Martin (Karine) and Others v Chairman, Board of Management Edith Dalton James High School and Others

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Judge: HARRISON J
• Judgment Date: 06 April 2001
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2001] 4 JJC 0613
• Date: 06 April 2001
• Court: Supreme Court (Jamaica)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA

IN MISCELLANEOUS

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION by Karine Martin, Karl Dunkley, Michael Brady, Millicent Williams, Carlton Rowe, Gloria Salmon, Hermine Campbell, Marva Phillips respectively for an Order of Certiorari quashing the decision of the Board of Governors of the Edith Dalton James High School to terminate their employment.

AND

IN THE MATTER OF the Education Regulations 1980.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA

IN MISCELLANEOUS

IN THE MATTER OF an Application for an Order of Certiorari by Lorna Elaine Jackson, Merle O'Beron Palmer and Marva Elaine Phillips.

AND

IN THE MATTER OF the Education Act and Regulations

AND

IN THE MATTER OF the Pensions(Teachers) Act

BETWEEN

KARINE MARTIN

APPLICANT

AND

THE CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF MANAGEMENT EDITH DALTON JAMES HIGH SCHOOL

1 ^ST RESPONDENT

AND

THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION & CULTURE

2 ^ND RESPONDENT

AND

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

3 ^RD RESPONDENT

BETWEEN

KARL DUNKLEY

APPLICANT

AND

THE CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF MANAGEMENT EDITH DALTON JAMES HIGH SCHOOL

1 ^ST RESPONDENT

AND

THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION & CULTURE

2 ^ND RESPONDENT

AND

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

3 ^RD RESPONDENT

BETWEEN

MICHAEL BRADY

APPLICANT

AND

THE CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF MANAGEMENT EDITH DALTON JAMES HIGH SCHOOL

1 ^ST RESPONDENT

AND

THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION & CULTURE

2 ^ND RESPONDENT

AND

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

3 ^RD RESPONDENT

BETWEEN

MILLICENT WILLIAMS

APPLICANT

AND

THE CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF MANAGEMENT EDITH DALTON JAMES HIGH SCHOOL

1 ^ST RESPONDENT

AND

THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION & CULTURE

2 ^ND RESPONDENT

AND

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

3 ^RD RESPONDENT

BETWEEN

CARLTON ROWE

APPLICANT

AND

THE CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF MANAGEMENT EDITH DALTON JAMES HIGH SCHOOL

1 ^ST RESPONDENT

AND

THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION & CULTURE

2 ^ND RESPONDENT

AND

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

3 ^RD RESPONDENT

BETWEEN

GLORIA SALMON

APPLICANT

AND

THE CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF MANAGEMENT EDITH DALTON JAMES HIGH SCHOOL

1 ^ST RESPONDENT

AND

THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION & CULTURE

2 ^ND RESPONDENT

AND

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

3 ^RD RESPONDENT

BETWEEN

HERMINE CAMPBELL

APPLICANT

AND

THE CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF MANAGEMENT EDITH DALTON JAMES HIGH SCHOOL

1 ^ST RESPONDENT

AND

THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION & CULTURE

2 ^ND RESPONDENT

AND

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

3 ^RD RESPONDENT

BETWEEN

LORNA JACKSON

APPLICANT

AND

THE CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF ANAGEMENT HAILE SELASSIE HIGH SCHOOL

1 ^ST RESPONDENT

AND

THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION & ULTURE

2 ^ND RESPONDENT

AND

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

3 ^RD RESPONDENT

BETWEEN

MERLE PALMER

APPLICANT

AND

THE CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF MANAGEMENT HAILE SELASSIE HIGH SCHOOL

1 ^ST RESPONDENT

AND

THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION & CULTURE

2 ^ND RESPONDENT

AND

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

3 ^RD RESPONDENT

BETWEEN

MARVA PHILLIPS

APPLICANT

AND

THE CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF MANAGEMENT HAILE SELASSIE HIGH SCHOOL

1 ^ST RESPONDENT

AND

THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION & CULTURE

2 ^ND RESPONDENT

AND

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

3 ^RD RESPONDENT

JUDICIAL REVIEW - Teachers - Termination of services - Application for Orders of Certiorari and Declarations - Whether respondents acting in breach of Education Act, Education Regulations and Pensions (Teachers) Act - Whether breach of principles of natural justice

HARRISON J

1 On the 29 ^th March 2001, I completed hearing arguments in this matter and reserved judgment. I promised that I would expedite delivery of the judgment so I now seek to fulfill this promise.

