Lamin et al v Save the Children (UK) [2002] LRSC 1; 41 LLR 3 (2002) (14 June 2002)
MOSES K. LAMIN, JOE D. S. GBEYON, and ALOYSIUS ALLISON, Appellants, v. SAVE THE CHILDREN FUND (UK) LIBERIA, Represented by its Field Director, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE RULING OF THE NATIONAL LABOUR COURT FOR MONTSERRADO COUNTY.
Heard: May 16, 2002. Decided: June 14, 2002.
1. The assessment of an award by a judge of one month for each year of service is applicable only in the case of redundancy and not in the case of wrongful dismissal.
2. In the case of wrongful dismissal, the statute provides for the assessment of an award of up to twenty-four months salary based on the length of service of the employee.
3. The dismissal of an employee without written notice in advance is a violation of the employment contract as well as the Labour Practices Law.
4. The assessment of an award that is within the twenty-four month range provided for by statute is legal although the dismissed employee served the employer for only three years.
5. An employer is excused from providing advance notice to an employee whose services are terminated due to peculiar circumstances beyond the control of the employer or force majeure.
6. Those things which are inevitable, such as storms, tempests, lightning, war, or other agencies which no industry can avoid and no skill can prevent, shall not operate to the prejudice of those to whom laches can be imputed.
The appellants, whose services were terminated by the appellee due to the outbreak of military hostilities, brought an action in the Ministry of Labour against the appellee for wrongful dismissal and damages for breach of contract. The hearing officer at the Ministry found in favor of the appellants, adjudged the appellee liable for wrongful redundancy, and awarded each of the appellants eight months salary, plus other benefits. On appeal to the National Labour Court for Montserrado County, the liable ruling of the hearing officer was affirmed but the award was reduced to three months salary for each of the employees. The court reasoned that as the employees had served the employer for only three years, they were entitled to only one month salary for each year of service.
On appeal to the Supreme Court, the ruling of the National Labour Court was reversed and the decision of the hearing officer reinstated. The Supreme Court ruled that the award of one month for each year of service was applicable only in the case of redundancy and not in the case of wrongful dismissal where the law allowed an award to be made in an amount up to twenty-four months’ salary of the dismissed employee. The Court agreed with the appellee that under the circumstances of the case, where the termination of the employees’ services was necessitated by the outbreak of military hostilities, the employer was under no obligation to provide the employees with advance termination notices, individually or otherwise. It inferred nevertheless that the termination of employment in the instant case was wrongful, and that the appellee was there-fore obligated to pay each of the dismissed employees up to two years’ salary. Accordingly, the Court said that the award of eight months to each employee was not unreasonable under the circumstances. The Court, however, denied the appellants’ claim for da-mages, holding that they were not entitled to damages, salary arrears, or other benefits under the employment contract.
Marcus R. Jones of the Law Firm of Jones & Associates Legal Consultants appeared for the appellants. David A. B. Jallah of The David A. B. Jallah Law Firm appeared for the appellee.
MR. JUSTICE SACKOR delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case is before us on appeal from the ruling of Her Honour Comfort S. Natt, Judge of the National Labour Court, Montserrado County, rendered against the appellants. The genesis of the case is that during the March, A. D. 2000 Term of Court, this Court, in an opinion delivered on July 21, 2000, confirmed the ruling of the Civil Law Court for the Sixth Ju-dicial Circuit, Montserrado County, dismissing the appellants’ action of damages for breach of contract, without prejudice to the appellants to seek legal redress at the Ministry of Labour. This Court held in that case that “[t]he termination of the employees’ services without notice to them is a labour dispute which is cognizable before the Ministry of Labour as the proper forum of first instant. The disputes arising out of labour matters are therefore not cognizable before the Civil Law Court for the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Montserrado County. The Ministry of Labour is the proper agency of the Government, pursuant to law, clothed with the power to hear labor cases, vested with the authority to determine labour disputes, and award compensation to aggrieved employees, which ruling is then subject to review by the National Labour Court for Montserrado County.”
Pursuant to this Court’s opinion, the appellants filed their complaint with the Ministry of Labour on August 4, 2000, claiming the following:
1. one (1) month pay in lieu of notice
2. fifty (50) months salary each from July 1996 to August 2002 at US$315.00 per month until the hearing is concluded.
3. one (1) month each for leave pay.
4. one (1) month for each year served, and
5. damages for breach of contract.
On April 6, 2001, the hearing officer, Rudolphus Brown, made a ruling awarding each of the three (3) employees eight (8) months’ salary at the combined rate of US$2,520.00 per month and payment for annual leave at US$315.00.00 amounting to US$2,835.00 for each employee, making a grand total of US$8,505.00. The records in this case show that both the appellants and the appellee appealed from the hearing officer’s ruling and filed petitions with the National Labour Court for Montserrado County for judicial review.
