Ex-WASA manager files for $2.2m over unpaid benefits, breach of contract

A RETIRED Water and Sewerage Authority (WASA) employee has been largely successful in his lawsuit against his former employer for unpaid benefits and vacation leave and damages for breach of contract.

However, Mervyn Pierre will not receive the entire $2.24 million he sought in his lawsuit, which alleged a history of delayed contracts, oral agreements and unfulfilled salary adjustments spanning multiple contractual periods.

The exact figure is to be worked out, but he will also be entitled to interest on the final sum.

Justice Frank Seepersad presided over the two-day trial, at which Pierre and senior WASA officials testified, including its corporate secretary and general counsel Dion Abdool.

In an oral ruling, the judge rejected WASA’s defence that Pierre was on an ad-hoc month-to-month arrangement after his second fixed-term contract ended in 2012.

Seepersad expressed concern about the lack of documentary evidence in the case. He said it was implausible that after two fixed-term contracts, Pierre would agree to continue on a month-to-month arrangement without provisions.

He admitted the evidence caused “disquiet” in the court’s mind. “I have difficulty understanding how an institution with a significant mandate allowed a manner of ad-hoc arrangements to operate since 2009. This level of administrative dysfunction and malaise is a cause for concern.”

Seepersad said if WASA continued to operate in this way, citizens' complaints about the authority’s service would also continue.

“This can never lend itself to efficiencies and the woes of citizens would continue.”

He suggested the authority “get its house in order and operate with efficiency and consistency.”

Wasa employed Pierre, a former manager of security services, on a series of fixed-term contracts beginning in 2008.

According to court documents, he claimed WASA repeatedly failed to formalise contract terms promptly, leading to a reliance on oral agreements, and delayed adjustments to his salary and allowances.

The claim said Pierre accepted a one-year contract starting August 4, 2008. Although his appointment was initially oral, a written contract was signed in December 2009.

Pierre’s contracts were consistently renewed, but written agreements were delayed. He complained his salary and allowances were never adjusted to align with the 2013 range 68 monthly-paid managers' scale, despite assurances from WASA officials.

Pierre was suspended with full pay pending an investigation on February 3, 2016. He asked for information on the probe to defend the allegations, but specifics were not disclosed.

On June 5, 2018, WASA terminated his contract before it was schduled to expire, on August 3, 2020.

Pierre contends that WASA owes him for unused vacation leave, salary adjustments, gratuities and compensation for the unexpired term of his final contract. His claim seeks payment of unused leave over five contract periods, totalling $471,460.73; arrears for salary upgrades amounting to $614,578.30; and 15 per cent gratuities on contract fees for multiple periods at $328,011.70

Pierre also sought $823,541.94 for the unexpired term of his final contract.

In total, Pierre claims WASA owes him $2,238,652.47.

He alleged that WASA breached its contractual obligations and its actions caused significant financial and professional harm.

In its defence, WASA maintains the claim is statute-barred and the authority did not promise him fixed-term contracts. The authority also argued that after the expiry of his fixed-term contract in 2012, he was employed on the terms of an oral contract on a month-to-month basis until he retired.

In its defence, WASA said the claim was “frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court’s process,” as it raised no grounds for bringing the claim and should be struck out.

WASA contended he was paid his gratuities under his first fixed-term contracts, but from August 2012-August 2020, Pierre received his agreed salary and allowances and was not entitled to increases agreed to in the collective agreement for permanent monthly-paid managers.

Pierre testified at the two-day trial and brought two witnesses. WASA called two witnesses, including its general counsel/corporate secretary Dion Abdool.

Attorneys Navindra Ramnanan and Nekeisha Clarke represented Pierre. Senior Counsel Kerwyn Garcia and Vishma Jaisingh represented WASA.

In submissions at the end of the evidence, Garcia urged the judge to reject the claim. Admitting WASA struggled with its pleadings, he insisted Pierre was on a month-to-month contract “or ad-hoc arrangement” after the end of his first two fixed-term contracts from 2012-2018. He said this arrangement did not include the payment of a higher salary, gratuity or unused vacation.

“He was holding over on a month-to-month contract.”

Rejecting WASA’s position, Ramnanan said this was not a case of ad-hoc arrangements. He said Pierre was offered and accepted employment on the same terms and later made a bid for a higher salary review.

Ramnanan said either way, Pierre would have reverted to the original terms of his previous fixed-term contracts.

“There is no dispute his contract was renewed. The court can still find he has entitlements even if you disagree with him on the increases.”

He also said by pursuing an investigation and his removal for cause, WASA treated him as being on a fixed-term contract, since a clause on “removal for cause” was embedded in the previous contracts.

“They have failed to establish he was on a month-to-month contract.”

He said WASA operated like a “toolum parlour.”

Seepersad said it defied commercial logic to engage in an investigation for an employee on month-to-month employment when they could just be given a month’s notice and their employment terminated.

Although Pierre was successful in a large part of his claim, the judge made no order for WASA to pay his costs, and each side will bear its own.