UNITED STATES TRADING COMPANY REDUNDANT WORKERS, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES TRADING COMPANY MANAGEMENT, Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, MONTSERRADO COUNTY.

Heard: May 1 & 2, 1985. Decided: June 21, 1985.

1. Christmas bonus is only an incentive for increased productivity and maximum production for profit made in the succeeding year. Thus, where a company faces out because of economic reasons and thereby expects nothing in terms of profits at the end of the succeeding year, it is not compelled to pay Christmas bonus to its employees.
2. Where a contract is concluded between the employer and its employee for an indefinite period, the employer has the right to dismiss the employee on condition that it gives the employee two weeks written notice in the case of a non-salaried employee and four weeks’ written notice in the case of a salaried employee, or payment in lieu of such notice.
3. The period of notice required under the statute for dismissal of an employee begins to run on the first day of the period next following that in which the notice is served.
4. Under the policy of the government, an employee who is declared redundant is entitled to one month’s salary for each year of service with the employer.
5. Workers who are up for retirement and who have served long enough to shortly be entitled to retirement, but who are declared redundant, are entitled to retirement pay, but they are not entitled to both retirement and redundancy pay.
6. Where a worker who is entitled to retirement is declared redundant, the redundancy pay made to him should be deducted from the retirement pay to which he is entitled.

The appellant, former workers of the appellee company who had been declared redundant, brought an unfair labor practice suit in the Ministry of Labour against their former employer. Among other things, the employees claimed entitlement to Christmas bonus, insurance benefits, overtime pay, medical benefits, three month’s pay in lieu of notice, three months’ salary for each year of service, 50% fringe benefits, and retirement for those workers who were due for or near retirement stage. The hearing officer heard the complaint and dismissed the entire claims, holding the same to be un-meritorious.
On appeal to the Board of General Appeals, the Board modified the ruling of the hearing officer as follows: That the workers were entitled to 50% of the year-end Christmas bonuses as they had served over half of the year and because they were not responsible for the redundancy; that as the notice of redundancy was irregular, the workers were entitled to pay for the unexpired period in which the notice should have taken effect, but not for a three months period as the workers had demanded; that the workers were entitled to one month’s pay for each year of service with the appellee company; and that as to those workers who had reached their retirement age, they should be paid five years’ salary, while those who were nearing retirement or pension stage should be paid three years’ salary.
The appellee, not being satisfied with the ruling of the Board, appealed the case to the Circuit Court for the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Montserrado County. The judge of the circuit court held that the Board had erred in its ruling. He therefore reversed the Board’s ruling and reinstated the ruling of the hearing officer. Whereupon the workers, appellants herein, appealed the matter to the Supreme Court for a final deter-mination.
The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s dismissal of the appellant’s claims, and reinstated certain aspects of the decision of the Board of General Appeals. The Court agreed with the Board that under the labour policy of the government, the appellants were entitled to redundancy pay of one month’s salary for each year of service. The Court also opined that the appellee had violated section 1508 of the Labor Law with regards to notice. It held therefore that the appellee manage-ment should pay for the notice period.

Moreover, the Court sustained the Board’s position that those workers who had reached retirement age be paid five years’ salary while those who were near retirement age be paid three years’ salary. But the Court noted that since the appellant company had already paid the employees their redundancy pay, the amount paid to them should be deducted from the total amount due in accordance with its determination.
The Court however denied the appellants’ claim to entitlement to Christmas bonus, holding that bonuses are given as incentives for productive work in the future, and that as the redundancy precluded such future productivity, the employees were not entitled to such bonuses.
Finally, because the appellee company had argued that it had paid to the redundant employees one month in lieu of the notice period and one month for each year of service, the Court remanded the case to the Ministry of Labour for further evidence to determine if the notice and redundancy pay had been made as claimed by the appellee company to quantify the decision into dollars and cents, and to make the deductions stipulated in the Court’s opinion.

Joseph W. Andrews appeared for the redundant workers/ appellants. S Raymond Horace, Sr. and S. Raymond Horace, Jr. of the Horace and Horace Law Firm appeared for the appellee.

MR. JUSTICE SMITH delivered the opinion of the Court.

The redundant workers of the United States Trading Company (USTC), on February 23, 1981 filed a complaint with the Ministry of Labour, claiming entitlement to certain compensation and unpaid benefits. A judicial review of the administrative decision of the Board of General Appeals was sought by the management of USTC and the workers, both of whom appealed from the decision of the Board to the Civil Law Court for the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Montserrado County. Unfortunately for the workers, their petition for judicial review was filed out of statutory time. Consequently, it was dismissed by the court below, leaving only the petition of the management of USTC to be heard. The decision of the Board was reversed by the court below and the workers’ claims were dismissed. Whereupon, the case travelled to this Court of final review on an appeal perfected by the workers.

