In Summary Court last week, a company was fined $3,350 and ordered to pay immediately the $7,600 award a labour tribunal had made to an employee.
Magistrate Margaret Ramsay-Hale declared, ‘I am sending a message to other employers: do not ignore the directives of that board.’
The company before her was Campbell’s Auto Repairs, represented by Attorney Clyde Allen.
The penalty for refusing to comply with a decision of a labour tribunal includes a fine of up to $2,500 and six months imprisonment. Because refusal is considered a continuing offence, the offender is further liable to a fine of $100 a day for every day the offence has continued.
Mr. Allen urged the court not to impose the continuing penalty. He said the company did intend to appeal the matter to the Grand Court and the appeal was actually lodged. It was subsequently withdrawn, but the owner of the company was not aware of that.
The company had other representation at the time, Mr. Allen noted.
After the matter came to Summary Court as a charge of refusal to comply, the Crown had been helpful in providing documents held by the labour tribunal. Once the correct status was determined, the company owner pleaded guilty.
The magistrate pointed out that Summary Court does not have power to hear appeals. Its role is to ensure that employers do not disregard decisions by a labour tribunal.
The people who sit on these tribunals are not there for their amusement, she pointed out; they are serving the public. ‘When they make decisions, employers are to respond,’ she stated.
If an employer thinks the tribunal made a mistake, that is what the appeal process is for, she indicated.
She added her opinion that the court should be slow not to impose the continuing penalty.
In this case, she considered the period of the continuing offence to be 240 days and subtracted 30 days as time during which an appeal could have been made.
The remaining 210 days she assessed at $10 day for a total of $2,100. The magistrate then asked if that were possible under the law.
Senior Crown Counsel Adam Roberts suggested that the same result might be achieved by ordering the fine of $100 for 21 days and this was done.
Because this was a first offence by the company, the magistrate imposed half of the maximum $2,500. The total fine was therefore $1,250 and $2,100.
Related Videos
