job or sleeping on the job" and at the same time cautions those who have the powers to make decision in the civil service, to exercise with great caution the authority given to them by the State. Being overloaded is not an excuse, especially in administering laws like Section 15(1) of State Service Decree No. 06/2009 on the compulsory retirement age in the public service. Of course it is a sensitive issue and the Decree must be enforced in such a way that those affected by it, do not doubt the good intentions of the Government of the day. For those reasons the Tribunal determines that RNL has a grievance in that he was unfairly terminated
    
15. The Tribunal denies any claim for compensation by RNL but will consider paying RNL a part of his unexpired contract
    
16. Decision:-
    

The Tribunal rules that-

[i] In view of the manner in which RNL was treated, PSE should pay him the salary of three (3) months of his unexpired contract.

DATED at Suva this 14th day of April, 2011.

Sainivalati Kuruduadua
Chief Tribunal