The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

A former Grand Bahama Power Company manager should have taken 2,765 overtime "in-lieu" hours before voluntarily resigning rather than suing for compensation two years later.

The Court of Appeal, in a unanimous verdict written by Sir Hartman Longley, its president, backed the Supreme Court's dismissal "in its entirety" of the claim by Anthony Rahming for up to $285,000 plus interest.

It did, though, overturn Justice Estelle Gray-Evans' finding that the former project manager in the utility's technical services department "had failed to prove" he had accumulated 4.212 overtime hours for which he should have been compensated.

The Court of Appeal, while noticing a Grand Bahama Power Company probe into "an outrageous claim for 6,000 hours of 'in-lieu time'" in 2009, said such hours claimed by Mr Rahming in previous years had not been challenged and should stand.

Noting that 'in-lieu time' meant that managerial employees received an hour off with pay for every overtime hour earned, the appellate court said the evidence on the matter "is far from clear".

Noting that Mr Rahming's appeal revolved around the issue, Sir Hartman wrote: "The company itself initiated an investigation into the hours claimed because of the apparent inflation of the claims.

"It does not appear that the investigation was ever completed before the appellant resigned his employment, and the truth or otherwise of his claim was never resolved. But clearly there were issues which suggested the claims were not free from difficulty."

Noting "conflicting reports" by Mr Rahming's supervisors, Sir Hartman found that the Supreme Court was mistaken because the pre-2009 'in-lieu' hours were not in dispute.

"The investigation seemed to have been initiated in relation to the 2009 claims when there was an outrageous claim for 6,000 hours of 'in lieu time' accumulated that year," the Court of Appeal ruled.

"There is nothing to suggest that the pre-2009 hours were also under review and, even if they were, there is nothing to question the accuracy of the time claimed for those years." Based on the claims signed-off on, Sir Hartman said Mr Rahming was entitled to 2,464 "in-lieu hours" for 2005-2008, and 301 for 2009, for a grand total of 2,765 overtime hours.

This finding, though, proved a hollow victory for Mr Rahming as the Court of Appeal backed the Supreme Court's reasoning for rejecting his bid for between $125,045 to $187,566 in "in-lieu" compensation.

It, too, said the former managerial employee should have resolved the matter before resigning voluntarily on February 11, 2011, rather than waiting almost two-and-a-half years to July 2013 to file his compensation claim in the Supreme Court.

Sir Hartman found that the industrial agreement between Grand Bahama Power Company and the union representing its managerial staff did not provide for monetary compensation to be paid for "in-lieu" hours.

"As the judge pointed out, the appellant should have had his hours verified before leaving his employment and taken those hours prior to his resignation," the Court of Appeal ruled, pointing out that Mr Rahming was neither fired nor terminated.

"It was not the company's fault, therefore, that he was not permitted to take his "in-lieu time" with pay, although in his letter seeking compensation after he had resigned he raised the prospect that his request to take some of his accumulated hours was denied because of the exigencies of the company.

"In the circumstances, the claim for compensation for payment if a "time in-lieu" payment under the Industrial Agreement fails." Mr Rahming's claims for a $68,875 gratuity and vacation pay of $28,500 were also rejected.