The $22,240 Mistake in Barbados: How a Copper Theft Scandal and Legal Missteps Embarrassed C.O. Williams Construction

 

Written by: Peter MacD Earle BSc, LLM Employment Law, Demontfort Law School

In the high-stakes world of construction and contracts, one misstep can spark more than just workplace tension—it can ignite a full-blown legal battle. This is exactly what unfolded in C.O. Williams Construction v. Frederick Kenmore Dash, a case that evolved from a workplace misunderstanding into a precedent-setting decision in Barbadian employment law.

At the heart of the case? A pile of discarded copper wire, a long-serving employee, and a series of managerial blunders that ultimately cost one of Barbados’ most well-known construction firms over $22,000 in damages.

________________________________________

The Allegations: Copper Theft at Grantley Adams International Airport

Frederick Kenmore Dash was no newcomer to C.O. Williams Construction. As a tractor operator with 14 years of service, he was part of a team working on the demolition of Terminal 2 at the Grantley Adams International Airport. During the project, a volume of electrical wire containing copper was removed from the site. The employer later alleged that Dash had stolen the copper—an accusation that would lead to his abrupt dismissal on May 15, 2000, without a formal termination letter or any official documentation.

Dash vehemently denied the allegations. His defense? The copper had been discarded as rubble along with other debris from the demolition. Moreover, he argued that there was a company practice of selling salvageable materials, with the proceeds reportedly shared among workers—though Dash claimed he had never personally benefited from such arrangements or even been made aware of them.

________________________________________

The Magistrate’s Court: Testimonies Without Teeth

Dash filed a claim for wrongful dismissal in the Magistrate’s Court. The case quickly revealed serious flaws in how the employer handled the matter. The company’s defense leaned heavily on the statements of site manager Jude Hutton and supervisor Denis Connolly, who reported the alleged incident to General Manager Mr. Gooding. But Gooding, under examination, admitted that he had no firsthand knowledge of what transpired. His decision to terminate Dash had been based solely on secondhand accounts.

Connolly alleged that Dash had placed the copper into his machine’s bucket and loaded it onto a truck during a lunch break. A co-worker, Joseph Hoyte, was named as a witness. Yet, no physical evidence was ever submitted to corroborate the story. Most damning of all: there was no written report detailing the incident.

The Magistrate found in Dash’s favor, stating that the employer failed to conduct a proper investigation and lacked sufficient evidence to justify the dismissal. Dash was awarded $22,240 in damages on August 8, 2008.

________________________________________

The Court of Appeal: A Second Blow for the Employer

Unwilling to accept the outcome, C.O. Williams Construction took the matter to the Court of Appeal. The appeal focused on claims that Dash had admitted guilt and that the company had acted in good faith.

But the appellate judges weren’t convinced.

Justice Williams, J.A., delivering the opinion of the Court on April 15, 2010, cited multiple red flags:

• There was no formal termination letter, nor any termination certificate submitted to the National Insurance and Social Security office.

• The seven-month delay between the alleged misconduct and the actual termination undermined the employer’s credibility.

• Witness statements were inconsistent, and the absence of physical proof rendered the theft allegation unsubstantiated.

The court emphasized that “the failure of the employer to conduct an adequate investigation into the allegation of misconduct ran the risk of not being able to prove there was just cause for dismissal.” Furthermore, by allowing Dash to continue working for months, the company appeared to have condoned the alleged misconduct.

The appeal was dismissed, and the original decision of the Magistrate’s Court stood.

________________________________________

What Employers (and Employees) Should Learn

The C.O. Williams Construction v Dash case is far more than courtroom drama—it is a landmark ruling that offers key lessons in employment law, due process, and procedural fairness.

Key Takeaways:

• Investigations must be timely and thorough. Allegations of misconduct must be supported by documented evidence and not merely hearsay.

• Terminations must follow due process. A formal letter of dismissal and notification to regulatory bodies are essential.

• Delays weaken the case. A long lag between misconduct and dismissal can imply acceptance or condonation of the behavior.

• Witness statements must be credible. Without corroborative proof, testimony alone is often insufficient in court.

________________________________________

A Precedent in Barbadian Employment Law

The ruling in C.O. Williams Construction v Dash stands as a pillar of employee rights and employer accountability in Barbados. It reminds us that allegations are not enough—justice demands evidence, fairness, and proper procedure.

As workplaces across Barbados and the region consider how to manage employee conduct, this case remains a powerful example of what can go wrong when legal safeguards are overlooked.

Was justice served? Was the employer too hasty—or the court too lenient? Share your thoughts—let’s discuss!

Need Guidance?

If you or someone you know is facing a workplace dispute—or if you're an employer unsure about your next step—don’t wait until it becomes a costly mistake. Whether you're preparing to dismiss an employee, navigating a misconduct issue, or challenging an unfair decision, make sure you're on the right side of the law.

Before you make that blunder that could cost you, contact Peter MacD Earle at (246) 238-1094 for expert guidance in employment related matters—whether you're an employer or employee. Let’s protect your rights and your reputation.