Sadler (Leonard) v Computer & Controls (Jamaica) Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Judge: Harris J.
• Judgment Date: 28 February 2005
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2005] 2 JJC 2801
• Court: Supreme Court (Jamaica)
• Date: 28 February 2005

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA

IN CIVIL DIVISION

BETWEEN

LEONARD SADLER

CLAIMANT

AND

COMPUTER & CONTROLS (Jamaica) LTD.

DEFENDANT

Miss Gillian Johns instructed by Mesdames Chandra Soares and Co. for Claimant.

Miss Jacqueline Cummings instructed by Archer & Cummings for Defendant.

EMPLOYMENT LAW - Payments - Entitlement to

Harris J

1 The Claimant's claim is for the following:-

• 1. A Declaration that he is by virtue of the Employment (Termination and Redundancy Payments) Act entitled to redundancy payment.

• 2. An Order that the Defendant pay to him his Redundancy payment by virtue of section 5 of the Employment (Termination and Redundancy Payments) Act.

• 3. An Order that the Defendant pay to him clothing allowance that became due in January 2002 by virtue of his contract of employment.

• 4. Interest pursuant to the Law Reform ( Miscellaneous Provisions) Act from January 1 ^st 2002 and August l ^sl 2002 to the date of Judgment.

• 5. Costs

2 The Claimant secured employment with Grace Unisys (Jamaica) Ltd. On March 1, 1988 as a Zone Manager. On October 3, 1995 Grace Unisys (Jamaica) changed its name to Info Grace Limited and on April 7, 2002 Info Grace Limited changed its name to Computer Controls (Jamaica) Limited, the defendant Company. The Claimant continued in the employ of the various companies.

3 In June 2002, the Managing Director and the Management Team of the Defendant company purchased the majority shares of a company called Computer Controls (Trinidad) Limited.

4 It was agreed between the defendant company and Computer Controls (Trinidad) Ltd, that Computer Controls (Trinidad) Ltd would assume responsibility for redundancy payment to any employee made redundant as a result of any restructuring, provided such redundancy arose by virtue of the provisions of the Employment (Termination and Redundancy Payments) Act.

5 On July 29 2002, the defendant's Managing Director wrote to the Claimant referring to the change in ownership and offered him an employment package. This package outlined salary and benefits for the year 2002.

6 By letter dated August 1, 2002 the Claimant wrote to Computer Controls (Trinidad) Ltd rejecting the offer as being unreasonable and declared a preference for redundancy.

7 On July 30, 2002 the Managing director of the defendant company wrote to the claimant alluding to discussions between them and to his rejection of the offer and confirmed that arrangements were being made for redundancy payments to him by Computer Controls (Trinidad) Ltd. Computer Controls (Trinidad) Ltd was originally joined as a defendant in this suit but order was subsequently made dismissing them as a defendant The defendant has disclaimed liability to meet the payment sought by the Claimant.

8 The Claimant ceased working as an employee of the Defendant Company but continued working with them, under a new contract as an independent contractor.

9 Two fundamental issues arise in this matter. The first is whether the Claimant ought to be treated as dismissed by the defendant by reason of redundancy. The second is, if he had been made redundant, whether the defendant's offer of re-engagement had been suitable and had been unreasonably refused by him.

10 Section 5 of the Employment (Termination and Redundancy Payment) Act, so far as is relevant to this case, provides as follows: -

"5.

• 1. Where on or after the appointed day an employee who has been continuously employed for the period of one hundred and four weeks ending on the relevant date is dismissed by his employer by reason of redundancy the employer and any other person to whom the ownership of his business is transferred during the period of twelve months after such dismissal shall, subject to the provisions of this Part, be liable to pay to the employee a sum (in this Act referred to as a "redundancy payment") calculated in such manner as shall be prescribed.

• 2. For the purposes of this Part an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to be dismissed by reason of redundancy if the dismissal is attributable wholly or partly to —

  • (a) the fact that his employer has ceased, or intends to cease, to carry on the business for the purposes of which the employee was employed by him or has ceased, or intends to cease, to carry on that business in the place where the employee was so employed; or

  • (b) the fact that the requirements of that business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind, or for employees to carry out work of a particular kind in the place where he was so employed, have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish; or.........."

11 An employee is deemed to be dismissed on the ground of redundancy if his dismissal is attributable wholly or in part to the circumstances outlined in the foregoing section of the Act. However, section 6 (3), (3)(a) & (b) and (4), (4)(a), (b) and (c) define cases in which the employee ought not to be treated as dismissed.

12 Section 6 (3) and (4) state as...