INTER-CON SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., Appellant, v. NATHANIEL B. PHILIPS and CHARLES C. TARN, Hearing Officer, Ministry of Labour, Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE NATIONAL LABOUR COURT FOR MONTSERRADO COUNTY.

Heard: April 15, 2002. Decided: June 14, 2002.

1. Where wrongful dismissal is alleged, the Board of General Appeals shall have the power to order reinstatement, but may order reasonable compensation to the aggrieved employee in lieu of reinstatement. The party against whom the order is made shall have the right of election to reinstate or pay such compensation.
2. In assessing the amount of compensation to be paid a dismissed employee, the Board of General Appeals shall have regard to (a) reasonable expectation in the case of a contract of indefinite duration, and (b) length of service, but in no case shall the amount awarded be more than the aggregate of two years salary or wages of the employee computed on the basis of the average rate of salary received six months immediately preceding his dismissal.
3. A person employed under a contract of indefinite duration who is wrongfully dismissed may be awarded up to two years wages.

Co-appellee Nathaniel B. Philips, who had been dismissed by Appellant Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc., commenced an action for wrongful dismissal before the Ministry of Labour. The hearing officer, after a hearing, held the dismissal to be wrongful and awarded the dismissed employee four months salary as well as compensation for annual leave which he determined to be due. On appeal to the National Labour Court for Montserrado Court, the ruling was affirmed with the modification that the award be two years salary rather than four months salary.
On further appeal to the Supreme Court, the trial court’s judgment on the hearing officer’s finding of wrongful dis-missal was affirmed, but with the modification that the award made by the hearing officer and modified by the National Labour Court be reinstated. The Court disagreed with the modification made by the National Labour Court, noting that although the labor laws provided for the awarding of compensation of up to two years, the award made by the hearing officer was within the perimeters set by the statute and that the award was not unreasonable, given the three-year length of service of the employee with the employer.

David A. B. Jallah of the David A. B. Jallah Law Firm and
Kemp and Associates Law Chambers appeared for the appellant. B. Anthony Morgan of the Morgan, Grimes and Harmon Law Firm appeared for the appellees.

MR. JUSTICE JANGABA delivered the opinion of the Court.

The co-appellee herein, Nathaniel B. Philips, was em-ployed by the Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc. on March 7, 1991 as a security guard. Co-appellee Philips had worked with the appellant for three (3) consecutive years when, on May 8, 1994, he was dismissed from the employ of the appellant for an alleged misconduct. On the l2th day of May, A. D. 1994, Co-appellee Philips filed a complaint with the Ministry of Labour against Appellant Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc., alleging wrongful dismissal and a refusal by the appellant to pay him his benefits. He also alleged in his complaint that he had diligently worked with the appellant management from March 7, 1991 until May 8, 1994 when his services were terminated by the appellant without any justifiable cause.
On the 27th day of June, A. D. 1995, the hearing officer, Charles C. Tarn, ruled that Co-appellee Philips was wrong-fully dismissed. He noted as the basis for his conclusion that the appellant had failed to conduct an internal investigation of the allegations made against the Co-appellee Philips. The hearing officer therefore awarded the co-appellee the below listed benefits:

1. Training fees – – – – US$384.00
2. Accrued leave for 3 weeks

US$48.00 per week x 3 – – – USD144.00

3. Wrongful dismissal for four (4) months

US$192.00 per month x 4 – – – US$768.00

TOTAL – – – US$1,296.00
On July 17, 1995, the appellant filed a petition for judicial review with the National Labour Court for Montserrado County, before its Honour Williams B. Metzger, Sr., Assigned Labour Court Judge. The appellant contended in its petition that the Ministry of Labour had acted contrary to the laws and the facts in awarding Co-appellee Nathaniel B. Philips four (4) months compensation for three (3) years of service, based on a finding of wrongful dismissal of Co-appellee Philips, respon-dent in the trial court. The appellant also contended that the hearing officer had overlooked the fact that Co-appellee Philips had already taken his annual leave which had ended on the 25th day of March, A. D. 1994, just prior to his dismissal by the appellant on May 8, 1994. Finally, the appellant contended that the hearing officer had overlooked the fact that Co-appellee Philips had signed an agreement of performance which provided as a condition for his employment that he was subject to obey all orders given by his superior officer and that he had agreed to be trained without compensation.
The appellees, in their returns to the petition for judicial review, contended that the entire petition was void of legal merits, in that said petition had failed to deny that Co-appellee Philips was wrongfully dismissed. The appellees maintained that the hearing officer acted legally in adjudging the appellant liable for wrongful dismissal as this was proven at the hearing. They also contended that the four (4) months wages awarded co-appellee by the hearing officer for wrongful dismissal was less than the maximum award provided for by law for wrong-ful dismissal. They asserted that the co-appellee was entitled to accrued leave pay and training fees, and prayed the trial court to confirm the ruling of the hearing officer, with such modification as the lower court deemed just, legal and equitable.
On the 14th day of March, A. D. 1996, the trial judge ruled confirming the ruling of the hearing officer but with the modification that the co-appellee been paid two years wages rather than four months wages for the wrongful dismissal. The appellant excepted to this ruling and announced an appeal to this appellate court. The case is now before us for review upon a four-count bill of exceptions. We deem only counts 2 and 4 of the said bill of exceptions to be relevant and we here-under quote the same verbatim for the benefit of this opinion.

