Taintiff was employed by
the defendant company for several years. He was a Supervisor,isor, Customer
Installations. In
November 1996 he was dismissed. The plaintiff says this
was wrongful and in breach of his contract. He states he was not given
the
required notice nor an opportunity of being heard in respect of the
allegations against him. He claimed reinstatement,
or payment of monies.
The defendant averred he was
given the required notice and an opportunity to be hearrespect of the
allegallegations made
against him. There was compliance with applicable laws.
There is little dispute on facts. A concern arose at the end of October 1996 over the use of two Vanair
tic tickets in
the plaintiff’s possession. These were tickets paid for in the
usual course of employment by the defendant. By memorandum dated
31st
October 1996 the plaintiff was asked to give an explanation for his use of
those air tickets.
By a letter dated 31
October he gave an explanation. On 4th November, after
investnvestigation by the defendant, he gave a totally different explanation, in
writing. He conceded
the first explanation was untrue and said the second
was true. In the second he accepted converting the unused return legs
from
the two tickets into one return ticket to the same destination. He used part
of that new ticket himself and let
another person use the other part.
This was considered by t personnel manager, Jean-Yves Bibi, who, by letter, suspended the plaintiff
on 8 Nn 8 November 1996.
This position was taken by Mr. Bibi pending the return
of the Managing Director, Philip Richards. By a letter dated 28 November
1996 Mr. Richards dismissed the plaintiff. The price of the air ticket has
been deducted from monies due to the plaintiff.
Jeas Bibi stated “Before
we decided to terminate, we discussed with the Labour Departmenrtment at head
office, Mr. Mangawai.
We told case and asked advice. He said verbally he
agreed with the decision”. He added that in discussions with Labour,
including Mr. Kalorisu and Mr. Tavoa, “some thought what we did was fair,
and some thought it wasn’t. The main reason for
the dismissal was the misuse
of air ticket”.
I also heard evidence from
Ephraim Mathias and Simeon Tavoa Mathias came into the pict picture “in 1996
the plantiff came
to me and said terminated from TVL.” Thereafter, he looked
into the matter and had meetings. He came to the conclusion the
dismissal
was unjustified. He conceded that Kalorisu had found that what TVL did was
reasonable, but that was his view,
and Kalorisu had not had a meeting with
employee and employer.
lass="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
Simeon Tavoa somplaint
was received from the plaintiff on 18th December 1996. At
paragraph 3 of his letter of 8th August 2001 Mr. Tavoa withdrew
the suggestion that Labour Department advice was not sought before the
termination. The
letter continues that the defendant was saying the meeting
was with Mr. Mangawai. Further; Simeon Tavoa said he never knew
of any
meeting involving Mr. Kalorisu. He makes the statement “May be if I am
right, I was suddenly summonsed twice to
the Former Labour Headquarter to
attend meetings when Edwin Kalorisu was absent and TVL had to leave before I
arrived”.
I do not reject the evidence of
Ephraim Mathias or Simeon Tavoa. Hr, they were working from mrom memory,
with no contemporaneous
documents, save for an undated statement. I find
their evidence shews some confusion as to the stance taken by the Labour
department, and that to some degree it supports Mr. Bibi’s assertion that
approval was obtained before dismissal.
I accept the evidence of Mr.
Bibi. He clearly had a fnowledge and recollection of events, and in
particulaicular that
Labour Department approval was sought and obtained. Where
his evidence differs from that of the plaintiff, I prefer that of
Mr. Bibi.
Paragraph 20 of the defendant’s
“InteRegulations” says, “Any act of disobedience shall be punishunishable
after the relevant
parties have been heard and subject to the approval of
the District Labour Department.
Depending on the seriousness of
the offence, the employee shather:-
- &nbssp;&nnsp;&&nsp;
sp;
be givenma simple warning without financial penalty;
- p; &nnsp;&
sp;
bean>be given a reprimand;
-- p; &nnsp;&
sp;
laan>laid off without pay for a period of time to be decided;
- &nnbsp;;&nspp;&nsp;
sp;
instanism dismissed (i.e. without prior notice)”.
clasoNormal"rmal" style="mle="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
I find the misuse e
defendant’s funds and giving an untrue explanation was sufficient in itself
t to justify dismissal
without notice. The plaintiff was supplied in writing
with the defendant’s concerns (memo of 31st October 1996) and
given the opportunity to give an explanation. He was given a further chance
to explain when the first
explanation proved untrue. The Labour Department
was consulted between suspension and dismissal and approved the dismissal.