The Tribune

By EARYEL BOWLEG

Tribune Staff Reporter

ebowleg@tribunemedia.net

CHIEF Justice Ian Winder ruled that the government pay $1,963.19 to a former Ministry of Tourism contract worker, far less than the more than $50,000 the man sought.

Robert Forbes, the plaintiff, sued the ministry and the Office of the Attorney General after alleging his contract was breached and he was wrongfully dismissed.

The ministry employed Mr Forbes under rolling fixed-term service contracts between 2003 and December 17, 2018. He was initially employed under a two-year fixed-term contract that was extended for a year. After that, he was hired under three-year fixed-term contracts. His last position was as assistant manager in the human resources department.

The ministry first directed him to take pre-retirement leave in an August 11, 2017, letter.

However, he did not take pre-retirement leave, but instead remained to train an employee from the IT department. On February 1, 2018, his supervisor told him the permanent secretary wanted him to take his 218 days of vacation leave immediately before retiring. He was several years past retirement age at the time and did not protest.

He remained on the ministry’s payroll while on vacation. He was eventually informed that when his vacation leave ended on December 12, 2018, his employment benefits would end, too.

Mr Forbes argued that while the ministry could terminate his contract anytime, the Employment Act guaranteed him the right to a minimum notice period, which he claimed he did not receive.

He also argued that the ministry had continuously employed him, and this should have been considered when assessing compensation due to him.

Ultimately, Chief Justice Winder concluded he did not satisfy the burden of proof required to show his fixed-term contracts were one continuous contract of employment starting in 2003.

He ruled that the plaintiff was not entitled to sums for lost responsibility allowance or gas allowance and could not receive money for the balance of his contract term because his agreement was terminated according to specified provisions.

However, he agreed that Mr Forbes was not paid gratuity or compensation under section 29 of the Employment Act when his contract was terminated. He consequently granted judgment for nearly $2,000 to the plaintiff.