Defence Force officers win case over promotions

A major and a captain in the Defence Force (TTDF) have successfully challenged their promotions' effective dates.

In separate decisions on June 28, Justice Margaret Mohammed ruled in favour of George Belfon and Olatunji Rudder-Fisher in their claims against the Commanding Officer of the Regiment, the Defence Force Commissions Board and the State.

In both cases, the judge declared the regiment’s commanding officer and the commissions board erred in law and procedure. Their failure to promote the two captains on their effective promotion dates - commonly referred to as due dates in the military - was also deemed unlawful.

The judge ordered the captain’s immediate retroactive promotions on their correct due dates of September 16, 2020, in Belfon’s case and April 5, 2017, for Rudder-Fisher.

Both officers are also to receive their accrued salaries and benefits and were also awarded vindicatory damages for the breach of their rights.

In both cases, the judge said the award of vindicatory damages was ordered to act as a deterrence. In Rudder.Fisher’s case, she added, “There must be some sense of outrage about the insensitive and laissez-faire approach the relevant authorities took in failing to treat the claimant’s complaint which he had been actively pursuing for years.

“Further, it is important that the court signals to the defendants that a breach of the claimant’s rights under sections 4(b) and (d)of the Constitution is significant and therefore it should serve to act as a deterrence from further breaches.”

She added, “In my opinion, the declarations which the claimant has sought are not sufficient to vindicate the clear breach of his constitutional rights as the defendants’ actions caused him to lose seniority without justification.

“I was satisfied that there was significant distress caused to the claimant in the instant case as his loss of seniority was significant.

In both cases, the TTDF’s position opposing the orders was that the officers’ complaints were reviewable through an internal grievance process. The judge dismissed this argument, ruling that the Defence Force Act did not preclude the officers from seeking redress in the court.

The TTDF also defended the effective date of promotion for both officers. In Belfon’s case, it was alleged he had unfavourable performance appraisals. In Rudder-Fisher’s case, it was alleged there was a disciplinary matter against him.

In her ruling in Belfon’s claim, Mohammed said the commissions' board erred in law and procedure by taking into account a six-month performance appraisal and not the annual appraisal.

In Rudder-Fisher’s case, she held there were “material errors in the disciplinary process” against him in 2010 so the imposition of a fine and the loss of 11 months of seniority was unlawful.

In both cases, she held the TTDF acted unlawfully by “deviating” from Rule 10 of the Defence Force Commissions Board rules when it came to the officers’ effective promotion dates.

Both officers were represented by attorneys Arden Williams, Anthony Moore and Mariah Ramrattan while the State and the TTDF were represented by Rachel Jacob, Makeda Browne-Alfred, Lianne Thomas, Melissa Papoonsingh, Monica Smith, Keron Maynard, Amrita Ramsook and Savitri Maharaj.