Brown (Lindon) v Jamaica Flour Mills Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Judge: Sinclair-Haynes, J
• Judgment Date: 15 December 2006
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2006] 12 JJC 1501
• Court: Supreme Court (Jamaica)
• Date: 15 December 2006

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA

BETWEEN

LINTON BROWN

CLAIMANT

AND

JAMAICA FLOUR MILLS LTD.

DEFENDANT

EMPLOYMENT LAW - Unfair dismissal

Sinclair-Haynes, J

1 Jamaica Flour Mills Ltd (JFM) employed Mr. Lindon Brown on November 15, 1995 as a Safety Security Officer. He was separated from his job on September 17, 1999 by reason of redundancy. The defendant has not employed any person to fill that position. He was paid the sum of $287,907.43, which represents the following:

1. Redundancy Pay	-	$164,308.31
2. Unused Vacation Leave	-	101,255.00
3. Accumulated Sick Leave	-	24,646.20
4. Two Weeks Salary in lieu of Notice	-	32,861.60

2 from which total tax and midmonth pay were deducted. He was also paid $134,045.27 which represented a sum under the company's productivity incentive scheme.

3 The Claimant's Claim

4 Mr. Brown has sued Jamaica Flour Mills to recover damages for the following, inter alia:

• a. Wrongful and unfair dismissal

• b. Breach of Contract

• c. Union busting

• d. Victimization

• e. Failure to respond to request from potential employers in an honest and timely manner

• f. Damages for stress related illnesses, and

• g. Exemplary damages

5 The claimant alleges that he was dismissed because he refused to withdraw from the Jamaica Flour Mills Staff Association (JFMSA). He also alleges that he was invited by the Jamaica Association of Safety Professionals (JASP) to attend a workshop and was granted permission to attend by Mr. Frank Chimento, the Director of Operations. However, his attendance was conditional. He was told that he should disassociate himself from the Staff Association. He refused. Consequently, Mr. Chimento revoked the permission he gave Mr. Brown.

6 In August 1999, the manager of the company threatened to dismiss the persons who did not withdraw from the Staff Association. On the 11 ^th of August 1999, Mr. Frank Chimento asked the claimant to sign a Statement withdrawing from the Staff Association. He refused and was told by Mr. Chimento that everyone else had so signed and he would lose everything if he refused to sign.

7 On September 17, 1999, Mr. Chimento informed him that his services would be terminated on October 1, 1999 and he would receive two months notice. He was given one hour to leave the premises and was threatened with forcible eviction. He experienced difficulty obtaining alternative employment despite several applications because the defendant failed to respond or to respond favourably to the prospective employers.

8 The Defendant's Case

9 The defendant denies dismissing the claimant because of his refusal to disassociate himself from the JFMSA. It contends that he was made redundant because the company was restructuring its operations. The defendant also denies threatening the claimant and denies that Mr. Chimento withdrew his consent because he refused to withdraw from the JFMSA. It avers, instead, that it was the general manager who withdrew the consent.

10 Submissions by Mr. Burchell Brown

11 Mr. Brown submits that a court of equity must frown upon the circumstances under which the claimant was dismissed. He was humiliated and embarrassed. The court ought, to, he submits, take judicial notice of the fact that the dismissal was unfair, thus aggravating a wrongful dismissal. The claimant has been victimized by the defendant's failure to respond to prospective employers causing the claimant to remain unemployed for three years. The circumstances of the claimant's dismissal remove it from the realm of the common law jurisdiction. He is therefore entitled to the reliefs sought.

12 Submissions by Mr. Ransford Braham

13 Mr. Braham contends that Mr. Brown's contract of employment was lawfully terminated in accordance with his letter of employment and Section 3 of the Employment (Termination and Redundancy Payments) Act. He was given two weeks pay in lieu of notice and redundancy payment because the reason for the termination of his employment was redundancy.

14 He submits that the common law does not extend itself to a claim for stress and in any event, the claimant has failed to provide any evidence of stress. Further, he submits, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over matters of unjustifiable dismissal. The Labour Relations Industrial Disputes Act (LRIDA) deals with claims arising from unjustifiable dismissal and this action was not brought under that Act.

15 The Law

16 Mr. Lindon Brown has instituted proceedings in the Supreme Court and has therefore invoked the Court's common law jurisdiction.

17 I will now examine his claim against the defendant for unfair dismissal. Our Court of Appeal in Jamaica Flour Mills Ltd. v Industrial Disputes Tribunal and the National Workers Union SCCA No. 7 of 2002 delivered June 11, 2003 and Village Resorts Ltd v The Industrial Disputes Tribunal and Uton Reid SCCA 66/97 delivered on June 30, 1998 (unreported) have held that the word "unfair"...