THE Supreme Court awarded $16,498.32 in damages to a woman for wrongful dismissal from her job of 33 years.
Justice Simone Fitzcharles awarded Bebie Farrington, a former Technical Accountant at Bahamas First Holdings Ltd., the damages after Ms Farrington alleged breaches of her employment contract after her termination in February 2021.
Ms Farrington was dismissed after rejecting an early retirement offer. The court found that her severance package, while generally consistent with legal and contractual standards, failed to include group insurance contributions for the 24 weeks of notice and severance provided. This omission led to the court’s ruling in her favor on the wrongful dismissal claim.
The dispute began on February 5, 2021, when Ms Farrington was offered early retirement by her employer. The package included six months’ salary, retiree medical insurance rates, and the option to work on a contract basis for up to six months.
Ms Farrington declined the offer and countered with a proposal for a five-year payout, citing her long tenure and significant contributions to the company. The counter-offer was rejected, and her employment was terminated on February 15, 2021.
Upon her dismissal, Ms Farrington received $39,123.72, which included 26 weeks of severance pay, accrued vacation, and an ex-gratia payment recognising her long service. However, she claimed that the package was inadequate, falling short of what was owed under the Employee Handbook and the Employment Act. Specifically, she alleged that the six-month notice period was insufficient for her 33 years of service and argued that the company had failed to compensate her fully for pecuniary benefits.
Ms Farrington’s role as technical accountant involved critical financial reporting responsibilities. The company claimed her dismissal was due to redundancy caused by changes in its operational requirements, including automation and compliance with stricter regulatory standards following its listing on the Bahamas International Securities Exchange (BISX).
Testimony from the company’s vice president of human resources indicated that Ms Farrington’s position was impacted by her inability to meet the demands of the role in an evolving technological environment.
The court reviewed the evidence and found inconsistencies in the employer’s rationale. While redundancy was cited as a reason for her dismissal, other testimony suggested her termination was based on subpar job performance.
Ms Farrington’s performance evaluations showed an average score of 2.7 out of 5, below the company’s expectations.
Justice Fitzcharles ruled that Ms Farrington’s dismissal did not meet the statutory definition of redundancy under Bahamian law. The court determined that the company continued to require the functions of her position, and no evidence was provided that similar employees had been retained over Ms Farrington.
The court further noted that her dismissal complied with procedural requirements under the Employment Act and the Employee Handbook, which allowed termination for business reasons with pay in lieu of notice.
However, the court found that the omission of group insurance contributions from Ms Farrington’s severance package constituted a breach of contract. Justice Fitzcharles ordered the defendants to pay $16,498.32 to compensate for this shortfall. Additionally, Ms Farrington was directed to select a payout option for her pension within 21 days to ensure any remaining funds owed were processed.
Ms Farrington’s claim for unfair dismissal was dismissed. The court concluded that the company had provided adequate notice and engaged in meaningful dialogue regarding her termination. The decision highlighted that dismissal for business reasons is permissible under Bahamian law as long as the employer fulfills its financial obligations.
The court also addressed Ms Farrington’s request for a bonus, ruling that it was discretionary under the Employee Handbook and therefore not an entitlement. Similarly, her demand for damages totaling $205,149.65 was rejected, with the court noting that the majority of her claims lacked legal or contractual support.
Both parties were ordered to bear their own legal costs.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.