HDC to pay ex-engineer for 'reprehensible' firing

A HIGH COURT judge has deemed a move by the Housing Development Corporation (HDC) to send one of its senior managers on administrative leave, then firing him, without notice, “deliberate and reprehensible.”

For this reason, Justice Avason Quinlan-Williams ordered the HDC to compensate its former chief construction engineer, Aaron Chadee.

Chadee, who first joined the HDC in August 2011, will receive $39,300, representing one month’s salary, and $75,000 in exemplary damages to “reflect the nature of the defendant’s unlawful behavour.”

The sum ordered by the court was much less than the $865,000 Chadee had asked for in his wrongful dismissal claim to cover the remaining time on his contract.

Chadee was waiting the formal execution of his fourth two-year contract with the HDC when he and six other senior managers, including former HDC managing director Jearlean John, were sent on administrative leave pending an audit in December 2015, months after there was a change in government. The move was announced to the public in a press release from the HDC. Three months later, Chadee and the others were fired.

While she found that the HDC did have the option to terminate Chadee’s contract, she said the corporation could not rely on that option if “if their course of conduct and behaviour was deliberately conducted to give a contrary impression that the claimant was terminated for cause.”

She also concluded, “The manner by which the claimant was sent on administrative leave coupled with the termination of his employment, has satisfied the court that the claimant was subjected to an investigation and findings that the defendant was satisfied warranted his termination.

However, she said, “Whatever occurred was certainly not within the contractual provisions of Clause 12 nor was it within the disciplinary provisions of Clause 5 and Clause 10 (of Chadee’s employment contract.”

She added, “The court, however, does not agree that the defendant can still rely on that option if their course of conduct and behaviour was deliberately conducted to give a contrary impression that the claimant was terminated for cause.”

She also said the termination letter, when examined, defied the “truthfulness” of the HDC’s assertion that Chadee was given notice of his termination.

“In this case, the court is satisfied that the defendant’s overall conduct was deliberate and reprehensible. In particular, the publication of the notice to send the claimant on administrative leave – including his name to media houses were calculated so that the public could draw adverse inferences on the claimant’s conduct of his duties.

“In addition, there was the public notice when the claimant was dismissed.

“There was nothing to suggest that the claimant was dismissed pursuant to any right of the contract of employment or that the claimant’s contract of employment was terminated without the defendant having made a finding during the audit, that the claimant was not involved in some activity contrary to his contract and what the defendant expected.”

The judge also found that the HDC’s behaviour to be “planned and deliberate” and that there were “efforts to conceal the behaviour.”

“The defendant disregarded that the process they adopted entitled the claimant to an opportunity to be heard and to natural justice.”

She was also critical of the HDC’s failure to adduce evidence of the written notice sending the claimant on administrative leave, documentary records of: the decision to send the claimant on administrative leave; reasons for ordering the audit; the decision to terminate the claimant’s employment; and the two public notices issued to the media.

“The court would have expected the defendant to adduce evidence on these matters.

As such, the court has drawn an adverse inference that the only reason the evidence was not presented was because it would have supported the claimant’s claim of being wrongfully dismissed.

“The court is satisfied that the adverse inference would support the claimant’s claim that he was not dismissed on notice.”

In his claim, Chadee said he was terminated in a harsh and oppressive manner. He said it was done with malicious intent in a premeditated manner and he still does not know the status of the audit or any findings as it related to him.

He also said because of the press releases he was subjected to intense and protracted public scrutiny and had suffered loss of reputation and employability.

In its defence, the HDC’s lawyers also asked the court not to ascribe to the corporation any negative connotation of the press releases.

Chadee was represented by attorneys David-Mark Kidney and Samantha Mohammed while the HDC was represented by Andre Rudder and Anthony Bullock.