KINGSTON, Jamaica — The Industrial Disputes Tribunal (IDT) has ruled that State oil company Petrojam unjustifiably dismissed former General Manager Howard Mollison four years ago and ordered that he be paid $15.8 million in compensation.

The ruling was issued Wednesday, September 9, 2020 after the IDT heard oral submissions over 14 sittings between June 3, 2019 and March 16, 2020.

Mollison, who was employed on a two-year contract/gratuity basis with effect from February 9, 2015, received a letter on Wednesday, July 20, 2016 informing him that he was dismissed with immediate effect.

However, he wrote to the permanent secretary in the Ministry of Labour and Social Security outlining a number of issues relating to his dismissal and engaged the services of then Opposition Senator Lambert Brown to represent him in his quest to seek redress.

After meetings between the parties failed to resolve the matter, the minister of labour and social security referred the dispute to the IDT for determination and settlement in accordance with Section 11A (1) (a) (i) of the Labour Relations and Industrial Disputes Act.

Basically, Petrojam had argued that Mollison was aware that the contract could be terminated on the return of the company’s general manager who had been seconded to Petroleum Corporation of Jamaica (PCJ).

“…With the return of the general manager to his substantive post, the company exercised its right to terminate Mr Mollison’s employment in accordance with the provisions of Clause 15 l(b) of his contract. This was the underlying basis for the termination of his contract with the company,” Petrojam’s attorney Angela Robertson argued.

However, Brown essentially posited that Petrojam had breached Clause 2 of the Employment (Termination and Redundancy Payment) Act relative to the right of notice at the time of termination.

He also said Mollison’s service was not terminated in accordance with the terms of his contract nor was it in accordance with the Joint Venture Agreement between PCJ and PDVSA, the Venezuelan company that owns a stake in Petrojam.

The IDT concluded that Clause 15 l(b) of Mollison’s contract of employment was merely used by the company to seek to justify the decision taken to abruptly terminate him, as there was no oral or written evidence presented that would have necessitated the immediate recall of the former general manager who was on secondment at PCJ. That, the tribunal said, was in breach of the provision for a six-month notice period prior to any recall.

“Members were of the view that the manner in which Mr Mollison’s dismissal was effected was more in keeping with the procedure for summary dismissal for cause, and not applicable in the case of someone who it was reported had provided outstanding service,” the IDT said.

In addition to the compensation order, the IDT ruled that the terminal payment made to him at the time of his dismissal should not be deducted from the compensation amount.