Sandy Lane Hotel Company Ltd v Laurayne

• Jurisdiction: Caribbean States
• Judge: Hayton, J.CCJ.
• Judgment Date: 21 February 2013
• Neutral Citation: [2013] CCJ 1 AJ
• Court: Caribbean Court of Justice (Appellate Jurisdiction)
• Docket Number: CCJ Appeal No. CV 003 of 2012; Civil Appeal No 2 of 2006
• Date: 21 February 2013

Caribbean Court of Justice

Saunders, J. CCJ; Bernard, J. CCJ; Wit, J. CCJ; Hayton, J.CCJ; Anderson, CCJ

CCJ Appeal No. CV 003 of 2012; Civil Appeal No 2 of 2006

Sandy Lane Hotel Co Limited

and

Laurayne

Appearances

Mr. Satcha Kissoon and Ms. Joia Reece for the appellant.

Mr. Bryan L Weekes and Mr. Philip McWatt for the respondent.

Employment Law - Contract of service — Termination — Whether there was constructive dismissal.

Hayton, J.CCJ.

INTRODUCTION

1 This is a sad case where emotional feelings appear to have clouded rational judgment. The case concerns an action for wrongful dismissal, in the form of constructive dismissal, brought by the Respondent, Mrs. Brigitte Laurayne, against the Appellant, Sandy Lane Hotel Limited. The action, instituted in September 2004, was dismissed on 27 April 2006 in the Magistrates' Court for District “E” Holetown, but an appeal was allowed and damages awarded by the Court of Appeal on 15 April 2010 following a hearing on 29 October 2009. Notice of Appeal was filed by the Hotel with this Court on 9 July 2012, the Record filed on 9 October 2012 and a Case Management Conference held on 6 November 2012. A Notice of Cross-Appeal was filed by Mrs. Laurayne relating to the damages awarded by the Court of Appeal. This Court heard the appeal on 21 January 2013. In view of the earlier excessive delays and the clear merits of the appeal, this Court immediately allowed it (so that the cross-appeal on damages became futile), stating that written reasons would follow. These are those reasons.

2 In determining whether or not an employee has discharged the burden upon her of proving that she was constructively dismissed by virtue of a fundamental alteration to her duties, the Chief Justice in his judgment below at [17] rightly emphasised that the courts are concerned with “an area of the law that is especially fact-sensitive, how the courts decided the issue of constructive dismissal on the particular facts before them”, when applying the following correct general principles laid down by him at [18].

“First, it is always necessary to pay attention to and analyse the terms of the employment contract. Secondly, it must be appreciated that the employer-employee relationship is seldom static. As a prerogative of management an employer must be afforded some measure of freedom and latitude to make changes with a view to the reorganising and restructuring of his business. Thirdly, what an employer cannot do, however, is to vary the terms of the contract of employment to such an extent that they can no longer be said to represent those under which the employee agreed to work: Johnston v. Northwood Pulp Ltd. (1968) 2 O.R. 521. Fourthly, the test to determine whether a change in the employee's duties is sufficient to constitute a fundamental breach of the contract of employment is an objective one: McKilligan v. Pacific Vocational Institute (1981) B.C.L.R. 324 and Orth v. MacDonald Detwiller & Associations Ltd (1986) 16 C.C.E.L. 41.”

WHAT WERE THE CRUCIAL FACTS?

3 Unfortunately, in applying these principles we have no written contract to analyse, though it appears that a 4 September 1995 letter of employment of Mrs. Laurayne had been before the Magistrate, though not part of the Record before the Court of Appeal or this Court. There is thus available only the oral evidence of her contract of employment given by Mrs. Laurayne and the then General Manager of the Hotel, Mr. Colm Hannon, who had left the employ of the Hotel when he gave evidence, and the findings of the Magistrate as to all evidence. Evidence as to other relevant matters was given by Mrs. Laurayne and Mr. Hannon and also by Mr. Eric Mapp, the Hotel's Resident Manager.

