Jomah v Her Honor Natt et al. LRSC 17 (2015)

3. Denial of transportation compensation (April- September 2008);

6. Relieving me of my post in September, 2008, without prior notification and also not paying my current salary for September, 2008; and,

7. Refusing to transport me back to Monrovia where he had taken me from.

2. That the Co-Respondent Hearing Officer failed to properly adhere to the Labor Law and adequately interpret the nature of the dismissal of petitioner petition based purely on Administrative reasons, which is tantamount to Unfair Labor Practices but the Co-Respondent Hearing Officer failed to adhere to the nature of the dismissal of the petitioner and therefore judicial review will lie in order to set the record straight, because the Co-Respondent failure and neglect to present documentary evidence at the investigation and hence the ruling of the Co­ Respondent Hearing Officer should be denied, set aside, and reversed in the interest of transparent justice. (See copies of minutes and ruling hereto attached and marked as exhibit P/1 in bulk to form a cogent part of this petition).

3. That the Co-Respondent Hearing Officer, contrary to the Labor law as practiced in this jurisdiction and the fact that the Petitioner was employed in Monrovia by the Co-Respondent Management of WAT Estate through its Attorney-in-Fact, Michael T. Morgan, and transferred to Cape Palmas to work and following his wrongful dismissal, instituted an Action of Unfair Labor Practices against the Co­ Respondent Management of WAT Estate through its Attorney- in- Fact, Michael T. Morgan, in Monrovia where the employment contract was consummated between the parties or where the petitioner was originally employed and therefore, territorial jurisdiction will not suffice as evoked by the Co-Respondent Management ofWAT Estate through its Attorney- in- Fact, Michael T. Morgan, for reason that petitioner only performed duties in Cape Palmas. (See copy of the employment letter dated April 10, 2008, under the signature of Co-Respondent Michael Tubman Morgan hereto attached and marked as exhibit P/2.) And therefore judicial review will lie to reverse the baseless and unfounded ruling of the Co-Respondent Hearing Officer.

5. That the assertions by Michael Tubman Morgan, WAT Estate’s administrator that “…[after] a review of your probational period, I regret to inform you that WAT farm cannot grant you full employment at this time due to administrative reason”. This assertion is completely moot for reason that the employment period of petitioner from April 10, 2008 to September 5, 2008 is far and beyond the statutory requirement of probation. (See exhibit P/3 at count five (5) supra).

6. That the Co-Respondent Hearing Officer’s failure to observe that Petitioner was employed in Monrovia by the Administrator of the WAT Estate, Mr. Michael Tubman Morgan, also Attorney- in- Fact resident in Monrovia and additionally the Ministry of Labor located in Monrovia, as administrative headquarters of all labor matters cannot be assumed and/or predicted that the action filed in the Division of Labor Standards, Ministry of Labor by the petitioner is defective and therefore, the ruling of the Co-Respondent Hearing Officer being vague and not in keeping with the Labor Practices Law should be denied and dismissed and the Petitioner be given his rightful entitlements by the Co-Respondent Michael Tubman Morgan, WAT Estate Administrator and Attorney-in- Fact, in keeping with the attached Power of Attorney executed in Montserrado County, Monrovia, Liberia and hence judicial review will lie to overturn the ruling of the Co-respondent Hearing Officer.

WHEREFORE AND IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING facts and circumstances, your petitioner most respectfully prays this Honorable Court and Your Honor to reverse Co­ respondent Reginald W. Doe, Hearing Officer’s ruling and grant unto your humble Petitioner any and or other relief as shall be just and proper in the interest of transparent justice.

On June 30, 2009, arguments were heard in the case and on September 11, 2009, Her Honor Comfort S. Natt, Judge of the National Labor Court, entered final ruling. She held that although the employment contract of the appellant was consummated in Monrovia, his assignment was in Pleebo, Maryland County, where he resided and worked. The Judge further held that “it is in Maryland County that he was dismissed and all witnesses who are to testify in [his) case reside.” Judge Natt therefore concurred with the ruling of the Hearing Officer that this case should be heard in Pleebo, Maryland County.

1. That as to Your Honor’s entire ruling confirming and affirming the ruling of the Hearing Officer, Appellant says that the said ruling/ final judgment was made contrary to law, practice and procedures in this jurisdiction and therefore despite Appellant’s Counsel’s convincing argument pro et con that the Appellee wrongfully dismissed the Appellant under the pretense of smoke scheme of Administration Reasons, applying the wrong rules against Appellant, citing the lack of jurisdiction, of which the contract for the employment of Appellant was consummated in Montserrado County, Liberia, and hence, Your Honor erred in confirming and affirming the ruling of the Hearing Officer of the Ministry of Labor, [to] which Appellant excepts and renders [this] Bill of Exceptions for Your Honor’s approval.

2. That your Honor seriously erred when you rendered final judgment/ruling in the case at bar, relying on the same jurisdictional issue raised by the Appellee/Respondent at the Ministry of Labor, which did not properly handled the case, and was neither supported by the evidence adduced at the trial nor the Labor Law controlling in this jurisdiction coupled with the fact that the hearing officer’s own findings of the fact wrongly dismissing the Unfair Labor Practices case of the Petitioner needed proper judicial review, but Your Honor [has] confirmed the jurisdictional contention and upheld the ruling of the Labor Ministry, hence the said ruling being vague and not in keeping with the Labor Practices Law is a reversible error, hence [this bill] of exceptions.

3. That Your Honor further erred after the Appellee/Respondent admitted that petitioner was employed in Monrovia, Montserrado County, and seconded in Pleebo, Maryland County and the head office of the employer is located in Montserrado County, but the Hearing Officer contrary to the Labor Practices Law in this jurisdiction wrongfully dismissed the Petition under the principle of Administrative Reason, which facts and circumstances were not carefully examined by your Honor, which of course are contrary to the Labor Law and hence,[this bill] of exceptions.

4. That your Honor entire ruling is a travesty of justice and a legal blunder which if allowed to stand will make mockery of the Labor Practices Law of Liberia, for reason that Petitioner was dismissed as per letter dated September 5, 2008, under the signature of Co-Respondent, Michael T. Morgan, WAT Estates Administrator for administrative reasons, which is contrary to the Labor Practices Law in this jurisdiction and the Co-Respondent Hearing Officer and Your Honor refused to consider and observe the legal blunder as contained in the letter of dismissal of petitioner, but rather dismissed the case on jurisdictional ground, which is a reversible error on your Honor’s part. Hence, this bill of exceptions.

5. And also because Appellant says for all sundry exceptions made to Your Honor’s erroneous ruling and decisions which are now matter of court’s records constituting strong basis for [this bill of exceptions] Appellant now files same for Your Honor’s approval pursuant to the doctrine of appeal.

WHEREFORE AND IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the appeal is hereby denied without prejudice to the appellant to file his complaint at the proper forum, same being, Maryland County, if the appellant elects to do. The Clerk of this Court is hereby ordered to send a mandate to the National Labor Court to resume jurisdiction over this case to give effect to this judgment. And it is so ordered.