The ATL Group Pension Fund Trustees Nominees Limited’s challenge of an award made by the Industrial Disputes Tribunal (IDT) that a former executive, Catherine Barber, was unjustifiably dismissed is set for trial April 18-20, 2016.

Barber had admitted under cross-examination at the IDT in June last year that she backdated letters purporting to give permission for the distribution of surpluses from the ATL Group Pension Fund.

She had also admitted that prior to December 16, 2010, the only persons who saw the backdated letters were herself and Patrick Lynch, the former chairman of the ATL Group Pension Fund.

Under cross-examination by attorney Hugh Wildman, Barber said she backdated the letters which made it appear that the founder, Gorstew Limited, had given permission for the distribution of billions of dollars in surpluses for the years 1998, 2001, and 2004.

Barber had further testified that no one had advised or instructed her to backdate the letters, and said she did it after attorney-at-law Lynda Mair advised her that consent from Gorstew Limited for the distribution of surpluses needed to have been in writing.

Barber had taken the company to the IDT, claiming that she was unjustly dismissed as general manager of the fund. But the company contended that her dismissal was lawful and just.

In its findings, the IDT concluded that Barber procured the signing of backdated letters by Dr Jeffery Pyne, former managing director of Gorstew Ltd, in December 2010, several months after Dr Pyne left the company and had no authority to sign those letters.

During the IDT hearing, Barber had also come under pressure over conflict of interest issues regarding an apartment that Lynch and his wife wanted to purchase.

She said she didn’t inform a meeting of the board of trustees, of which Lynch was then the chairman, that he had signed a sales agreement and paid a deposit and further payment towards the purchase of the apartment.

At another point during the cross-examination, Wildman suggested to Barber that she had misled the board in relation to the last valuation of the apartment located in Norbrook, St Andrew. Barber had advised the board that there was a valuation for the apartment done in 2006 when there was no such valuation as the last valuation was done in 2003.

Barber agreed that the matter of disposing of the company’s assets was important and that such an issue should be brought to the entire board of trustees. She gave evidence that it was brought to the attention of a board meeting in September 2007. However, minutes of the meeting to which Barber signed off on didn’t reflect this.

She admitted also that she didn’t bring to the attention of the board that Lynch had submitted a cheque to the lawyer instructed to prepare the sales agreement for the apartment. She said she had returned the cheque to Lynch and not the lawyer who had prepared the sales agreement and received the cheque from Lynch.

In late August 2015, the IDT found that, notwithstanding the evidence presented to it by the company and Barber, she had been unjustifiably dismissed and ordered reinstatement or 260 weeks’ emoluments at the current rate.

The company was granted leave to commence judicial review proceedings in October 2015 to quash the IDT’s decision on the basis that the tribunal failed to consider relevant evidence and misconstrued evidence which clearly showed that the company would have been justified in dismissing Barber. Further, the company also showed, and was accordingly granted leave, that the award of monetary compensation made in favour of her was irrational in that no reasons were given to justify the amount awarded.

The company was represented at the hearing of the application by Wildman and Jerome Spencer while the IDT was represented by Susan Reid Jones and Barber by Gavin Goffe and Jermaine Case of Myers, Fletcher and Gordon.