The appellants, in their petition for judicial review, claimed the following:
1. US$18,750.00 representing 50 months’ salary arrears, up to the time of the conclusion of the hearing on April 6, 2002;
2. Damages for breach of employment contract.
The appellants also contended that the hearing officer committed a reversible error when he failed to award them damages in keeping with clause 17 of the employment contract. They further contended that the hearing officer also committed reversible error when he ruled that the April 6, 1996 crisis frustrated and discharged the appellee from serving notice on the appellants when in fact the appellee’s operations were only temporarily disrupted for the months of April, May and June, A. D. 1996.
In its petition filed for judicial review, the petitioner con-tended, as follows:
1. That the hearing officer at the Ministry of Labour erred when he awarded the three (3) employees the total of US$8,505.00 without sufficient justification under the facts and circumstances presented in the case.
2. That the hearing officer also erred when he adjudged the appellee liable for wrongful redundancy which was never filed at the Ministry of Labour and that in any event there is no action known as “wrongful redundancy” under the Labour Practices Law of Liberia.
3. That the hearing officer committed a further reversible error when he awarded the three (3) complainants eight (8) month’s salary each, since they had served the appellee for only three (3) years; and
4. That the hearing officer also erred when he ignored the fact that the appellants’ services were not normally terminated, but was the result of force majeure and that they were duly compensated.
On September 20, 2001, the judge of the National Labour Court, Her Honour Comfort S. Natt, confirmed the ruling of the hearing officer but also upheld the doctrine of force majeure. Hence, she reduced the award of each appellant from US$2,835.00 to US$945.00, representing three months’ salaries for the three years that they had served the appellee. The trial judge also held that the appellants had already received three months salaries, the same being for the month of April 1996 for which they worked, the month of May 1990, representing one month salary payment in lieu of notice, and the month of June 1996 which was their leave pay. The appellants, being dissatisfied with the ruling of the labour court judge, appealed to the Supreme Court for a final review and determination of the case.
In furtherance of the fulfillment of the requirements for the completion of its appeal to the Supreme Court, the appellants filed a nine-count bill of exceptions. The appellants also raised and argued six issues before this Court. However, we deem only issues 1, 3, 5, and 6 to be relevant to the formation of our conclusion in the case. In count 1 of their bill of exceptions, which also was the first issue, argued before us, the appellants contended that the trial judge erred in reducing the amount of their respective awards given by the hearing officer from US$2,835.00 to US$945.00. In count 2 of the bill of exceptions the appellants asserted that the National Labour Court judge committed a further reversible error when she ruled denying each of them two years wages for wrongful dismissal. In count 7 of their bill of exceptions, the appellants alleged that the trial judge misapplied and misinterpreted the principle of force majeure to discharge the appellee from serving separate letters of termination on each of the employees whose services were terminated when the appellee temporarily closed down its operations for three months, in consequence of the April 6, 1996 crisis. In count 10 of the bill of exceptions, and as presented in issue no. 6, the appellants alleged and argued that the National Labour Court judge failed in her ruling to pass upon the issue of salary arrears. They maintained that they should have been awarded the salary arrears of $18,750.00 each for the period from July 19, 1996, up to and including September 20, A. D. 2001. They therefore requested this Court to correct the rulings of both the hearing officer and the trial judge and to render the proper judgment in the case by awarding them all of the benefits claimed by them.
The appellee, who had also excepted to the judge’s ruling and announced an appeal there from, filed a ten-count bill of exceptions, counts 1, 3, 7, and 10 of which we deem relevant for the determination of this case. In furtherance of the allegations set forth in the bill of exceptions, the appellee raised and argued three (3) issues contending, amongst other things, that as a result of the April 6, 1996 crisis in Monrovia its offices were looted and vandalized, with its computers and type-writers either destroyed or taken away by elements of the various factions. Hence, it said, it was under no obligation to write individual letters of termination to all of its employees, in addition to the pay slips to which the notices of termination were attached.
The second contention of the appellee was that it did not breach the employment contract between it and the appellants when it terminated their services and paid them their benefits in the heat of the April 6, 1996 crisis.
Finally, the appellee stressed that the National Labour Court judge did not err when she reduced the award of the appellants, because the appellants had worked only three years for the appellee and therefore were entitled to only one month’s salary for each year of service rather than the eight months the hearing officer had awarded each of the appellants. The appellee therefore prayed this Court to confirm the ruling of the trial judge.
