Banks v Eagle

• Jurisdiction: Anguilla
• Court: High Court (Saint Christopher, Nevis And Anguilla)
• Judge: Saunders, J.
• Judgment Date: 16 October 1996
• Neutral Citation: AI 1996 HC 1
• Docket Number: Civil Suit No. 80 of 1996
• Date: 16 October 1996

High Court

Saunders, J.

Civil Suit No. 80 of 1996

Banks

and

Eagle

Appearances:

Ms. Wallace and Mr. Gaskin for the plaintiff

Mr. Don Mitchell QC for the defendant

Injunction - Ex parte injunction sought to retrain defendant from terminating plaintiff's employment before Labour Dept. investigated labour dispute — Employee already suspended — Special circumstances under which court will grant injunctive relief to worker against his employer laid down in American Cyanamid case — Fair Labour Standards Ordinance, 1988, s.8 — No provision in Act for employer to retain employee for as long as it took to resolve dispute — Injunction discharged.

Saunders, J.

1 By a writ filed on October 11 ^th 1996 the plaintiff claimed against the defendant:

• a) a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to have the labour disputes between the plaintiff and the defendant resolved in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Labour Department Ordinance 1988 and the Fair Labour Standards Ordinance 1988.

• b) an injunction to restrain the defendant whether by themselves, or by its directors, officers, servants or agents or any subsidiary company or contractor, or otherwise, howsoever, front terminating the plaintiff's employment before the Labour Department has investigated the Labour dispute and made a determination pursuant to the Labour Department Ordinance 1988 and the Fair Labour Standards Ordinance 1988.

2 The plaintiff further claimed damages, interest and further or other relief.

3 Simultaneously with the issue of th writ, the plaintiff applied by an ex parte summons for an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants by themselves or by their directors, Officer, servants or agents or any subsidiary company or contractor or otherwise howsoever, from terminating the plaintiff's employment in breach of th Fair Labour Standards Ordinance 1988 until after the trial of this action or until further order.

4 The application for the ex parte injunction was heard by me in Chambers and was granted. A return date was fixed for Wednesday 16 ^th October 1996, on which date these proceedings were heard.

THE FACTS

5 The plaintiff is a reservation ticket agent employed since 1987 with the defendant and stationed at Wall Blake Airport in Anguilla. On or about the 13th September 1996 while the plaintiff was on duty at her place of work, an incident arose involving her and one Jeffrey Anderson, a Regional Operations Manager of the defendant. Mr. Anderson was the plaintiff's immediate supervisor. The incident resulted in an allegation of insubordination made by Mr. Anderson against the plaintiff. I shall not go into the details of the incident. Suffice it to say that, arising out of the incident, which arose in the course of a telephone conversation between both of them, Mr. Anderson lodged a formal complaint with the defendant regarding the plaintiff's conduct. The plaintiff also complained about Mr. Anderson's conduct towards her.

6 The defendants investigated the matter. They suspended the plaintiff and interviewed her. They interviewed Mr. Anderson as well. They also obtained written statements from each of them. At the conclusion of their investigation they summoned the plaintiff to a meeting on 11 ^th October, 1996. At that meeting the defendants informed the plaintiff that they had found her guilty of misconduct. They thereupon gave the plaintiff two options in lieu of terminating her employment.

7 The plaintiff was asked either to sign a letter of commitment agreeing to comply with all Company rules and regulations inclusive of both satisfactory work performance and personal conduct or to sign a general release agreeing to not exercising her internal grievance rights as described in company policy in which event the company would accept her resignation with certain benefits.

8 The plaintiff declined to accept either of the two options. She claims that prior to the 11 ^th October meeting she had referred her dispute with the defendants to the Labour Commissioner for investigation under the Department Ordinance 1988. Instead of responding; to the defendants' options, the plaintiff filed the Writ herein and sought injunctive relief.

9 The basis upon which the plaintiff claimed relief was that the defendant, as she alleged, was seeking to terminate her services for misconduct in breach of her legal lights to have the matter investigated by the Labour Department.

