Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Fiji Employment Tribunal

Prasad v Land Transport Authority [2013] FJET 11; ERT Grievance 39.2009 (7 January 2013)

IN THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS TRIBUNAL
AT SUVA ERT Grievance No. 39 of 2009

BETWEEN:

BIMAL PRASAD
GRIEVOR

AND:

LAND TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
EMPLOYER

Appearances:
Mr. N. Tofinga for Grievor
Ms. R. J. May for the Employer

Date of Judgment: 7th January 2013

DETERMINATION OF THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS TRIBUNAL

1.0 Employment Relations Grievance

1.1 This grievance was registered with Ministry of Labour on 22nd April 2009. Mediation was attempted on 17th June 2009 but was not successful. The mediator referred the grievance to the ERT on 7th July 2009 in accordance with s194 (5) of the Employment Relations Promulgation 2007 (or "the ERP 2007") outlining the nature of unsettled employment grievance with the following terms of reference:-

"Unfair termination of Employment".

2.0 Cause before the ERT

2.1 In the Employment Relations Tribunal (or "the ERT"), the parties had agreed to have this matter determined in conjunction with another matter that was also registered as a grievance against the employer, Land Transport Authority (or "the LTA") around the same time. The case was: Prem Sushil Prasad -v- LTA (ERT Grievance No. 40 of 2009).

2.2 As was the case in the Prem Sushil matter, the parties in this instance had also waived an evidentiary hearing of the substantive matter in favour of the ERT determining the Prem Sushil Prasad matter first and thereafter complying with the Orders and decision given by this Tribunal in both matters as though they were to be treated as consolidated matters. It was thus mutually consented by both parties that the final determination or outcome of the Prem Sushil Prasad matter will simultaneously have the (same) effect or bearing where remedies was concerned.

2.3 On 3rd January 2013, I had delivered my decision in the Prem Sushil Prasad matter where I had ruled and given the following Orders:-

"Given that the parties have not been able to reach on their own initiative a mutual and amicable resolution viz a vis a settlement on remedies that LTA had given an undertaking to provide the grievor since my preliminary ruling dated 26th March 2012, I am thus providing the following Orders:-

1. The termination is deemed unlawful and unfair on the basis that LTA has not shown any lawful and fair cause to justify termination within the probationary period.
   
2. Accordingly, I Order three months salary to be paid to Mr Prem Sushil Prasad as compensation that should cover for a reasonable notice period or injury to feelings and dignity when he was unfairly sent home when his probationary period came to an end.
   
3. However, given the length of this case since its inception in 2009 and LTA's constant reneged position and thus prolonging the finalization of the substantive matter, I will further order an additional one month salary to be added onto the three months salary already ordered herein. This is because even if LTA had paid any salary in lieu of notice at the material time Mr Prasad's contract of service was being terminated under the probationary period clause, this cannot discount for the time wasted by LTA in concluding this matter within a reasonable period despite the Tribunal had given LTA a fair opportunity to do so.
   
4. The sum total of four month's salary shall be paid within three months of this decision by LTA.
   
5. The parties will bear their own cost."
   

3.0 Decision and Orders In this Matter

The above decision will therefore have the same effect. LTA will pay the grievor, Mr Bimal Prasad a sum total of four months' salary within three months of this decision. No cost is awarded against any party as they will bear their own cost.

Dated at Suva this 7th day of January, 2013.

LEGAL TRIBUNAL