We observe from the records on appeal that the workers, in their complaint, claimed entitlement to several benefits which we herewith list substantially, as follows:

1. Transportation allowance during employment;
2. Housing allowance during the period of their employ-ment;
3. Insurance benefits under USTC’s Procedure Manual G-46F and B from USTC head office; Akron, Ohio, USA.
4. Over-time pay
5. Special bonus
6. Medical facility
7. Three months’ pay in lieu of notice
8. Three months’, salary for each year of service
9. Goodwill compensation to each redundant worker
10. 10. Fifty percent (50%) fringe benefit according to the plan adopted by USTC head office, Akron, USA; and
11. 11. Pension for the workers who were eligible for pen-sion.

The hearing officer heard the complaint and dismissed the entire claims of the workers, holding, in essence, that said claims were un-meritorious and that they had already received their just entitlements during the redundancy exercise. The workers appealed from this ruling to the Board of General Appeals which heard the appeal and modified the ruling of the hearing officer. In its decision modifying the ruling of the hearing officer, the Board observed that there was already a policy of the management to pay Christmas bonus to its workers at the end of each year, and that since the redundancy was not caused by the workers, and they having served the company for over half of the year, they were entitled to fifty percent (50%) of the bonus which they usually received at the end of each year.

On the question of three months’ pay in lieu of notice, the Board found that notice to the workers was irregularly given because it was given on May 20, 1980, which was a non-pay day of the month, and hence in violation of section 1508 of the Labour Practices Law, subsections 3 and 4. Therefore, the Board said, the workers were entitled to receive pay for the unexpired period of May and not three months’ pay as claimed by the workers.
As to the question of three months’ redundancy pay for each year of service as claimed by the workers, the Board, in its decision found that under the policy of the Ministry of Labour, redundancy pay is one month’s salary for each year of service and not three months’ salary as claimed by the workers. Therefore, the Board held, the redundant workers were entitled to only one month’s salary for each year of service.
The Board also found and ruled that 14 of the complaining workers were approaching their pension stage, they having worked for the company 20-24 years, and that four other workers had reached or passed their pension stage, having worked for the company for 25-27 years. All of these workers were affected by the redundancy exercise. The Board therefore ruled that the fourteen redundant workers should each receive three years’ salary in lump sum and the other four workers should each receive five years’ salary each, in keeping with Title 19, section 9(2) of the Labour Practices Law. The Board also found that all the other claims of the workers were not supported by any evidence, policy or agreement between the management and the workers, and it therefore dismissed the said claims as being un-meritorious. In summary, the Board found and sustained four of the claims, namely:

1. Fifty percent (50%) of the Christmas bonus for 1980 ;

2. The unexpired pay period in May 1980, in lieu of notice;

3. One month’s salary for each year of service with the company as redundancy pay; and

4. Three years’ salary for each of the 14 redundant workers listed in the decision as having worked for the management for 20-24 years, that is, they were nearing their pension stage and had to be redundant; and five years’ salary for each of the four redundant workers listed in the Board’s decision who had worked for the company for 25-27 years, that is, they had worked over their pension period but had to be redundant.

As stated earlier, the Board also found that there was no evidence to support the other claims of the workers, as contained in their complaint, and hence they were dismissed as being un-meritorious. Accordingly, the only point of appeal that is before this Court is the dismissal by the court below of the claims as awarded by the Board of General Appeals and as enumerated supra. It is worth noting that the dismissal of those claims by the Board was based on questions of fact. The Board found that there was no evidence to sustain the claims, which determination of an administrative agency on judicial review the Court must regard as being conclusive. Hence we shall address ourselves only to the award of the Board and the judg-ment of the court dismissing the same. See the case Johnson v. Lamco J. V. Operating Company, 31 LLR __ (1983) and 73 C. J. S., § 223, Substantial Evidence, pp. 588-590.
From an examination of the judgment of the court below, we discovered that although the trial judge dismissed the workers’ petition for judicial review for late filing, and only heard the petition filed by the management of USTC, both parties having appealed from the Board’s decision, that is, the management appealing against the award, listed supra, and the workers having appealed against the dismissal of the other claims listed in their complaint, yet the trial judge reviewed the entire claims of the workers and concluded in his ruling as follows:

“Wherefore, and in view of the foregoing, the petition of the management of the United States Trading Com-pany (USTC) is hereby granted. This court hereby affirms and confirms the ruling of the hearing officer dated the 23rd day of September, A. D. 1981, dismissing the complaint of the complainants. Further, the court hereby reverses the decision of the Board of General Appeals which held that the management of USTC is liable to the redundant workers for the payment of the claims con-tained in their said complaint. Costs in these proceedings are to be assessed against the USTC redundant workers as respondents. AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

Given under my hand in open court this 9th day of May, A. D. 1984.