2 The Notices of Motion

3 The Applicants have moved this Honourable Court to make orders of certiorari and declarations pursuant to section 564A of the Judicature (Civil Procedure Code) (Amendment) Judicial Review Rules 1998. They seek the following order and declarations:

• (a) The quashing of letters from the Chairman of the Board of Management that were sent to the respective applicants and which purport to terminate their services.

• (b) Declarations that neither the Board of Management of the said schools nor the Ministry of Education has the power or jurisdiction to decide that the Applicants should go on pre-retirement leave or should be compulsory retired.

• (c) Declarations that the period during which they have been prevented from carrying out their duties at the said Schools should not be deducted from, or count against their leave entitlement.

4 It was agreed that the applications should be heard together since they were based on similar grounds.

5 The Grounds

6 The grounds are stated inter alia, as follows:

• "....

• (vi) The action of the said first-named Respondent and/or the second-named Respondent in purporting to terminate the applicant's services is in breach of the Education Act and Regulations and/or the Pensions (Teachers) Act.

• (vii) There is no statutory basis for the action of the first-named Respondent and/or the second-named Respondent, and it is therefore ultra vires.

• (viii) The said action of the first-named Respondent and/or the second-named Respondent is in breach of the principles of Natural Justice, capricious, unreasonable and/or arbitrary in that:

  • a. The applicant was denied her legitimate expectation of continuing in her employment with the said School until the age of retirement of sixty (60) years.

  • b. The said action of the said first-named Respondent and/or the second-named Respondent was informed by a consideration of irrelevant matters, and marked by a failure to consider matters that were relevant to the taking of the said action.

  • c. The said action of the first-named Respondent and/or second-named Respondent is so unreasonable that no reasonable tribunal could have taken the said action, having regard to all the facts and circumstances of this case.

  • d. The said action of the first-named Respondent and/or second-named Respondent was taken without giving to the applicant any prior notice, or indication of the reasons why she was being selected for compulsory retirement; or, without giving her any opportunity to present her case as to why the said action should not be taken."

7 The facts relied upon by the Applicants

8 The factual background to the applications is set out in the respective affidavits of each applicant. The affidavits state inter alia, that the applicants had expected that the letters purporting to terminate their employment would not be implemented without them being given an opportunity to be heard in respect thereof. There were also allegations that the letters did not state the reason why they were singled out. Furthermore, it was contended that there were no negative appraisals given against them and neither were there complaints with regard to their performance as teachers.

9 The Respondents' affidavit evidence

10 The respondents filed and relied upon an affidavit sworn to by Doreen Faulkner, then Deputy Chief Education Officer in the Ministry of Education and Culture. The affidavit dealt with matters concerning:

• 1. The Minister's right by virtue of section 42 of the Education Regulations 1980, to fix pupil/teacher ratios for Educational institutions.

• 2. The establishment of pupil/teacher ratios, the procedure for computing these ratios and circulation of the guidelines to all relevant educational institutions.

• 3. The Jamaica Teachers' Association demand that the Ministry implement the pupil/teacher ratios at the Primary and All-Age levels.

• 4. The restructuring of educational institutions and rationalizing the teacher supply.

• 5. The oversupply of teachers in Government Educational Institutions.

• 6. The process of rationalizing the teacher supply in affected schools.

• 7. The failure to achieve the desired results in a number of overstaffed schools.

• 8. The advice to the Boards of Management of the overstaffed schools to implement compulsory retirement or relocation of teachers and the meeting with Principals in order to bring staffing levels in line with established ratios.

• 9. The issuing of letters to teachers in several schools

• 10. Meetings with the JTA and officials from the Ministry of Education and Culture at which the said letters and programmes were discussed.

• 11. The implementation of a process of review and recommendations from the JTA which acted on behalf of the teachers

• 12. The commencement of review hearings by a Review team.

11

12 The following issues arise for consideration:

• 1. Was there statutory basis for the action of the first and second respondents?

• 2. Did the letters by their terms indicate that the Boards were acting in accordance with directives given by the Ministry of Education and Culture?

• 3. Was the action of the first and/or second respondents in breach of the Education Act and Regulations and the Pensions (Teachers) Act?

• 4. Were the teachers compulsorily retired by the Boards of Management or Ministry of Education pursuant to the provisions of the Pensions (Teachers) Act?

• 5. Was there a breach of the principles of natural justice?

13 The letters

14 The contents of the letters that are the focus of these applications are set out hereunder:

"Dear.....

The Government has commenced implementation of a restructuring policy to bring the...