-Overturns Wrongful Dismissal Ruling
By: G. Bennie Bravo Johnson, I.
The National Labor Court in Monrovia has overturned a ruling by a Ministry of Labor Hearing Officer which held the National Port Authority (NPA) liable for wrongful dismissal and ordered the entity to reinstate and compensate its former Financial Comptroller. In a detailed judgment delivered by His Honor Judge Joseph M. Kollie, the Court ruled that the earlier decision was “unsupported by both the facts and the law” and therefore could not stand.
Judge Kollie stated that the Hearing Officer “acted in error when he ordered the National Port Authority to pay the dismissed employee more than US$280,000 in salary, gasoline, rice allowances, scratch cards, and other benefits.” The Court further set aside the order for reinstatement, declaring that the employee’s removal from his post was lawful and justified under the circumstances.
The ruling came after the NPA filed a petition for judicial review, challenging the Ministry of Labor’s findings that the former Financial Comptroller had been illegally dismissed. The Hearing Officer had ordered that the employee be reinstated or compensated with the equivalent of two years’ salary and accumulated benefits. However, the Labor Court concluded that the evidence did not support such relief.
“After carefully examining the testimony and the records certified before this Court, it is clear that the decision of the Hearing Officer cannot legally be sustained,” Judge Kollie said in his ruling. He noted that the central issues in dispute were whether the dismissal constituted grave misconduct under Section 14.3 of the Decent Work Act and whether the compensation awarded was supported by evidence.
During the proceedings, the Court found that the former Financial Comptroller had authorized several questionable financial transactions. One of the chief points of controversy was what the Court described as the payment of “US$59,000 to a political party from the corporate social responsibility funds of the Port.” The Judge emphasized that corporate social responsibility funds are not authorized to be used for political purposes under any circumstances.
Testimony also showed that the dismissed employee authorized the transfer of L$350,000 to Norfolk Marina without following procurement procedures or securing the approval of the NPA’s Board of Directors. Additionally, evidence was presented regarding the payment of more than US$50,000 to a business entity identified as Bashir Business Center for goods which, according to testimony before the Labor Court, were never delivered.
“These testimonies stand unrebutted on the records,” Judge Kollie stated. He explained that although counsel for the dismissed employee announced an intention to produce a rebuttal witness, “at no point during the hearing was such a witness ever produced.” The Court concluded that the evidence pointed clearly to financial irregularities attributable to the former Financial Comptroller.
According to the Judge, such conduct “clearly meets the standard of grave misconduct as defined by Section 14.3(d)(v) of the Decent Work Act, which includes the misuse of employer funds or actions resulting in loss to the employer.” He therefore held that the NPA acted within the law when it dismissed its former Comptroller.
On the question of benefits, the Court observed that the former employee “failed to produce documentary evidence to substantiate his claims for gasoline, scratch cards, rice allowance, or salary arrears.” The Judge added that while a complainant may assert entitlement to certain benefits, “oral testimony alone, without supporting records, is insufficient to establish liability in monetary claims.”
Similarly, the Court stated that the dismissed employee did not introduce any document establishing his rate of pay, making it impossible for the Hearing Officer to lawfully calculate and award two years’ salary as compensation. “A judgment for compensation must be grounded in evidence,” the decision emphasized.
In conclusion, Judge Kollie ruled that the dismissal was proper and that the Hearing Officer’s ruling was contrary to the facts presented. He therefore declared, “The Petitioner is not liable for payment of compensation to the Second Respondent. And it is hereby so ordered.”