/s/ J. Kennedy Belleh ASSIGNED CIRCUIT JUDGE PRESIDING”.
We read through the lengthy ruling of the trial judge but were unable to find the legal basis for the reversal of the Board of General Appeals’ decision awarding the pay in lieu of notice, redundancy pay and three and five years’ salaries for fourteen workers who were near the retirement age, and four workers who had reached the retirement age when they were declared redundant.
Counsel for the appellee management strongly argued that Christmas bonus is a gratuity which no worker has the right to demand. Although the payment of Christmas bonus to the employees was an established policy of the company, which benefit they enjoy year after year, it is our opinion that the payment of Christmas bonus as a policy adopted by many companies is not intended to compensate for work already done and paid for during the year. The ultimate purpose for this gratuity is intended to develop the attitude vault of the worker to want to work harder during the succeeding year. Thus, Christmas bonus being an incentive for increased productivity and maximum production for profit in the succeeding year, where the company faces out because of economic reason and thereby expects nothing in terms of profit at the end of the succeeding year, it is but fair not to pay the Christmas bonus, and we so hold.
As regards the award for the unexpired period in May 1980 in lieu of notice, it has been shown that notice of the redundancy exercise was given on May 20, 1980, after the pay period in May 1980 had already begun. We hold that the notice of the redundancy should have been effective as of the first day following the pay in May 1980, as provided by the Labour Practices Law, which we herewith quote:

“Where the contract is concluded between the employer and the employee for an indefinite period, the employer shall have the right to dismiss the employee on condition that he gives him two weeks’ written notice in the case of non-salaried employee and four weeks’ written notice in the case of salaried employee or payment in lieu of such notice,

The period of notice shall begin to run on the first day of the pay period next following that in which the notice was served.” See Labour Practices Law, 18-A: 1508, par. 3 and 4.
It is our holding therefore that the notice not having been given as provided by statute, the Board’s decision was proper and on the point. However, the management argued that payment was made to the workers for the entire month of May 1980, which counsel for the workers denied during argument before us. It is not clear to us whether any payroll for the month of May 1980 was offered as evidence on the part of the management; nor was it clarified as to whether or not the workers did receive the notice pay, since only one witness testified on behalf of the workers. Moreover, the decision of the Board mentioned no sum certain in terms of dollars and cents to render this aspect of the award enforceable.

The question of one month’s redundancy salary for each year of service is a policy of government which this Court upheld in the case Firestone Plantations Company v. Berry, 30 LLR __ (1982). In a letter addressed to management by the Ministry of Labour, as found in the records on appeal, Minister Fred Blay made it clear that one month’s redundancy salary for each year of service was the policy of government and, there-fore, if the management decided to declare redundancy, the redundant workers should have been paid accordingly. Conse-quently, we hold, consistent with that policy, that the Board of General Appeals did not err when it sustained this aspect of the workers’ claims. During the argument before this forum, counsel for management argued that in fact the one month’s redundancy salary was paid during the exercise, but counsel for the workers maintained that the redundancy salary was never paid and challenged management to show its payroll, or such other evidence as would prove that the claim was paid during the exercise. We have found no evidence in the record showing that the redundancy salary was paid to all the workers affected by the exercise although management maintained that such record was available.
The decision of the Board lists fourteen redundant workers who worked for USTC for 20-24 years and four other workers who worked for 25-27 years, all of whom were entitled to pension or were nearing their pension stage but were instead declared redundant. By this declaration of redundancy, those workers were thereby deprived of their pension benefits. The appellee company did not deny this fact, and argued that the workers had written a letter to management expressing their desire to receive their pension benefits in lump sum. Manage-ment, counsel says, agreed and had paid the affected workers one month’s salary for each year of service. Management contended therefore, that the redundancy pay received by the workers satisfied the requirement of the law. We are not in agreement with this contention of management because the redundancy pay was less than the three or five years’ salary, respectively. We however agree that the workers concerned should not receive both redundancy pay and the three and five years’ salaries, respectively. They are only entitled to receive salaries for three years and five years, respectively, and if they have already received redundancy pay, the same should be deducted and the balance should constitute their just entitlement.
In view of all that we have narrated herein above, it is our considered opinion that the judgment of the court below dismissing the claims of the redundant workers should be, and the same is hereby reversed. The case is remanded to the Ministry of Labour to resume jurisdiction and make clear the following so as to make the decision of the Board of General Appeals awarding those claims enforceable:

1. To state in terms of dollars and cents the total amount which each of the fourteen workers and the four workers, respectively, listed in the decision, are entitled to for the three years and five years’ salaries; and to deduct the redundancy pay allegedly received from the five years and three years salaries and show, by calculation, the balance due the workers.

2. To receive evidence of payment by the manage-ment of the notice pay and the redundancy pay respective-ly as claimed by management and denied by the workers. And it is hereby so ordered.

Judgment reversed; case remanded.