ERT Unanimous in Recent Unfair Dismissal Case, Not Sole Decision of Deputy Chairman Kathy-Ann Hamblin

The Employment Rights Tribunal (ERT) has made it clear that its decision in the recent unfair dismissal case of former Standard Distribution and Sales Inc. employee Keith Alleyne was unanimous and not that of only deputy chairman Kathy-Ann Hamblin.

In a brief statement, the ERT said the properly constituted three-member panel of Hamblin, Deighton Marshall and Beverley Beckles, “dismissed the complaint in accordance with the law, following a fair and balanced hearing into the matter”.

“The decision of the tribunal was unanimous,” it added.

The panel had heard submissions from both sides before Hamblin delivered their decision on August 31.

The tribunal threw out the claim made by Alleyne, an appliance service technician at Standards Distribution who lost his job on July 12, 2013, after working there for 13 years. He was dismissed for borrowing a disused washing machine pump from a scrap pile on Standard’s premises, to use on a washer he was fixing off-site.

Alleyne submitted a complaint of unfair dismissal to the Chief Labour Officer on January 23, 2014, more than six months after the date of his termination and almost three-and-a-half months after the expiration of the three-month statutory limitation period, which is counted from the effective date of termination.

The matter was referred to the ERT on March 10, 2014, and even though Alleyne was invited to submit his claim form and supporting documents, nothing was sent for more than eight years. It was only when a notice was given of abandoned claims via a newspaper that the forms were sent on July 28, 2021.

Handing down the panel’s unanimous ruling, Hamblin said “the onus was on the BWU as the claimant’s representative to ensure compliance with the limitation period of which they ought to have been aware”, although noting that Alleyne’s conduct of this matter “demonstrates a complete lack of diligence and interest.

“…The BWU ought, in the circumstances, to have taken appropriate, timely, measures to preserve the claimant’s position. They failed to do so to the detriment of the claimant. The claimant’s remedies, if any, are against the Barbados Workers Union, not against the respondent. The complaint is accordingly dismissed,” she added.

The BUT subsequently challenged the allegations against it in the tribunal’s decision.

The ERT has pointed out that pursuant to Section 48 of the Employment Rights Act, 2012-9, any party aggrieved by a ruling of the ERT may appeal against that decision to the Court of Appeal of Barbados on a question of law.