Awaiting final decision
IT will still be some time before the Employment Rights Tribunal makes its final decision regarding the case of dismissed Barbados Vocational Training Board (BVTB) employee, Valerie Payne.
At the June 16, 2017 hearing, the panel found that Payne was unfairly dismissed and concluded that she was fired over a clash of personalities with the board. Yesterday, after an almost two-hour sitting of the Tribunal, where the three-member panel under the chairmanship of attorney-at-law Omari Drakes along with Frederick Forde and Dr. Hartley Richards, heard summations and recommendation from the attorneys for the claimant and respondent, Tricia Watson and Vincent Watson respectively, the Chairman adjourned the meeting until its decision is made.
In his presentation, attorney Vincent Watson said that the respondent, the BVTB, remained adamant that Payne’s conduct was sufficiently serious to warrant dismissal, reiterating that she was fairly terminated because she was not truthful about her quali-fications. To that end, he put forward that it would be just and equitable not to make an award or a nominal award to Payne, and also maintained that she should not be reinstated or re-engaged by the statutory body. He said in respect of an order of reinstatement, it would be impracticable.
Watson explained that the post requires the holder of the post of Public Relations and Marketing Officer, and its successor, Communications Officer, to have a degree or diploma; without either, he said, she does not qualify. He went on to say that the BVTB holds that Payne’s misrepresentation of her qualifications resulted in a loss of trust and confidence between her and the board.
Meanwhile, representing Payne, attorney Tricia Watson maintained that the respondent failed to prove that her client, Valerie Payne, was fairly dismissed and maintained that the absence of a degree was not grounds for dismissal and contended that the respondent’s claims must be ignored.
With that in mind, Watson said that Payne is requesting an order for reinstatement to the post from which she was dismissed by August 21, 2017 or an order for re-engagement in a post comparable to her previous post, issued by the Tribunal. Noting that the new post of Communications Officer is yet to be filled, she further requested that the three-member panel instruct the BVTB not to employ any person in the post until the Tribunal’s decision was made. Her comments came as she contended that the new post of Communications Officer was the same as the previous post of Public Relations and Marketing Officer, and that it was simply a name change. She went on to say that a degree was not a legal requirement for either post, and that in fact the Board of the BVTB could request that the Minister of Labour waive that quali-fication requirement for any post in the BVTB.
“The claimant submits that the substitution of work experience for cer-tification is a principle widely used practice in human resources management and in matriculation and indeed, ironically, that principle is the underpinned principle of vocational training, which is the raison d’être of the Barbados Vocational Training Board,” the attorney added.
Referring to a vacancy notice with a reply date of July 2017, which was issued by the BVTB for the post of Communications Officer, Watson took issue with the notice, pointing out that the respondent was seeking to fill the position even though the matter was before the Tribunal and reinstatement or re-engagement was a possible ruling on the matter. Responding to that request, the Chairman explained that he saw no legal grounds or authority to make that stipulation, but indicated that the Tribunal would take it under consideration during their deliberations.
Watson also contended that the suggestions that the BVTB had reason to lose trust and confidence in Payne should be rejected. She maintained that the respondent had provided no evidence of loss of trust in the claimant.
“To the contrary, the evidence before the Tribunal is that the respondent was so satisfied with the claimant’s performance and conduct and so was convinced of the claimant’s ability to perform the role of PR/Marketing Officer that being aware that the claimant did not possess a degree, the respondent employed the claimant, renewed the claimant’s employment contract, indicated verbally that she would be offered a permanent position of employment and pressed the claimant to perform one of its most important statutory duties, namely the preparation of annual reports for a six-year period,” she added.
Watson added that even after being dismissed, the BVTB permitted Payne to remain for another month and did nothing to restrict her in the performance of her duties. (JRT)