RBTT ordered to reinstate teller in case of lost Guardsman cash
Published:Sunday | July 10, 2011 | 12:00 AM
McPherse Thompson, Associate Editor - Business
The Industrial Disputes Tribunal (IDT) has ordered that a teller supervisor dismissed by RBTT Bank Jamaica three years ago for gross negligence in connection with the disappearance of a J$1.7-million lodgement belonging to a Kingston business be reinstated.
The bank plans to appeal the decision.
Audrey Miller was dismissed July 1, 2008, six and a half months after a bag, delivered by Guardsman Armoured Limited to the bank's Liguanea branch and said to contain the money in cash and cheques, went missing.
The bag was later found at the back of the premises minus the contents.
The three-member IDT panel, chaired by Charles Jones, found that the dismissal was unjustifiable and this week made the award that Miller should be reinstated retroactive to the date of dismissal.
Miller was represented at the IDT by the Bustamante Industrial Trade Union (BITU).
RBTT to challenge ruling
The award notwithstanding, Gavin Goffe, one of the attorneys who represented RBTT at the IDT hearing, told Sunday Business on Wednesday that the bank would be challenging the ruling in the Supreme Court, but he could not say whether Miller would be reinstated in her position in the interim.
Miller was employed as a teller at Jamaica Citizens Bank in 1989. In the ensuing years, the bank changed ownership and names and it is now conducting business as RBTT Bank Jamaica.
According to submissions made before the IDT panel, on December 14, 2007, Guardsman Armoured delivered the deposit to the remittance area of the RBTT Liguanea branch.
The remittance area is the place where night and day deposit bags are received, secured, the contents counted, and then posted to the appropriate accounts.
However, the tribunal heard that the bag in question was not checked because a representative of the Kingston business was not available, and the arrangement with the client was that such a person should be present when the contents were being verified.
Miller, as lock-up officer, was responsible for verifying at the end of the day that the lodgements received had been recorded on a register and posted to the relevant accounts. She was also responsible for ensuring the bag was either opened and the contents verified, or locked away as unprocessed.
The BITU asserted that Miller performed all her functions on the day in question with the exception of the verification of the deposit, which she deferred to Monday, December 17, 2007 — the day the empty bag was found during a search of the premises.
The union contended that in deferring the verification of the deposit, Miller did what had become the practice, which was known to and supported by her supervisor and operations officer, Andrea Mesquita, and, therefore, her action could not be justifiably treated as gross negligence.
In its decision, the tribunal found that "the deferring of the verification appears to be a deep-rooted practice at the bank".
It said further that "the habit was in existence at the time that Miss Miller was employed at the branch as teller supervisor" and continued with the full knowledge and tacit approval of the operations officer.
Lack of evidence
The panel said no evidence was adduced before the tribunal that anyone, with the exception of Miller, was ever disciplined by or even served a warning letter by the bank, although notices had been circulated to the workers requesting that they discontinue the practice.
Additionally: "There is no evidence before the tribunal that indicates that Ms Miller was properly informed or given reasonable cause to believe that she could be dismissed for a first offence of deferring the verification," the panel said.
The bank's attorney had argued that the disciplinary code allowed discretion to either suspend or dismiss Miller for a first offence, but chose the latter "because of her continued failures even after the money was lost".
However, the tribunal said nothing in the letter of dismissal could reasonably be interpreted as notification to Miller that she was dismissed for her continued failures.
"The document states precisely that Ms Miller was dismissed because of gross negligence committed on a particular day - December 14, 2007," the panel said.
In the ruling, the IDT also noted that the bank's management had, or should have had within a few days, enough information of what transpired at the branch on December 14 to form a reasonable opinion of Miller's performance.
The panel equated Miller's continuation of her duties for another six months as a demonstration of "continued confidence" in her ability to perform the functions of teller supervisor.
The tribunal opined that, at the time of the dismissal, RBTT could not have genuinely lost confidence in Miller's ability, and so found the sacking unjustifiable.