Ika v Safe Guard Security Ltd [2011] SBTDP 8; UDF 34 of 2009 (26 August 2011)

IN THE TRADE DISPUTES PANEL OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case No: UDF 34 of 2009

IN THE MATTER of the Unfair Dismissal Act 1982

AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint of Unfair Dismissal

BETWEEN:

JACK BEBESIA IKA
Complainant

AND:

SAFE GUARD SECURITY LIMITED
Respondent

Hearing: 28th April, 2011, Honiara.
Decision: 26th August 2011.
Panel: Wickly Faga Deputy Chairman
Eric Maefelo Employee Member
Yolende Yates Employer Member
Appearances: Selson Fafale, representative for the Complainant
Dwane Tigulu, representive for the Respondent

FINDING

The Complainant in this matter filed his complaint of unfair dismissal with the Panel secretary on the 10/07/09. He claimed unfair dismissal on the grounds; that he did nothing wrong, he was not given any reason for his termination, he was also not given a chance to explain his side of the story, and that there was no warning.

In its notice of appearance, the Respondent denied that it dismissed the complainant but that the Complainant's contract had ended. Since the Respondent denied dismissing the Complainant, the onus was on the Complainant to prove that he was terminated by the Respondent.

It was not disputed that the Complainant entered into a contract of employment with the Respondent from 1st November 2008 to 31st March 2009 [Ex.RW1]. Prior to signing the said contract, he had already been working for the Respondent since June 2008. After the contract expired, he continued to work for the Respondent until May 2009. He received his pay for the period 16th to 31st May 2009, and on the paylsip were the words "stood down" written in pen. He was unhappy because he thought he had been terminated. So he went and sought advise from the office of the Commissioner of Labour. He also stopped attending work from then on.

It is not certain who actually wrote the words "stood down" on the Complainant's pay slip, but it is not disputed that the words were already on the payslip when he received it. In fact, the same words were typed in small fonts at the bottom of the same pay slip [Ex.RW7]. The Panel agrees with the Respondent counsel that the word "stood down" is a non-issue in this matter. But for clarification purposes, the word "stood down" is used to refer to guards who are not on rostered duties but are placed as on call guards. They are still employees but are not rostered. Usually, new recruits and guards whose performances are being monitered, are those who are normally placed as "on call" guards. The Complainant was absent from work on seven different occassions in the month of May 2009 [EX.RW3].

In the Panel's assessment of available evidence, the Complainant had mis-interpreted the words "stood down" as meaning termination, instead of as an "on call" guard. He had not proven to the satisfaction of the Panel, that he was dismissed by the Respondent. Instead the contrary had been shown, a rather rare case of this type. The Panel finds on available evidence that the Complainant voluntarily left his employment. He had not pleaded constructive dismissal and the Panel makes no consideration on that issue.

The complaint is therefore dismissed. We make no order as to costs.

There is a right of appeal within 14 days on points of law only

Dated the 26th of August 2011

On behalf of the Panel

Wickly Faga
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN/TDP