The principal issues for the determination are:
1. Whether or not the appellee was under an obligation to give separate letters of termination to each of the employees during the April 6, 1996 crisis in Monrovia? and
2. Whether or not the trial judge erred in reducing the award from eight months salary per employee to three months?
We shall decide these issues in the reverse order. Firstly, as to the issue of the reduction of the appellants’ award, we observed from the records that the hearing officer awarded each of the three appellants eight months pay totaling US$2,520.00 per person, and payment for annual leave at US$315.00 per person, making a total amount of US$2,835.00 for each employee or a grand total of US$8,505.00 for the three appellants. The records further showed that the trial judge reduced the award to US$945.00 per employee or the sum total of US$2,835.00, representing three months for three years of service for all of the appellants.
We further observed from the records that the trial judge reduced the appellants’ awards on the basis of their tenure of three (3) years of service with the appellee. We hold that the assessment of the awards, made by the trial judge, is only applicable in the case of redundancy, in which a redundant employee is entitled to one month salary for each year served, plus other benefits. This was not the situation in the instant case where the dismissal was determined to be wrongful. The labour statute provides that in the case of wrongful dismissal, the length of service should be considered in assessing an award, but in no case shall such award be more than two (2) years wages (or 24 months), as stipulated in section 9(a)( 1) of the said statute. It follows therefore that the hearing officer’s award of eight (8) months’ salary to each of the appellants was within the statutory limitation of 24 months. Hence, we are in agreement with the argument of the appellants that the trial judge erred when she reduced the awards from eight months salary for each of the appellants to three months salary per employee, representing one month for each year served. We hold that the ruling of the hearing officer awarding each appellant the aggregate of eight months’ salary was reasonable payment in lieu of their reinstatement pursuant to section 9(a)(1) of the Labour Practices Law of Liberia. Hence, count one of appellants’ bill of exceptions is hereby sustained.
The second issue for the determination of this case is whether or not the appellee was under an obligation to give separate letters of termination to each of the employees during the April 6, 1996 crisis in Monrovia. Taking recourse to sections 17 and 18 of the employment contract executed by the parties herein we find that the sections provide for the termination of the contract by either party upon a written notice, one month in case of support staff and three months in the case of senior staff, in advance of the expected departure date. Section 17 also provides for payment of damages for incorrect termination of the contract and the payment of other benefits. Section 18 of said contract provides for the payment of terminal benefits to the employees, in addition to notice such as one month salary for each year served. The basic argument of the appellants was that their services were terminated by the appellee without notice to them, and they maintained that they were entitled to damages for breach of contract, salary arrears, and other benefits provided for under the provisions of sections 17 and 18 of the employment contract.
This Court takes judicial notice of the historical fact regarding the April 6, 1996 crisis in Monrovia and its environs, which resulted into looting, vandalism and the destruction of both lives and properties in Monrovia and its environs. We agree that the dismissal of the appellants without written notice to them in advance was a violation of the contract, as well as the Labour Practices Law of Liberia. However, we observed and are convinced that it was impossible, under such peculiar circumstances, occasioned by the April 6, 1996 crisis in Monrovia and its environs, for the appellee to have issued and served written letters of termination of the services of its employees during the crisis. As a matter of fact, the appellee never anticipated the crisis of April 6, 1996 so as to have given notice to the appellants in of its occurrence. It was also impossible for the appellee to have served separate letters of termination to each of its employees informing them of the termination of their services. In other words, the appellee did not have direct control over the April 6, 1996 crisis and it was one of several business entities that were affected as the result of the crisis. It therefore follows that the appellee was unable to terminate the services of its employees pursuant to the employment contract because the said termination was not normal but abrupt under the facts and circumstances in this case. In the case Steinberg v. Grey-wood, [1916] LRSC 7; 2 LLR 238 (1916), text at page 240, this Court held:
“Those things which are inevitable, such as storms, tempests, lightning, war or other agencies which no industry can avoid, no skill can prevent shall not operate to the prejudice of those to whom no laches can be imputed.”
As the appellee could neither avoid nor prevent the crisis in Monrovia and its environs, it could not have terminated the services of its employees in accordance with the contract under the difficult circumstances of the April 6, 1996 crisis. The employees are not entitled to the damages for breach of contract, salary arrears and other benefits under the employment contract for the reasons therein stated.
Wherefore, and in view of the foregoing, this Court holds that the judgment of the National Labour Court is hereby reversed in so far as it relates to the reduction of the hearing officer’s award to the appellants, and that the ruling of the hearing officer of the Ministry of Labour that appellants be paid the aggregate of eight (8) months’ salary and their accrued leave pay is hereby affirmed. The Clerk of this Court is hereby ordered to send a mandate to the court below informing the judge presiding therein to resume jurisdiction over the case and give effect to this opinion. Costs are ruled against the appellee. And it is hereby so ordered.
Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.