ERT Decision - Roslyn Patricia Smith (Claimant) and National Union of Public Workers
In a recent employment dispute, Roslyn Patricia Smith, the former General Secretary of the National Union of Public Workers (NUPW), claimed that she was unfairly dismissed by the NUPW or that her contract ended when she reached the retirement age stated in her appointment letter. The case was brought before the Employment Rights Tribunal (ERT), with hearings held between December 2022 and February 2023. Smith was represented by Ms. Duana M Peterson, while Mr. Larry Smith SC and Mr. Codie Hinds represented the NUPW.
Smith made six main claims, including unfair dismissal, non-payment of the termination amount, refusal to provide a certificate of employment record, breach of employment contract, unfair dismissal while on sick leave, and unfair dismissal related to unauthorized credit card use by the NUPW's president.
After evaluating the claims, the ERT determined that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the issues concerning the certificate of employment record, unfair dismissal during sick leave, and unfair dismissal related to the unauthorized credit card use. This was due to Smith's failure to submit these claims within the specified timeframe.
Regarding the claim of unfair dismissal based on an alleged breach of the employment contract, the ERT carefully reviewed the evidence presented, including witness statements and testimonies. Smith had been promoted to the position of General Secretary in October 2015, but there was a disagreement over the circumstances of her appointment.
Smith stated that she never received a formal letter of appointment for the promotion but continued working based on the existing terms and conditions of her employment, which did not mention a retirement age. However, in April 2016, she received a backdated letter from the NUPW's president specifying her retirement age as October 1, 2018.
The case raised concerns about the accuracy of the appointment letter and the timing of its delivery. The ERT found the testimony of another witness to be more credible, suggesting that Smith received the appointment letter around the same time as the meeting where she accepted the position. The tribunal highlighted that if Smith held a different opinion regarding the retirement age, she should have initiated a discussion and presented evidence of protesting the requirement. However, no such evidence was provided.
Considering these factors, the ERT leaned towards the NUPW's position that Smith's employment contract ended upon reaching the retirement age specified in the appointment letter. The tribunal emphasized that Smith was aware of the retirement age of 65 and that a retirement age of 67 was merely proposed but not established.
In conclusion, the Employment Rights Tribunal determined that it lacked jurisdiction over certain claims made by Roslyn Patricia Smith, including issues related to the certificate of employment record, unfair dismissal during sick leave, and unfair dismissal regarding the unauthorized credit card use. Regarding the claim of unfair dismissal based on an alleged breach of the employment contract, the tribunal found that Smith's contract ended when she reached the retirement age specified in her appointment letter. The case serves as a reminder of the importance of clear communication and documentation in employment agreements to avoid misunderstandings and disputes.
Comments
Post a Comment