Connect with us

Court

Judge Not Fixing Another Date For Reinstatement

NASSAU, BAHAMAS – A Supreme Court judge has refused to fix another date for the reinstatement of 17 former Gaming Board employees who were made redundant over four years ago. 

Published

on

supreme court

NASSAU, BAHAMAS – A Supreme Court judge has refused to fix another date for the reinstatement of 17 former Gaming Board employees who were made redundant over four years ago. 

Kayla Ward, Jean Minus, Hope Miller, Dwaynel Archer, Barbara Adderley, Antonique Brown, Jennifer Russell, Genese Musgrove, Meresha Walkes, Jacqueline Duncombe, Nickia McPhee, Teneile Mackey, Carolee Munnings, Inga Brown, Mazell Hinsey, Latoya Knowles and Georgette Johnson were all terminated from the Gaming Board during the period of October 2017 and February 2018.

In February 2020, Senior Justice Indra Charles ordered that the plaintiffs were entitled to reinstatement, which should take place by June 30, 2020.

However, on June 10, 2020, lawyers for the plaintiffs and defendants asked Charles to stay her order for reinstatement, pending an appeal of her decision.

But, the Gaming Board withdrew its appeal on December 15, 2020. The Court was not informed of the decision.

There was a two-year hiatus before plaintiffs asked the Court to fix December 15, 2020 as the reinstatement date.

However, Charles refused.

She said, “Even at the date of the delivery of the judgment in February 2020, the Court was concerned with the passage of time. The plaintiffs were terminated for redundancy in October 2017 through to February 2018, a period of two years. It was for that very reason that the Court did not give the Gaming Board too much time—a little over four months—to either find suitable positions to place the plaintiffs or immediately embark upon the process of dismissing them.”

Charles said if the plaintiffs had pursued the matter with alacrity, the Court might have been to fix another date for reinstatement shortly after the appeal was withdrawn and dismissed.

She said it is not a good and sufficient reason to say that there were ongoing discussions between the parties. 

Charles said an application should have been made to the court sooner even as negotiations were ongoing.

Comments
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

Trending