“2. Because Your Honour also failed to pass upon the various issues raised in petitioner’s petition. In count 2 of the petition concerning the issue that Hearing Officer Tarn, contrary to the law and the facts, awarded four months to the complainant, when in fact Co-respondent Philips served for only three (3) years and when the labor law provides that in awarding compensation for wrongful dismissal the tenure of service is a key element to address and therefore appellant maintained that said ruling, being contrary to the spirit and intent of the law, the ruling given should be reversed.

4. Your Honour has awarded even more than the hearing officer at the Labour Ministry, in that the hearing officer awarded four (4) months etc. and your Honour has awarded 24 months or two years wages as if the wrong-ful dismissal was indeed proven. Your Honour is respectfully requested to take judicial notice of the law controlling wrongful dismissal.”

The appellant alleged in count 2 of its bill of exceptions and argued before us that the trial judge did not pass on all of the issues raised in its petition and, further, that he erred when he affirmed the ruling of the hearing officer wherein he awarded four (4) months salary to Co-appellee Philips who had served the appellant for only three (3) years. The appellant argued also that the trial judge’s ruling had failed to consider the provision of the labor laws regarding tenure of service, which it said was a key element in determining an award under wrongful dismissal.
In count 4 of its bill of exceptions, the appellant also alleged that the trial judge committed a reversible error when he awarded Co-appellee Philips 24 months wages, more than the four (4) months awarded the co-appellee by the hearing officer at the Ministry of Labour, when the co-appellee had in fact failed to prove the allegations of wrongful dismissal asserted against the appellant.
The appellees, on the other hand, argued that the trial judge passed upon all the issues raised in the petition and the returns, and that the judge was convinced from the records that the appellant was liable for wrongful dismissal. The appellees also contended that the four (4) months awarded Co-appellee Philips was less than the award provided for under the statutory provision governing wrongful dismissal, They maintained that the appellant had failed to produce evidence before the hearing officer to show that payment of Co-appellee Philips annual leave had been made, and which the appellant alleged had been made prior to the termination of Co-appellee Philips services. The appellees further argued that the trial judge rightly confirmed the ruling of the hearing officer, with the modification that Co-appellee Philips be awarded 24 months wages for wrongful dismissal, so that the award conformed to the Labour Laws of Liberia.
The principal issue for the determination of this case is whether or not the trial judge committed a reversible error when he awarded Co-appellee Nathaniel B. Philips 24 months wages for wrongful dismissal?
The hearing officer held that Co-appellee Nathaniel B. Philips was never investigated by the management of the appellant prior to the termination of his services, and he therefore awarded the co-appellee four (4) months wages for wrongful dismissal. The trial judge confirmed the wrongful dismissal of Co-appellee Philips and affirmed the ruling of the hearing officer, but modified the said ruling by awarding Co-appellee Philips twenty (24) months wages for the wrongful dismissal.
Section 9(a)(1) of the Labor Law provides, inter alia, that:

“Where wrongful dismissal is alleged the Board of General Appeals shall have power to order reinstatement, but may order reasonable compensation to the aggrieved employee in lieu of reinstatement. The party against whom the order is made shall have the right of election to reinstate or pay such compensation. In assessing the amount of such compensation, the Board shall have regard to:

(a) Reasonable expectation in the case of dismissal on a contract of indefinite duration;

(b) Length of service, but in no case shall the amount awarded be more than the aggregate of two years salary or wages of the employee computed on the basis of the average rate of salary received 6 months immediately preceding the dismissal..
The appellant contended that the hearing officer could not award Co-appellee Philips four months wages for wrongful dismissal when he had served the appellant for only three years. The appellant also argued that the trial judge could not have awarded the co-appellee 24 months wages for wrongful dismissal since the dismissal was not proved. We are convinced from the records in the case that the appellant wrongfully dismissed Co-appellee Philips since it did not conduct an internal investigation of the allegations made against him. This Court has held on several occasions that “a person employed under a contract of indefinite duration who is wrongfully dismissed may be awarded up to two years wages”. National Iron Ore, Inc. v. Board of General Appeals and Kumorteh, [1978] LRSC 7; 26 LLR 429, Syl. 2 (1977). We still uphold our previous decision in the cited case that an employee who is wrongfully dismissed by his employer may be awarded up to two (2) years wages. The ruling of the hearing officer award-ing Co-appellee Philips four (4) months salary was within the statutory amount of 24 months wages and was a reasonable compensation in lieu of his reinstatement.
Wherefore, and in view of the foregoing, it is the consi-dered opinion of this Court that the ruling of the trial judge is reversed and the ruling of the hearing officer is hereby reinstated and affirmed. The Clerk of this Court is hereby ordered to send a mandate to the lower court instructing the judge presiding therein to resume jurisdiction over the case and give effect to this opinion. Costs are ruled against the appellant. And it is hereby so ordered.

Ruling reversed.