The Tribune

By RASHAD ROLLE

Tribune Senior Reporter

rrolle@tribunemedia.net

A SUPREME Court judge has dismissed the court action of Melissa Hall, a former general manager of the Bridge Authority, who sued the body in 2018 by claiming breach of contract of employment.

The judge in the case called Ms Hall’s claim that she was entitled to three years’ notice “delusional” and “a clear and rank abuse of power” adding that it was “disappointing” that the plaintiff called on then-Minister of Labour Shane Gibson to approve this.

Ms Hall brought the action after the Minnis administration ended her employment in February 2018 with three months’ pay in lieu of notice. She had sought more than $600,000 in damages and costs.

According to Justice Ruth Bowe Darville’s ruling on the matter, Ms Hall was appointed a member of the board of the Bridge Authority on July 1, 2012 and was later appointed general manager on December 14, 2012. Her contract was dated January 7, 2013. That contract specified that her employment would continue indefinitely until either party gave proper notice of its end. According to that contract, she was supposed to be given 30 working days’ notice.

However, an addendum dated April 20, 2017—weeks before the 2017 general election—purported to amend this clause of her contract to specify that she must be given three years’ notice before her contract could be terminated.

Ultimately, Justice Bowe Darville rejected the validity of the addendum, saying it does not bear statutory elements. She said the variation to Ms Hall’s terms of employment “exhibited gross abuse of power.”

“The preparation and execution of the document, ‘the addendum,’ calls for closer scrutiny,” she wrote. “From the evidence given as to the production of the addendum, the typing by Lisa Elliot, the exchange of emails and messenger’s delivery of documents, it is evident that the plaintiff was solely responsible for the preparation of the same. During the course of cross examination she did her best to explain firstly, how she prepared that draft and had it typed up, emailed it to [then] Minister of Labour Shane Gibson and on her word, passing same email with attachment to (Rory) Higgs.”

Mr Higgs is chairman of the Bridge Authority.

She added: “The court can only conclude that the addendum was not a deed and its possible efficacy is questionable. This document was not found in the human resource manager’s files.

“The plaintiff in her claim relied on the then minister’s agreement to the new terms of her contract of employment no doubt crafted by her for her purposes. Such an addendum, if valid, would have bound/prevented further ministers from exercising the statutory power of appointing chief administrative officers. Should a minister choose to exercise his powers as per the relevant provisions found in the schedule to the Bridge Authority Act he/she would have to payout the three year notice as per the addendum together with benefits. Even a blind man could see that it was a well calculated form of entrapment. What was even more apparent was the fact that the plaintiff was not satisfied with her salary structure prior to 2017 and sought to increase the same beyond measure.

“When reviewing the purpose of her employment was to achieve or further the interest of the Bridge Authority and to do what was in the best interest of the Bridge Authority the plaintiff fell far short. To have claimed a notice period of three years was delusional on her part and disappointing that she would call on the minister to approve the same and, according to her and by (Rory) Higgs evidence, he did.”

According to the judgement, Mr Higgs in a statement said that on April 11, 2017, he received an email with an unsigned copy of the proposed addendum.

“The email advised that the plaintiff had reviewed her employment agreement and the relevant legislation regarding the Bridge Authority. She determined that the minister responsible had the authority to appoint a chief administrative officer. The email went on to further say that the minister had agreed to the proposed amendment which had been vetted by counsel.

“The minister was copied on the email. Higgs went on to further state that he was contacted by the minister a few days later. In the course of this telecom, the minister confirmed his approval of the form of the addendum and instructed Higgs to attend the signing of the same,” the judgement noted.

Justice Bowe Darville ultimately found that the addendum in question was not valid for several reasons including that its method, preparation and production were not in keeping with the procedures of the board and it was not executed in conformity with the Bridge Authority Act and that there was “clear and rank abuse of power” by the plaintiff, among other reasons.