CHARLES DUPLESSIS v JOSEPH CLIFFORD HARRY

SAINT LUCIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CIVIL) Suit No.299 of 1992 Between: CHARLES DUPLESSIS Plaintiff vs JOSEPH CLIFFORD HARRY Defendant Mr. D. Theodore for Plaintiff Mrs. V. Barnard for Defendant 1994: March 3 1997: March 3, June 13 JUDGMENT On the 12th of June 1992 the Plaintiff filed a t of summons indorsed with a statement of claim asking for spec damages in excess of thirty-six thousand dollars ($36,000.00) general damages and costs against the Defendant. The Defendant entered an appearance on the 23rd of June, 1992 but filed a defence on the 12th October, 1992 outside of the time prescribed by law but accepted by the Plaintiff. Facts The Plaintiff's case is that based on an oral agreement between the Defendant and himself he took up the post of General Manager of the Green Parrot Restaurant at a salary of three thousand dollars ($3,000) per month with effect from 15th March, 1992 which would be increased within fifteen days, namely, 1st April, 1992, to an amount to be negotiated; that he would be provided with free housing accommodation, free transportation and free meals. He said that he was introduced to a Mr Lenox Det lle was informed by the Defendant that he (Deterville) en the former General Manager. He also told the Court that he received the free housing accommodation, the s, but never received the free transportat s to pay taxis $30.00 or $40.00 at each occasion he attended meet of the St Lucia Hotel Association on behalf of t Green Parrot or the various opening ceremonies at dif hotels. He denied the allegations in the defence that he appli the said post in January of 1992 and that his emplovment would be on a probationary period of three months commenc March 19~2, that he was asked and he promised to the Defendant with two written references. He vehement that he was told that his post would only be made upon receipt of the two written references and free transportation and accommodation would only be to after the post had been made permanent. He further denied the allegations that during the pe od employment he engaged in conduct which would or would 1 ly be prejudicial to the Defendant's business and in parti that he had intimate relationships with a number of the female staff or seduced single female guests. Moreover, he said that the Defendant never cautioned or even mentioned any misconduct on his part. He said that on the 28th day of April, 1992 he received a letter from the Defendant informing him that his "services as General Manager will no longer be required" since "his responsibilities towards staff as a General Manager has not been of an acceptable quality and as a result staff discipline and conduct has suffered." The Plaintiff also told the Court that earned an average us $4,500.00 monthly, $3,000.00 on a Hot Dog concess and $1,500.00 from a land scaping contract. He agreed that he "more or less suggested the salary $3,000.00 EC. which he thought was reasonable the time, but it was for a probationary period of thirty days, with meals and accommodation. He concluded his evidence by stati that he was paid a salary for the months of March and April,

1992.The Defendant told the Court that he was and still is the Restaurant Hotel proprietor of the Green Parrot (hereinafter referred to as The Green Parrot) i that received at least one application for the said post at the Green Parrot from a Mr.Duplessis who then lived in ted States of America, that Mr.Larcher had a conversation concerning the employment of the said Mr. essis and eventually arrived accompanied by the Defendant at the Green Parrot. He'said that after discussions, he orally agreed (a) to employ the Plaintiff for a probationary period of three months at a salary of $3,000, that (b) the Defendant would make use of a room and kitchenette and any of the restaurant's many vehicles until after the probationary period when a definite agreement would be arrived at. He said that the Plaintiff commenced his duties and at first he appeared to be very capable and had a very good rapport wi th the guests. Soon however there were many reports concerning his conduct with female members of staff. He said that within the period that the Plaintiff was employed at the Green Parrot he was forced lito fire four ll members of the female staff; that he informed the Plaintiff of reports but he persisted in his behaviour; that wi a week following a conversation with the Plaintiff he saw latter escorting a female guest to her room and a number of the female staff standing in front of that guest's room. Arguments: Learned Counsel for the Defendant argued that the case was governed by the Saint Lucia Contracts of Service Act No.14 of