10 In asking the court to continue the restraining order the defendant alleged that she had not been given a fair opportunity to be heard by a fair and impartial tribunal; that if her employment was terminated unfairly and unlawfully, it is unlikely that she would be able to obtain comparative employment, given the scope of her field of employment, in a small island like Anguilla and that further, the defendants could not sufficiently compensate her in damages for such losses.

11 Her counsel also argued that the Labour Department Ordinance 1988, as well as the Fair Labour Standards Ordinance, invested the plaintiff with certain rights and that the defendant was seeking to terminate her services in breach of those rights.

12 In the course of argument four authorities were cited to me for consideration and I am grateful to Counsel for the defendants for drawing the court's attention to these cases. The cases deal with the granting of injunctive relief against an employer at the suit of an employee.

13 I shall try to examine each of these cases and to distill the principles which appear to me to underline them. I shall also look at the two ordinances in Anguilla which were cited and comment upon them.

14 The first case referred to was the case of Hill v. Parsons [1972] Ch. 305. The essential facts of this case were that a trade union sought to force employers only to employ members of the trade union. They actually so agreed with the employers. Some of the workers declined to join the trade union and as a result, the employers purported to terminate their services. The plaintiff, one of the affected workers, brought an action seeking an injunction to restrain the employers from firing him. Both Lord Denning and Lord Sachs (Stamp LJ dissenting) overruled the trial Judge who had opined that he had no power to grant such an interlocutory injunction. There were several powerful factors in the plaintiff's favour. Firstly, damages would not have been an adequate remedy. Secondly, certain provisions of the Industrial Relations Act conferred important rights upon the plaintiff and, if no injunction were granted he would lose the opportunity of taking advantage of these rights. Thirdly, it could be said that the employer had lost trust and confidence in the employee.

15 The case of Hill v. Parsons was explained and distinguished in the case of Chappell v. Times Newspapers Ltd. And Others [1975] 2 All.E.R. 233. In the latter case, a Trade Union, the National Graphical Association (NGA), had issued instructions to its members who were all employed by National Newspapers (represented by the Newspapers Publishers Association or NPA) to take industrial action at strateqic times against the newspapers represented by the NPA. Very effective industrial action was taken causing serious losses to the newspapers represented by the NPA. The plaintiffs had not been involved in any of the action taken but were loyal members of the NGA. The NPA responded to the industrial action by issuing a release stating that any of the workers who engaged in the disruptive action would be regarded as having terminated their contracts of employment. The plaintiffs thereupon issued a writ against the newspapers seeking an interlocutory injunction restraining the newspapers from treating their contracts as having been ended in the event that the trade union of which they were members carried out its threat to take industrial action.

16 At the hearing of the interlocutory proceedings the judge requested the plaintiffs to give an undertaking that they themselves would personally not participate in any industrial action. The plaintiffs declined to give any such undertaking. In the circumstances, the court refused the injunction. The plaintiffs then appealed to the court of Appeal and in the course of his judgment Lord Denning made it clear that the circumstances in Hill v. Parsons which warranted injunctive relief against the employer in that case were exceptional.. Lord Denning appeared to attach much weight to the fact that in Hill v. Parsons both employers and the men had complete confidence in each other. He stated:

“….The employers-against their wishes — gave the men notice of the termination of his employment. It was given under pressure from a trade union. The notice was invalid. By granting an injunction the law was vindicated and justice was done”.

17 Lord Justice Geoffrey Lane had this to say:

“Very rarely will a court enforce, either by specific performance or by injunction, a contract for services, either at the behest of the employers or the employee. The reason is obvious: if one party has no faith in the honesty or integrity or the loyalty of the other, to force him to serve or to employ the other is a plain recipe for disaster”.

18 Lord Justice Stephenson, quoting other judges, referred to Hill v. Parsons as “Highly exceptional” and “unusual, if not unique”. He however felt quite able to make exceptions to the general rule that a court will not grant specific performance of a contract of personal services. These exceptions should be made “in accordance with the general principles on which discretionary remedies are granted, namely where, and only where, an injunction is required by justice and equity in a particular case, and, at the interim stage by the balance...