The Massy Barbados vs. Merton Forde Case That Could Rewrite Employment Law in Barbados

 

Written by Peter MacDonald Earle BSc, LLM Employment Law

Introduction

In a case that could reshape how employers fire workers across the Caribbean, Massy Stores is challenging a ruling that found it wrongfully dismissed former employee Merton Forde. The matter is now before the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), which has reserved judgment after a heated hearing in July 2025.

At stake? Whether Massy’s decision to fire Forde without notice was legally justified—or whether it violated basic principles of fairness and contract law. The CCJ’s ruling could set a precedent for how summary dismissals are handled across the region.

Who’s Involved?

• Massy Stores (Barbados) Ltd.: A major retail chain, appealing the lower courts’ decisions

• Merton Forde: A former employee dismissed in 2012 for alleged poor performance

• The CCJ: The region’s highest appellate court, now tasked with clarifying the legal standard for dismissal

What Happened?

Massy fired Forde in December 2012, citing “substandard work performance” and failure to enforce company policies. The dismissal was summary—meaning he was fired without notice or severance. Forde challenged the decision, and both the Magistrate’s Court and the Barbados Court of Appeal ruled in his favor, finding the dismissal wrongful.

Massy appealed to the CCJ, arguing that the lower courts applied the wrong legal test and set a dangerous precedent that could make it harder for employers to manage staff.

Official Grounds for Dismissal

Massy Stores terminated Forde’s employment on December 21, 2012, citing the following reasons in his termination letter:

• Substandard work performance

• Failure to enforce company rules, policies, and procedures

• Removal of spoiled fish from the store

• Alleged verbal warnings issued prior to dismissal

Breakdown of Allegations

• Substandard Performance

Massy claimed Forde consistently failed to meet expected standards in his role. However, they did not provide written evaluations or disciplinary records to support this claim.

• Failure to Enforce Policies

The company alleged that Forde did not uphold internal rules, but again, no specific incidents or breached policies were cited in the termination letter.

Spoiled Fish Incident

One cited example was Forde’s removal of spoiled fish from the store. Massy argued this violated food safety protocols, but no documentation or policy reference was presented to show that this act warranted dismissal.

To be absolutely clear during the CCJ hearing, Massy’s legal team used the spoiled fish removal incident as one example of Forde allegedly failing to uphold company rules. However:

• The termination letter only referenced “substandard performance” and failure to enforce policies, without pointing to any specific event, including the fish incident.

• The lower courts and Forde’s attorney criticized the letter for being too vague and not identifying concrete breaches of procedure or internal regulations.

So while the spoiled fish issue formed part of Massy’s broader narrative and legal argument in court, it was not officially recorded or detailed in the dismissal documentation — which became a central issue in the debate over procedural fairness.

Verbal Warnings

Massy stated that Forde had received verbal warnings about his conduct. However, during the hearing, they could not produce any record or witness testimony confirming these warnings.

Legal Challenge

Forde’s legal team argued that the termination letter was vague and generalized, lacking:

• Specific misconduct details

• Clear policy violations

• Evidence of prior warnings

• Any reference to a zero-tolerance policy

The lower courts agreed, finding the dismissal procedurally and substantively flawed, and ruled it wrongful.

What Is Wrongful Dismissal?

Wrongful dismissal occurs when an employer terminates an employee in breach of their employment contract—typically by failing to provide proper notice or severance.

🇨🇦 Canada’s Wrongful Dismissal Test

In Canada, wrongful dismissal is a contractual claim. Courts assess whether the employer gave reasonable notice or pay in lieu. If not, the dismissal is wrongful unless the employee committed gross misconduct. The test includes:

• Was the dismissal without cause?

• Was the employee given proper notice or compensation?

• Did the employer follow fair procedures?

🇬🇧 UK’s Wrongful Dismissal Test

In the UK, wrongful dismissal also hinges on breach of contract. The focus is on:

• Whether the employer gave the required notice

• Whether the dismissal followed contractual or statutory procedures

• Whether the employee suffered financial loss as a result

Unlike unfair dismissal, which is statutory and considers fairness, wrongful dismissal is purely contractual.

What Is the CCJ Being Asked to Decide?

The CCJ must determine:

• Whether Massy’s summary dismissal of Forde was legally justified

• Whether the lower courts applied the correct legal test

• Whether a new “two-stage test” for dismissal is valid or flawed

• Whether employers must provide specific, documented reasons for firing staff

Massy’s Argument: The Test Is Too Soft

Massy’s legal team—led by Michael Koeiman—argued that the lower courts used a “humanising” approach that strayed from established law. They claim the courts applied a two-stage test:

1. Was the conduct bad enough to justify dismissal?

2. Was it serious enough to justify summary dismissal?

Massy says this test is too lenient, and that the real question should be:

“Did the employee’s conduct destroy the trust and confidence required for the job?”

They argue that Forde’s actions—such as failing to enforce store policies and removing spoiled fish—amounted to repudiatory breach of contract. They also say verbal warnings were given, even if not documented.

Judges’ Initial Reactions

The CCJ bench—led by Justice Winston Anderson and Justice Adrian Saunders—pressed Massy’s lawyers on several points:

• Why wasn’t the termination letter specific about what Forde did wrong?

• If verbal warnings were given, where’s the proof?

• How can an employee defend themselves if the reasons are vague?

Justice Anderson noted that the letter seemed “generic”, and Justice Saunders questioned whether Massy had followed procedural fairness, even if the dismissal was for cause.

Forde’s Lawyer: Vague Letter, No Evidence

Attorney Tariq Khan, representing Forde, argued that the termination letter was “as broad as throwing a net in the ocean”. He said:

• The letter lacked specific allegations

• There was no documentation of verbal warnings

• No company policy was cited to show Forde breached a rule

• The dismissal was procedurally flawed and substantively weak

Khan emphasized that employers must be clear and transparent when firing someone—especially if they’re doing so without notice.

Strong vs. Weak Points

Strong Points (Forde’s Side)

• Lower courts found dismissal lacked specificity and documentation

• No written warnings or clear policy violations were presented

• The termination letter was vague and generalized

• Courts emphasized fairness and due process

Weak Points (Massy’s Side)

• Relied on verbal warnings with no written record

• Termination letter failed to cite specific misconduct

• Argued for a return to traditional employer-friendly standards, which may not reflect modern expectations of fairness

Why This Case Matters

This case could redefine how employers across the Caribbean handle dismissals. If the CCJ sides with Massy:

• Employers may gain more freedom to fire without detailed explanation

• Courts may shift toward contractual trust tests over procedural fairness

If the CCJ sides with Forde:

• Employers will need to provide clear, documented reasons for dismissal

• Workers will gain stronger protection against vague or arbitrary firings

Final Thought

“This isn’t just about one man’s job—it’s about the rules of fairness in every Caribbean workplace.”

The CCJ’s ruling will either reinforce the need for transparency and due process—or recalibrate the balance of power between employers and employees. Either way, the outcome will echo far beyond Massy’s aisles.