Skip to main content

Barbados Employment Rights Unfair Dismissal Tribunal Case No. ERT/2018/019 - Norman Grant vs. Barbados Beach Club

 Background:

This case revolves around Norman Grant, referred to as the claimant, and Barbados Beach Club, the respondent. The issue at hand was whether the termination of Mr. Grant's employment due to reaching the retirement age set by the employer constituted unfair dismissal or age discrimination.

Mr. Grant initially worked with the Barbados Beach Club from 1996 until 2009, when he resigned to pursue other employment opportunities. He was later rehired on December 6, 2010, as a Duty Manager, under an oral contract with a monthly salary of $5,000. At the time of re-engagement, Mr. Felix Broome, the Managing Director of the company, informed Mr. Grant that the retirement age within the organization was 65 years.

Both parties agreed that the employment was initially intended for a two-year period. However, without formalizing this, Mr. Grant continued working until October 30, 2017.

Legal Developments:

On January 1, 2013, the Employment Rights Act 2012 (the Act) came into effect, leading the respondent to hire a Human Resources Consultant to advise on compliance with the legislation, including the need for written employment contracts.

According to Mr. Broome's Witness Statement, Mr. Grant received a contract on May 12, 2014, which specified his employment commencement date as December 6, 2010, and mentioned that the official retirement age for employees was 65. Mr. Grant was asked to acknowledge and agree to the contract by signing and returning it.

While Mr. Grant disputed receiving the May 12, 2014 letter, he acknowledged receiving a letter on August 31, 2014, which contained similar terms regarding the official retirement age. However, he did not sign this letter and did not communicate his concerns about the retirement age to Mr. Broome or the company.

Dismissal and Legal Claims:

Mr. Grant claimed that he was abruptly terminated on October 30, 2017, with Mr. Broome informing him that he had reached the company's retirement age of 65. He was only paid his accrued vacation pay upon termination. He filed a claim of unfair dismissal on November 1, 2017, which was referred to the Tribunal on March 20, 2018.

During the Tribunal hearing, Mr. Grant confirmed the contents of his Witness Statement. He mentioned that except for one individual, he had no recollection of other employees leaving the company in the years leading up to 2017 and was unaware of the reasons for their departure.

Mr. Broome, in his evidence, stated that employees who left the company in 2013, 2014, and 2015 did so when they reached the age of 65. This statement was not contested.

Legal Considerations:

The Tribunal needed to consider two provisions of the Employment Rights Act. Section 29(1) required the employer to demonstrate a legitimate reason for dismissal, and it had to fall within specific categories, or be another substantial reason justifying the dismissal. Section 30(1)(c)(xi) pertained to age discrimination as a basis for dismissal.

The Decision:

The Tribunal found that the Act's provisions did not apply to this private sector case as they were primarily relevant to the public sector. It was evident that Mr. Grant was aware of the company's stance on retirement age since 2010, and he should have initiated a discussion about the retirement age if he disagreed.

The Tribunal concluded that Mr. Grant was not unfairly dismissed, and there was no age discrimination. However, it noted that the company had not been generous in providing notice about relying on the retirement age for dismissal. Thus, the Tribunal awarded Mr. Grant one month's salary in lieu of notice, totaling $5,000, to be paid within 30 days of the decision.

Conclusion:

In this case, the Tribunal determined that Mr. Grant's dismissal based on reaching the company's retirement age was not unfair or discriminatory. It highlighted the importance of open communication between employees and employers concerning contractual terms, including retirement age, to avoid disputes.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Employee Goes Berserk and Explodes at the Rubis Coverley Service Station Pump in Barbados: Was This a Preventable Workplace Breakdown?

Image
A Workplace Commentary on the Rubis Coverley Incident By  Peter MacD Earle BSc, LLM, Employment Law Consultant On Friday, May 17, 2025, Barbadians awoke to disturbing news involving the aftermath of a workplace conflict that escalated dramatically. Daniel Arnold Vincent Belle, 38, a former employee of the Rubis Coverley gas station in Christ Church, appeared in the District “B” Magistrates’ Court and admitted to causing extensive damage to the station—an estimated $7,000 worth—just days after his dismissal from the company. The incident involved the smashing of a glass door, breaking two windows, damaging a display unit, and tearing off seven fuel pump nozzles. Surveillance footage led to Belle’s arrest in Oistins. While this act of destruction was clearly criminal, the context in which it occurred raises serious concerns about workplace conflict, employer responsibilities, and the role of mental health in employment relations. . Let me be clear from the outset: I do not have any a...
Read more

Barbados' Minimum Wage Time Bomb: Are Businesses Being Set Up to Fail?

Image
   Peter MacD Earle BSc, LLM Employment Law Leicester De Montfort Law School Effective June 1, 2025, Barbados will implement a new minimum wage of $420 per week, a 23.5% increase from the current $340. In addition, legislation proposes an automatic 2% annual wage increase starting in January 2026. But beneath this progressive façade lies a stark, structural truth: Barbados has neither the machinery to enforce the law nor the political will to protect the most vulnerable. While this policy signals social justice on paper, in practice it could collapse under its own contradictions—and set workers, employers, and the economy up for failure. ________________________________________ The Illusion of Legal Protection While the government trumpets the wage hike as a win for working-class families, Barbados remains woefully unequipped to enforce the new standard. Consider: • Thousands of workers never received the current $340 minimum wage. • Many will not receive the new $420 rate...
Read more

Former BWA Boss in Barbados Fired from WASA After $13.4M Plan Collapses

Image
  By Peter MacD Earle BSc. LLM | Employment Law Consultant | June 2025 From BWA to WASA: The Rise and Fall of Keithroy Halliday St. Kitts-born Keithroy Halliday was appointed General Manager of the Barbados Water Authority (BWA) on February 15, 2017, bringing a strong track record in strategic leadership and regional public sector reform. Over the next seven years, he would become a defining figure in the BWA’s modernization efforts—managing national emergencies such as the South Coast sewage crisis and spearheading an island-wide mains replacement initiative. By 2020, Halliday had risen to Acting Chief Executive Officer, a role he held during a period of deep organizational restructuring. His resignation in August 2024 marked the end of a significant chapter in the BWA’s evolution—and the beginning of a controversial new role abroad as CEO of Trinidad and Tobago’s Water and Sewerage Authority (WASA), from which he would be abruptly dismissed less than a year later amid sweeping po...
Read more