Justice Muria hears arguments for and against Christine Perriott’s interim reinstatement
Posted: 04/04/2007 - 10:26 AM
Author: Adele Ramos
Justice John Muria has set Thursday, April 5, 2007, to announce his decision on whether Mrs. Christine Perriott should be temporarily reinstated in her post as Internet Technician at the Belize Telecommunications Limited (BTL), until the outcome on a full hearing of her case.
Justice Muria heard arguments from both sides today. Attorney Lois Young, SC, presented submissions on behalf of her client, Perriott, while Andrew Marshalleck, assisted by Naima Barrow Badillo, presented BTL’s case.
Young told the court that the affidavit of Dean Boyce, chairman of BTL’s executive committee, was filed [by Barrow and Company] without a date and is “full of hearsay,” making broad allegations against Perriott that were not substantiated. She particularly pointed to Boyce’s assertions that there had been a complete breakdown in the relationship between Perriott and BTL, and general remarks Boyce made without stating who made the claims against Perriott on which he had founded his belief.
In arguing her case, Young used the Trade Union Act (Chapter 300 of the Laws of Belize), the Trade Unions and Employers’ Organisations (Registration, Recognition and Status) Act (Chapter 304) and the Constitution (Section 12 - Protection of freedom of expression, and 13 - Protection of freedom of assembly and association.)
The attorney contended that Perriott was fired because she was working as a lead union official for the Belize Communication Workers Unions (BCWU) and assisting three union members, who had been fired, to exercise their rights under the Act and the collective bargaining agreement between the union and the company.
She furthermore argued that under Section 11(3) of the Trade Unions and Employers’ Organisations (Registration, Recognition and Status) Act, the court has power to order the interim reinstatement.
It states: “Where the Supreme Court finds that an employee was dismissed in contravention of subsection (2) of section 5, it may make an order directing the reinstatement of the employee, unless the reinstatement of the employee seems to that Court not to be reasonably practicable, and may further make such other orders as it may deem just and equitable, taking into account the circumstances of the case.”
In introducing the court to BTL’s defense, Boyce submitted an affidavit, which claims that Perriott made statements inside BTL and to the media that demonstrated that her beliefs “were completely contrary to the management and shareholders of the company [sic],” and that she had no trust and confidence in the management of BTL to act in the best interest of the company.
He went on to claim that Perriott had become increasingly difficult to work with, and that her continued employment was becoming detrimental to the company, and therefore she was terminated.
Boyce went on to argue that Christine Perriott was well paid on her termination. He deposed that she was paid more money than she would have received if she continued to work at BTL, or if she were to be reinstated, and it is not practical to reinstate her because, even if she were to be reinstated, there would be no work for her to do, since her post has already been filled and there are no vacancies in the Internet Department, where she was posted at the time of termination.
Attorney Young said that the letter of termination, issued to Perriott on February 27, is a key document, because it gives no reason for terminating her. She said that the first bit of evidence that belies Boyce’s affidavit is that BTL gave her an ex-gratia payment of $12,000, which Boyce suggested in his affidavit, was more than she was due. She questioned why BTL would have paid that sum if Perriott were so bad for the company and untrustworthy to them.
She added that if Perriott was so unhappy with BTL, as Boyce had claimed, she could have resigned on her own.
Young told the judge that BTL failed to follow both company procedure and the collective bargaining agreement with the union in terminating Perriott.
She told the court that BTL could take Perriott back while the case is being heard in court, because there is really no rift in the relationship between her and her fellow employees, and as a matter of law, Boyce’s claim that there is no vacancy or work for her at BTL is not important. She added that it would be advantageous to both parties for her to have an interim reinstatement because, should the court rule in its final decision that she should be reinstated, “grass wouldn’t grow under her feet,” and she would be better equipped to carry out her duties at BTL.
Young said that her request for an interim reinstatement is not very different from that seeking a mandatory injunction.
Responding for BTL, the defendant, attorney Andrew Marshalleck told the court that the BCWU is not duly registered under Chapter 304 of the Laws of Belize, which attorney Young was using in her argument, and so Perriott cannot seek protection under that Act.
He pointed to Perriott’s affidavit, which said that the union was registered on 9 March 1984, which he said predated the passing of the Act by over 10 years.
Nonetheless, he rebutted the claims attorney Young made for the plaintiff under Section 11 of the Act, and contended that the Supreme Court has no power to grant an interim reinstatement because the very language of the law means that the court must make a finding, which it cannot at this early stage without hearing the matter.
Marshalleck went on to tell Justice Muria that if Perriott were to be reinstated temporarily before the hearing is finished, and the court finds, in the end, for her reinstatement, she would have to be fired again and then reinstated again.
He also remarked in court that in the event that the court finds that her termination was, indeed, wrongful, BTL could still chose to terminate her according to what could be deemed the correct procedure.
There is a considerable risk that Perriott’s action before the court will fail, Marshalleck submitted, in arguing against the interim reinstatement. He said that since Young compared the case to a case for mandatory injunction, the court should have an assurance that the case is likely to succeed.
He also submitted that parties unwilling to work with each other should not be forced to do so, and there is no denying that where management is concerned that there has been a total breakdown in their relationship with Perriott.
In her response to Marshalleck’s submissions, Young told the court that under Chapter 304, trade unions that had been registered at the time of the Act’s passing in 2000 were automatically registered, and a certificate document was only a formality.
(To support her argument, she cited Section 13(6), which states: Any trade union or employers’ organisation which was in existence and recognised as such before the commencement of this Act shall be registered by the Registrar, notwithstanding that such trade union or employers’ organization may not meet all the registration requirements provided in this section.)
Public Service Union president, Dylan Reneau, who sat in today’s court session, told Amandala that the PSU also does not have an official registration certificate under Chapter 304, but his understanding is that the format of the certificate documents is still being worked out. Perriott told us that she sits on the Tripartite Body (which is responsible for issuing certificates), and can attest that no union has one. Like the BCWU’s attorney, Reneau contends that under the new Act, registration is automatic and the certificate is merely a formality.
Young told Justice Muria that Marshalleck had not responded to the substance of Perriott’s claim – that she was terminated because her employer disapproved of her union activities.
In concluding, she commented that while Boyce has made the assertion that Perriott has been well paid and is now better off financially, the claimant is fighting for her dignity, her rights and her job, and does not want to be paid off and sent into the night.
|