Court quashes $8.5m award to manager fired for sexual harassment

THE JUDICIAL Review Court has quashed an Industrial Disputes Tribunal (IDT) award of $8.5 million, which Outsourcing Management International Inc was ordered to pay to a manager who was dismissed over a sexual harassment case.

Justice Simone Wolfe - Reece ruled that the finding of unjustifiable dismissal by the tribunal was irrational and unreasonable. The judge also found that, on the totality of the evidence, there was no evidence of procedural unfairness or a breach of the principles of natural justice by the company at the hearing which led to the dismissal of the employee. No order was made as to costs.

The company, which trades as Alliance One, took the issue to the Supreme Court after the award was handed down in August 2022, contending that the award was illegal and irrational.

Attorneys-at-law Gavin Goffe and Jovan Bowes, instructed by Myers, Fletcher and Gordon, represented the company and grounded their submissions on the fact that the employee’s admission to sending sexually explicit messages to a subordinate employee made the tribunal’s award unreasonable. They also noted that the Labour Relations Code had been followed by the company in conducting the hearing as well as the appeal.

The case stemmed from a verbal complaint made in May 2015 by a female employee that she was being sexually harassed by Alton Morris, who was in a senior position to her. Morris was alerted about the complaint and, on June 2, 2015, a disciplinary hearing was convened. Morris participated in the hearing. The complainant was at the hearing and presented text messages and voice notes that Morris had sent her. Morris was informed by a letter dated June 3, 2015 that he was dismissed.

He appealed against dismissal to the company but was not successful. Aggrieved by the outcome, Morris made a complaint to the Ministry of Labour and Social Security that he was unjustifiably dismissed. Conciliatory attempts failed and so the matter was referred to the tribunal for a resolution.

After a full hearing, the tribunal found that Morris was unjustifiably dismissed and awarded him $8.5 million. Morris was employed to the company from December 1999 to the time of his dismissal.

Goffe submitted that the award was unreasonable in a number of aspects. He contended that, based solely on Morris’ admission at the disciplinary hearing to sending sexual messages to his subordinate, his actions constituted sexual harassment. He said the tribunal failed to ask itself the correct questions, resulting in the members misdirecting themselves. Goffe stressed that the misdirection was another basis of the unreasonableness of the defendant’s award.

He said the correct question the tribunal should have asked was whether Morris sexually harassed a subordinate. Instead, the tribunal focused on whether there had been an alleged consensual relationship in the past and whether that relationship had been disclosed to the company as required by its policy.

Morris had admitted at the disciplinary hearing that he sent the messages to the complainant but at the tribunal he alleged that he had been in a consensual relationship with the complainant.

Regarding the quantum of the award, the company contended that no reasonable tribunal could have awarded that amount to someone who confessed to making sexual advances to a subordinate.

The tribunal, which was the defendant, contended that it acted reasonably within the scope of its statutory powers, the award was final and the claimant had provided no basis in law to challenge the award.

Wolfe disagreed with the submissions and found in favour of the company. The company had contended that the delay in handing down the award breached section 12 of the Labour Relations and Industrial Disputes Act. It stated that under the act, the award should have been handed down within 21 days of the completion of the hearing but was not until 467 days later.

The defendant opposed the submission and its attorneys argued that the act specifically stated that the award should be made within 21 days or as soon as may be practicable thereafter and the judge agreed with the defendant.

In quashing the award, the judge found that the company did not breach the rules of natural justice.

Attorneys-at-law Annaliesa Lindsay, Jevaughnia Clarke and Karessian Gray, instructed by the director of state proceedings, represented the tribunal.