4 The Magistrate's written reasons for her decision of 27 April 2006 were only provided in 2009 after she received notice on 29 January 2009 that they were needed for an appeal. Some criticism was levelled at the quality of her written decision. It did not deal with the law on the subject, the filed documents in the case not having been located, and the analysis and evaluation of the summarised evidence in the eleven page decision was alleged to lack rigour. Her fact-finding could certainly have been fuller and crisper. It must be said, however, that the law on the subject is uncontroversial and the Magistrate neatly summed up the evidence that was led and made it clear that she preferred the evidence of Mr. Hannon to that of Mrs. Laurayne, though conflicts were very few. No objective appraisal of the evidence can suggest that the Magistrate was wrong to prefer Mr. Hannon's evidence and her decision is entirely consistent with the evidence that was given.

5 In these circumstances we do not agree with counsel for Mrs. Laurayne that the Magistrate's decision could be equated with the circumstances in Lovell v. Rayside Construction Limited BB 2010 CA 2, unreported 4 March 2010, where the Magistrate had only written eleven lines in four perfunctory paragraphs so that, in dealing with the appeal, the Court of Appeal had found it was required to engage itself in the fact-finding exercise.

6 In any event, when examining the fact-finding of the Magistrate most matters are not in dispute by the parties. In October 1995 Mrs. Laurayne commenced as Manager of Leisure at the Hotel when she was qualified in Early Childhood Education. Her duties involved managing the children's programme, the pool and the tennis and fitness facilities. Extensive refurbishment of the Hotel facilities and development of a spa resulted in Mrs. Laurayne in May 2001 becoming “Director of Leisure and Spa” or “Director of Spa and Leisure”, the two titles being used interchangeably in the evidence before the Magistrate. Following the usage in the Court of Appeal we will use “Director of Leisure and Spa”. The leisure side included extensive management responsibility for a children's centre, the beach, the pool, water sports and tennis. The spa side included management responsibility for a fitness facility and for massage and beauty treatments, together with retail sales for products used in massages and beauty treatments.

7 Mrs. Laurayne had no qualifications in respect of the specialist work going on in the spa, but during the closure of the Hotel for refurbishment she had worked with the spa consultants involved in developing the spa, had visited several spas in the United States of America and become a member of the International Spa Association, attending its annual conferences. She complained that her expanded duties caused her stress. In 2002 the Hotel therefore employed an Assistant Director of Leisure and an Assistant Director of the Spa, though the latter only dealt with the aerobics and fitness side of the spa (for which she was qualified) as opposed to the massage and beauty side, leaving Mrs. Laurayne more directly involved in managing the latter side. Assistant Directors ranked as Level 2 employees reporting to their Director, ranked as a Level 1 employee. As such an employee, Mrs. Laurayne reported only to Mr. Hannon as the General Manager.

8 In June 2004 Mrs. Laurayne's salary was $10,000 per month with an annual performance bonus available of 15% of her annual salary. Indeed, she had received the full $18,000 bonus for 2003 in January 2004. Also in that month Mrs. Laurayne, together with two other Level 1 employees and Mr. Hannon, was enrolled by the Hotel in a Master's degree programme for the mutual benefit of employer and employee. Mr. Hannon stated that Mrs. Laurayne was a “very good manager”.

9 Later in 2004 there were some problems with therapists and operational issues surrounding the spa and some discussion about them between Mr. Hannon and Mrs. Laurayne. At the same time, as indicated in the evidence of Mr. Mapp, who was doing the Master's degree with Mrs. Laurayne, the two were complaining that their work for this degree was putting them under stress when considering the demands of their jobs, normally spending twelve hours a day six days a week performing their Hotel duties. It was during this period that, to improve the standards and quality levels in the spa, Mr. Hannon took the decision to employ a specialist on the massage and beauty side of the spa, which could only have the effect of lightening Mrs. Laurayne's burdens. This specialist was to deal with the therapists and beauticians on a day-to-day basis and so would take over some of Mrs. Laurayne's work, but come in at Level 2, reporting to her as the Level 1 Director. The other Level 2 Assistant Director would continue to deal with aerobics and fitness.

10 The Hotel via Mr. Hannon wanted Mrs. Laurayne to continue as Level 1 Director of Leisure and Spa with her existing salary and bonus possibilities, and continuing...