IN COURT THIS WEEK
Minister of Employment made wrong decision in PUC case
The Supreme Court presided over by Judge Bernardin Renaud quashed the decision of the Minister of Employment and ruled in favour of two PUC employees. The two employees of PUC brought an application for Judicial Review of the decision of the Minister of the then Ministry of Employment and Social affairs referred to as “
The two Petitioners sought the following reliefs:
(a) For a Writ of certiorari to quash the decision of the Respondent (i.e. The Minister of MESA) for being ultra vires null and void as it was based on a non-existent provision of the Employment Act ((The Act) 1995.
(b) For a Writ of Mandamus to compel the Respondent to reinstate them in their jobs as the termination of their employment was not grounded on any evidence adduced either before the Competent officer or the EAB.
(c) For a Compensation Order for the prejudice they suffered as a result of the unjustified termination of their employment.
The Court reviewed the evidence and was satisfied that that the Employer sought the approval of
The Petitioners successfully argued not only that their posts were not redundant by producing copies of the “Nation” newspaper advertising for the same post one of the petitioners had been terminated from but also that the Respondent had failed to comply with the statutory requirement in regards to redundancy and “negotiation Procedures” under The Act.
The court found that The Act does not provide for Termination of employment in the interest of the Organisation” and had this to say: “ If it was found necessary for such a ground to be included in the law, thatr would fall within the province of legislators and indeed is not open to the Competent officer to add any other for termination of an employee other than those contained in the law”
In regards to the redundancy the court said: “assuming that the Competent officer had in mind that it was a notification of redundancy, then the mandatory requirement for the employer to provide all the information is lacking. The Competent officer should not have proceeded with hearing unless and until all the mandatory information required under sections 1(3) (e) and 1(3) (d) of the Schedule had been supplied by the employer.
In arriving at its determination in the dispute the Competent Officer, was of the “opinion that the contracts of employment of the employees should be terminated with payment of all employment benefits.” The Court found that “There was no basis or evidence on which the competent officer could form that opinion” and worst still “it was not an issue that came up or was considered at all at the hearing.”
On appeal by the employees to the EAB it concluded that “The Competent officer erred in his finding as there is no evidence to suggest that the working relationship between Appellants and Respondent had broken down irreparably. The Competent officer had not addressed the issues before him correctly. He took a very simplistic approach and his decision to allow the termination on those grounds was unfair in the circumstances”. A view thoroughly endorsed by the court. The court concluded by saying that the Competent officer received and heard a matter that did not fall within the ambit of applicable law, his decision was ultra vires the law and that he Competent Officer exceeded his judicial powers and came to a conclusion which is not supported by evidence and further that he failed to up-hold the rule of natural justice, an d order that the employees be reinstated, and appropriately compensated.
Editorial Note: There was full and complete compliance by the PUC with the court orders.