The Tribune

By NICO SCAVELLA

Tribune Staff Reporter

nscavella@tribunemedia.net

TWO former airport assistant managers are taking legal action against the government for firing them from their posts earlier this year, with their attorney calling the terminations a "clear and unequivocal" breach of his clients' contracts.

According to a writ recently filed by attorney Nicholas Mitchell, Danielle Gibson and Holly Pearce-Barrett are suing the government for wrongful/unfair dismissal as well as breach of contract concerning their terminations sometime on or about January 23.

The women are also seeking interest under the Civil Procedure (Award of Interest) Act 1969, costs, and any other relief the Supreme Court deems fit and just.

Tourism Minister Dionisio D'Aguilar, Airport Authority Chairman James Pinder and Attorney General Carl Bethel are listed as the defendants in the action.

Mr Mitchell, in a statement to The Tribune, said while it is "unclear" what the motives for his clients' terminations were, the facts as they currently stand "support the contention that the government is at fault".

Mr Mitchell alleged his clients were "further subjected" to "certain remarks that besmirched their characters to the degree that they are actionable," and which have caused them "serious challenges" that continue.

The action comes some six months after the two women were fired from their posts at the North Eleuthera and Governor's Harbour airports.

Ms Gibson was hired as assistant manager of the North Eleuthera airport in 2014. After successfully completing her initial two-year contract, her contract was renewed for three more years in 2016.

Ms Pearce-Barrett, meanwhile, was hired as assistant airport manager of the facility in Governor's Harbour on a three-year contract in April 2017.

Around January 23, however, both women were informed by letter that their respective employments were to be terminated with immediate effect.

Mr Mitchell said some three weeks ago he attempted to reach out to the relevant authorities concerning the matter, but he said it was "obvious" they have "little to no intention of accepting responsibility" for what he claimed was "a clear and unequivocal breach of contract, and for the wrongful dismissals of Ms Gibson and Mrs Pearce-Barrett."

"Ms Gibson and Mrs Pearce-Barrett, who were proficient in their respective duties, ought to have been treated with the respect of due process, where there was an issue with their performance results, or some other aspect of their employment," Mr Mitchell said in his statement.

"From the documents reviewed, it is unclear what the motive for their termination was. It has led to many assumptions, but what counsel is focused on are the facts, and the facts as they stand support the contention that the government is at fault.

"As though the magnitude of damage resulting professionally and psychologically was insufficient, Ms Gibson and Mrs Pearce-Barrett were further subjected to certain remarks that besmirched their characters to the degree that they are actionable, as they have caused them serious challenges, which continue to date."