The Industrial Disputes Tribunal (IDT) says that the termination of an employee of Kingston Wharves Limited (KWL) following the revocation of his port identification card by the Port Authority of Jamaica (PAJ) was unjustifiable.
The IDT said that it took note of the fact that the PAJ revoked the port identification card of stevedore co-ordinator Marlon Gordon in 2011, making him ineligible to enter Port Bustamante, where he had been employed for 15 years. This led to his immediate dismissal by his employer, Kingston Wharves, because he could no longer enter the port to perform his duties.
The IDT has ordered Gordon’s reinstatement with payment of 18 months’ salary at current rate, or three years’ salary at current rates, if he is not reinstated. But the issue is likely to have some serious implications for how security is handled at the ports in the future.
The authority for the PAJ to revoke the identity documents of port workers without giving reasons follows changes to port security regulations made following the 9/11 bombings in the United States.
The legislation was introduced in Jamaica in 2005 and, according to the Union of Clerical, Administrative and Supervisory Employees (UCASE), which represented Gordon, has led to a number of port workers being fired without being told the reasons for the withdrawal of their identification cards or their dismissal.
Since 2005, companies engaged on Jamaica’s ports, including KWL, have to comply with requests from the PAJ to withdraw port identification cards issued to the port workers, even when there is no explanation for the withdrawals. Without the identification cards, the employer is forced to dismiss the worker, because he is unable to re-enter the port to work.
The IDT panel, which included Norman Wright, Trevor McNish and Rion Hall, took exception to the role played by KWL in Gordon’s dismissal, suggesting that the company should “come under scrutiny”.
“Here was an employee with 15 years of legal service who had committed no breach known to his employer, neither was he accused of any misconduct known to anyone, and was losing his job without knowing why, and his employer did not act on his behalf to assist him to retain his job,” the arbitrators argued.
However, Kingston Wharves has distanced itself from responsibility for Gordon’s sacking. The company has noted that as one of the agencies using the port facilities, it has to comply with the instructions from the PAJ relating to the security operations at the ports, even if the PAJ fails to give reasons for requesting the action.
The IDT noted that by using its authority under the Port Authority Act of 1972, the PAJ wrote Kingston Wharves on October 31, 2011 stating:
“Pursuant to Regulations 10 (4)(b) of the Port Authority (Port Management and Security) Regulations, 2010, the Authority is requiring that the prescribed identification cards held by the persons named on the attached list be surrendered forthwith to the Authority.
Consequently, we are requesting that you retrieve the Port Identification Card from these persons who are in your employ and return them to the vice-president of security at the Port Authority of Jamaica by Wednesday, November 2, 2011.”
The IDT heard that attached to the letter were the names of nine identification card holders, including Gordon, all of whom were immediately fired by Kingston Wharves, “pursuant to its legal obligations under the Act and the regulations”.
Kingston Wharves said that, on receiving the letter from the Port Authority, it had no alternative but to write Gordon, and the others, terminating their contract of employment and outlining the provisions of the Act and Regulations, including that “the revocation of your prescribed identification document means that you are unable to perform the job for which you were employed…”
UCASE said that Gordon sought its help because he has an “impeccable disciplinary record, good standing with his employer and the absence of any allegation or accusation of misconduct”.
