BOJ to pay millions for unjust redundancy
THE BANK of Jamaica (BOJ), for the second time in nearly three months, has been ordered to pay out millions of dollars to a worker whose employment was unjustifiably terminated.
The Industrial Dispute Tribunal (IDT ), in a ruling handed down last month, has given the BOJ until May 18 to reinstate Leon Marrett, former manager of engineering services, effective April 21, 2017 – the date he was made “redundant” – with full basic pay up to the day he returns to work.
In the alternative, the IDT, a quasi-judicial body established to resolve disputes between workers and their employers, ordered BOJ to pay Marrett the equivalent of one year’s salary, including basic pay, clothing and motor vehicle allowance, as “full and final payment of his unjustifiable dismissal”.
The former BOJ manager will also get to keep the more than $3 million in redundancy payment he received from the central bank.
“The sum is not to be discounted nor set off by the redundancy payment made to the aggrieved worker at his termination,” the tribunal ruled.
With a gross annual salary of just over $4 million, the IDT ruling means Marrett could end up with well over $9 million. The BOJ is reportedly studying the ruling and could decide by this week its next course of action.
In February, the IDT ordered BOJ to pay former head of its Strategic Planning and Project Management Centre, Karim Kiffin, $50.2 million after concluding that he was “unjustifiably dismissed”.
INADEQUATE REMEDY
The Union of Clerical, Administrative and Supervisory Employees (UCASE), which represented Marrett, is taking issue with the award by the IDT, suggesting that it was more favourable to the central bank and that it does not go far enough to “remedy for the damage that was inflicted on the employee”.
As an example, John Levy, general secretary of UCASE, said that if BOJ elects to reinstate Marrett, it would have to fork over the equivalent of almost three years’ salary to be compliant with the IDT ruling. On the other hand, the second option would only cost the central bank one year’s salary, he argued.
“We are of the view that both options should be combined,” he said, indicating that Marrett’s preference is to return to his job.
Further, Levy said that the award by the IDT amounted to a slap on the wrist for the BOJ and, in his view, was not sufficient to prevent a reoccurrence.
“We don’t believe that it goes far enough to remedy the damage that was done. It also doesn’t put the employer [BOJ] in a position where they will not make the same mistake again, that they will not do it with another employee,” he said.
Marrett’s case was referred to the IDT by the labour ministry in January 2018, eight months after he complained that his employment was terminated by way of redundancy because, according to the BOJ, his position was not on the new organisational structure implemented by the central bank in early 2017.
CONSULTATION
The IDT, in outlining its ruling, pointed to sections of the Labour Relations Code, which, among other things, require employers to facilitate displaced workers as far as practicable, help them find alternative employment, and ensure that there is clear and timely communication and consultation.
The BOJ, in making its case, pointed out that the organisational review and the subsequent approval of the new structure were discussed during staff meetings and with Marrett individually, and asked the tribunal to find that there was adequate consultation.
However, this argument did not find favour with the tribunal.
“Consultation is not just communication on what is about to happen, it includes providing the person with a bona fide opportunity to influence the decision-maker,” the tribunal concluded, citing Section 19 of the Labour Relations Code.
Walter Scott, the attorney who represented the BOJ in the Marrett case, declined to comment on the award.
However, expressing his personal view, Scott believes the ruling will expand the range of the issues on which employers will be required to hold consultations with workers facing redundancies while having an adverse effect on the trade union movement in Jamaica.
“One of the hidden dangers I see here is that this unwittingly may lead more workers not to become unionised,” he said, noting that this category of workers traditionally does not have access to the same information and materials that are available to the trade unions.