Kop v Headmaster [2005] PGDC 60; DC246 (12 December 2005)

DC246

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE]

CASE NO 2625 OF 2005

BETWEEN

Michael Kop
Complainant

V

The Headmaster
First Defendant

Board Chairman
Second Defendant

Morata Primary School
Third Defendant

Port Moresby: Gauli, Apm
2005: December 05th, 12th

Counsel
Complainant: In Person
Defendant: In Person

DECISION OF THE COURT

GAULI, APM: The Complainant claimed against the Defendants a sum of K5, 240.00 for costs incurred from cutting the grass, general cleaning and unpaid fortnightly wages as a security guard.

Brief Facts

The complainant was employed by the Third Defendant the Morata Primary School as a security guard from February 2004 to 23rd of May 2005, when he was terminated. During the cause of his employment with the school, he performed grass cutting around the school area using his own lawn mower and the grass slasher, apart from his normal security duties. He also carried out general clean up on the schools toilet. For these services he charge the school – K600.00 for grass cutting every three months; K500.00 for general cleaning of the school’s toilet and K900.00 for the use of the machinery for every three months. And he claims a total amount of K5, 230.00.

Evidence

Both parties filed affidavit evidence and they all ask the court to make a decision based on this affidavit evidence without cross-examining the deponents.

The complainant and his three witnesses namely OTTO ULIGA, MARK HENOGWIE and BEDA GENDE provided affidavit evidence. The complainants evidence is as per the facts above. I do not intend to restate it again.

The witness OTTO ULINGA, a senior teacher and the teachers representative of the Third Defendant. He confirmed that the complainant was actively employed as a security guard by the school during the stated period. And he saw the Complainant doing extra duties after school and during weekends which includes grass cutting, cleaning toilets. Being a teacher representative to the School Board of Management, there was never any discussing in any of the Board Meetings over the last five years to award contracts of any sort.

These were the prerogative and discretion of the Head teacher and the Board of Management (BOM).

The witness MARK HENOGWIE deposed in his affidavit and confirms that while the complainant was employed by the School as a security guard he performed those extra cleaning duties. He used his own lawn mower and slasher for grass cutting, cleaning of the schools toilets and picking up rubbish around the school.

The witness BEDA GENDE, one of the security guards employed by the school confirms all the Complainant and the other witnesses have stated.

The evidence for the Defendants rely on the affidavits of MR. SAKAREA. T. AKOM, the chairman of the School and MR. HENRY KAKALE, the Head Teacher of the school. Mr. Kakale admits that the Complainant, which employed as a security guard performed other duties including grass cutting and cleaning of the schools toilet. Mr. Kakale is not sure if the Complainant was contracted by the school grass cutting and cleaning toilets. The wages for the security guard was the responsibility of the Board of Management of the school. Thus Mr. Kakale has no idea about the unpaid wages. The Complainant was terminated for holding the school at ransom by locking out the school students from attending classes.

The witness Mr. Sakare T. Akom, the Schools new chairman elected on 02nd March 2005, deposed that on that day the former Board Chairman Mr. Peter Nagm handed over the responsibilities to the new Board, including the handwritten financial report and the names of the list of all the outstanding bills yet to be paid. From that list the complainant’s name Michael Kop only appeared for the five unpaid fortnight wages. The present Board has paid only four out of the five fortnights due the financial constrains the school was facing. That will be paid when the school is financially capable to pay.

Regarding the cleaning of the toilet Mr. Sakare Akom deposed that the school hired a qualified plumber who fixed the toilets and complainant assisted the plumber for two days. And he was paid K100.00 on top of his normal fortnight wages of K120.00. Regarding the grass cutting the complainant did this during working hours. And the complainant was residing with the former Board Chairman M. Peter Nagn who is the complainant’s brother. He was using the schools lawn mower. He never lodged any claim for the grass cutting during the reign of the former Board until the new Board took over the responsibility.

The Issues:

1. How much does the school owes the complainant in unpaid wages

2. Was the complainant contracted to perform grass cutting and other general cleaning duties.

The first issue is on the complainant’s unpaid wages. The complainant gave no evidence as to how much the school owes him unpaid wages. According to the defendant’s witness Mr. Sakare T. Akom, the school is only owing a sum of K120.00 for one fortnights unpaid wage. I am satisfied that the Defendants owes the complainant a fortnights wages of K120.00.

The second issue is whether the Complainant was contracted for grass cutting and other general cleaning duties. There is no doubt that the Complainant had carried out these duties apart from his duties as a security guard. There is no record to show nor was thee any agreement with the school for the complainant to carry out other duties besides his duties as a security. If the complainant performed grass cutting and cleaning of toilets during his normal working hours he cannot be paid for the extra duties for the reasons he took off his normal duties hours to do their duties. He can only do the security duties and be paid for that or he used his official security duty hours to grass cutting and cleaning of toilets without remunerations as he already paid for as a security guard.

There is no evidence by the Complainant that he had a grass cutting and toilet cleaning contracts with the School or the School Board of Management at certain rates for every three months. I am satisfied by the evidence of Mr. Sakare Akom for the Defendants that the school or the Board does not own any debts to the complainant for these extra jobs done. And I find the Defendants not liable for the grass cutting and toilet cleaning by the complainant except the unpaid one fortnight wages of K120.00.

And this Court orders that the Defendants to pay the complainant the sum of K120.00 with two (2) months from the date of this order. And the parties meet their own costs