Summary
The aggrieved workers were accused of facilitating fraudulent transactions from the remittance service of the company from an anonymous source. The company subsequently suspended both workers, conducted an investigation and convened a disciplinary hearing. They were consequently dismissed on September 3, 2010. The Union contested the dismissals via the Ministry of Labour, who then referred the matter to the IDT.
The company contended that it duly informed The Union of the investigation’s particulars and afforded the aggrieved workers the opportunity to be represented by The Union at the disciplinary hearing. It also argued that dismissals were justifiable, as the investigation included statements from various employees which found the workers had breached company policy and the Proceeds of Crime Act. The Union conversely contended that reliance on an anonymous email without reasonable investigation was flawed and against natural justice principles. It also argued that the aggrieved were unaware of any policy breaches, and the hearing was unfair and biased as the Chairman had predetermined their guilt.
The Tribunal concluded that the investigation and hearing were biased, led by the president of the company, creating a conflict of interest. It also determined that the aggrieved were not informed of the charges against them or given adequate time to respond. Lastly, it determined that the Chairman’s early pronouncement of guilt undermined the integrity of the hearing.
Consequently, the IDT deemed the dismissals unjustifiable and awarded compensation in the form of Basic Pay and Housing Allowance from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement to both the aggrieved workers.