1970.She quoted Section 6 (2) of the said No.14 of 1970, Saint Lucia. Laws which provides as follows: (2) Notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, first twelve weeks of any employment under an oral contract of service shall be deemed to be employment and may be terminated at 11 by eit without notice. She further quoted Section 7-(1): 7 - (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 6, a contract of service terminated for any of the fol reasons shall not give rise to any liabili to wages (or make payment in lieu of notice):- (a) Any reason for which the employer would be entitled at law to terminate a contract of service wit giving due notice (whi shall include the following circumstances) (i) where an employee is guilty of misconduct whether in the course of his duties or not, inconsistent with the fulfillment of the express or implied conditions of his contract of service; (ii) for wilful disobedience to lawful orders given by the employer; (iii) for repeated substantial neglect of his dutiesi (iv) for absence from work without ssion of the employer or without reasonable excusei (v) for lack of skill which the employee expres or by implication warrants himself to possess. Learned Counsel urged the Court to accept the estimony of the Defendant, namely that the Plaintiff was smis sconduct as the exhibit tendered showed fore the Defendant was not entitled to pay further wages or payment in lieu of notice. Learned Counsel for the a iff contended that the of the Defendant concerning the s t Pl iff's sconduct is hearsay and should be di He that the Plaintiff should not be held respons e for behaviour of staff. He said that the Plaintiff ft the ted States of ca order to take up the post at Green Parrot has suffered loss by the Defendant's arbitrary t ion his contract of employment. a contract was breached He argued that once automatically followed. He concluded his argument by stat that the truth of the matter was the Defendant di ssed Pl~intiff for no good course. Conclusion: "Notwi thstanding any agreement to the contrary the first twel ve weeks of any employment under any oral contract service shall be deemed to be probationary employment and may be terminated at will by either party without notice." Section 6 (2) of Contracts of Service Act 1970. There is no dispute that the Plaintiff was employed under an oral agreement as the General Manager of the Green Parrot the 15th of March to the 30th of April 1992, a period of six (6) weeks therefore according to Section 6(2) of the Contract of Service Act quoted earlier the period has to as probationary employment and the employment can be t ed by the Defendant without notice. The only exhibit tendered in this case was er termination of the Plaintiff I s services which stat the reason for the termination. In my judgement, "your responsibili es towards staff as a General Manager has not been of an acceptable quali tv" and the evidence by the Defendant that he had spoken to the Plaintiff about reported misconduct on his part in the course hlS employment can only mean misconduct inconsistent th fulfillment of implied condition of his contract of ceo Section 7 (1) (i) of No.14 of 1970 Contract of ce Act. I do not believe the Plaintiff when he said he gave up sHot Dog Concession and Landscaping business the Unit States of America in order to work at the Green Parrot because he also said, "I planned on relocating to saint Lucia ter several years in the United States of America. I was to start a venture with Mr. Wilkie Larcher. It did not materialize. I came down here in January 1992 and Mr. Larcher took me to the Green Parrot. I was applying for the General of the Restaurant and Hotel. 11 It is my view that the Plaintiff had planned and returned to Saint Lucia "for a venture with Mr. Larcher;" that this having failed he took a substitute job as General Manager of the Green Parrot and therefore it is incorrect to say he suffered damage as a result of loosing the said job. The Defendant was well within the law when he wrote to Plaintiff on the 28th day of April, 1992 informing his "services were no longer required." He was paid for his services and since there was no breach of contract, again it is incorrect to say that the Plaintiff suf damage. In my judgment the action should be dismissed with costs to the Defendant. My order is as follows: The action is dismissed against the Defendant. The Plaintiff is to pay costs to the De to agreed or otherwise taxed.

SUZIE d'AUVERGNE

HIGH COURT JUDGE

Suit no 299 of 1992 D’Auvergne, J Delivered: 13/06/97