.png)
00:00
00:00
00:00
JCSA President Oneil Grant
The government has lost another case in the case of the dismissal of an employee, now deemed unjustifiable.
In the latest case, the Industrial Disputes Tribunal (IDT) found that the Firearm Licensing Authority (FLA) was in the wrong when it suddenly dismissed its Director of Audits and Complaints, Michael Dixon.
Mr. Dixon was dismissed with immediate effect in August 2017 and paid three months' salary in lieu of notice, as stipulated by his contract with the FLA.
The FLA held no disciplinary hearing, explaining that Mr. Dixon was not dismissed because of any action on his part.
However, it gave no reason for the termination.
Mr. Dixon contended that the manner in which he was dismissed affected his future job prospects as it took place amid a police probe into the issuing of firearm licences by the FLA.
The IDT ruled on October 24 that dismissals should not be done purely on the basis of provisions in a contract, but with due regard to fairness.
It said, where there is no process for termination and no reason is given to the employee, the termination is unfair, even if correct notice pay is made to the employee.
The IDT said it found that Mr. Dixon was unjustifiably dismissed and said he should be paid the remaining sums under the contract, which should have ended in October 2018.
Mr. Dixon had been pushing to be paid for the rest of the contract period plus two years.
JSCA
In reaction to the IDT ruling, Oneil Grant, President of the Jamaica Civil Service Association (JCSA), on Monday said the ruling highlights the challenges with some contracts issued to public sector workers.
"We are very happy for the ruling. It has vindicated the member and has strengthened the Jamaica Civil Service's position as it relates to the use of contracts in government," he asserted.
Mr. Grant said Mr. Dixon was among several employees that the FLA had treated similarly; therefore, the others "now have a basis of going in to negotiate the termination of their contracts or to go back to the IDT for the IDT to give a seperate ruling for them."
comments powered by Disqus
All feeds
