Background/Brief Facts:
The Claimant filed a Memorandum of Claim dated 30 June 2016, alleging unfair and unlawful termination of employment by the Respondent. He sought declarations that his termination was unjustified, compensation for the alleged unfair/unlawful termination, leave pay, and salary in lieu of notice.
In the case, the Claimant was terminated for engaging in gainful employment while still working for the Respondent.
Issues for determination:
- Whether the Claimant's termination was fair and lawful.
- Whether the Claimant is entitled to payment for 20 days of leave not taken.
Analysis of the case:
The court acknowledged the general principle that an employee is not prohibited from taking on additional employment unless explicitly restricted by law, company policy, an employment contract, or a Code of Conduct and Regulations. Employees may engage in other paying jobs outside their primary employer’s working hours, such as during annual leave, off days, public holidays, or weekends, particularly in the modern digital age.
However, in this case, the Claimant consistently clocked in at the Respondent’s premises from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm on workdays. The Claimant did not clarify when he performed his other two jobs.
Court's Ruling:
The court found that working full-time for the Respondent while also
receiving salaries from other employers strongly suggested that the
Respondent’s time and resources may have been used for the benefit of
other employers. It also indicated a lack of full commitment to the
Respondent, as it would not be humanly possible to dedicate 100% effort
to multiple employers simultaneously.
While the court recognized the possibility of managing multiple jobs in the digital era, it gave weight to the employer’s concerns, especially given the Claimant’s failure to specify when he performed his additional work.
The Claimant admitted to providing supervision, consultation, and research services for MKU and Methodist Universities while employed by the Respondent.
Based on this admission, the court ruled that the Respondent had valid grounds for termination.
Court's Holding
The Court ruled as follows:
- Fairness of Termination: The termination of the Claimant's employment was found to be fair and lawful.
- Leave Pay: The Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant for 20 days of leave not taken.
- Salary in Lieu of Notice: The claim for salary in lieu of notice was not granted
- Fair Termination: Employers must adhere to the principles of fairness and lawfulness in terminating an employee's contract.
- Leave Entitlement: Employees are entitled to payment for leave not taken, subject to the terms of their employment contract.
Significance of the case:
This case underscores the importance of adhering to fair procedures and justifiable reasons when terminating an employee's employment. It also highlights the entitlement of employees to compensation for accrued leave not taken.
- Full Judgement available: Click Here
No comments:
Post a Comment