A former centre manager for the Jamaica 4-H Clubs who had hauled the entity to court for terminating his employment, and was seeking reinstatement and damages, has been sent packing after a ruling by Chief Justice Bryan Sykes which among other things held that he is “not a public servant”.

The man, who was initially temporarily employed as centre manager in the first instance at the Denbigh 4-H Centre, Clarendon, in August 2008, was in 2009 assigned additional duties to carry out the functions of centre manager at the Vernamfield 4-H Centre, also in the parish, by the board.

However, the board in another letter dated February 18, 2011 advised the employee that “your period of temporary employment is extended to August 3, 2011”, but added, “your temporary employment relates to a position which is not vacant and hinges on the expiration of our school garden project which officially ends August 4, 2011”.

The employee, in response to that letter, countered with a letter of his own arguing that his original temporary appointment did not indicate that there was no vacancy, and that his engagement temporarily was consistent with the staff orders. He stated that since his performance evaluation was satisfactory, the position being vacant, and that a temporary appointment should not exceed six months, he had a legitimate expectation that he would have been appointed to the post.

In a suit filed in the Civil Division of the Supreme Court, the disgruntled employee sought to have the court quash the decision (certiorari) to end his employment, and to compel the board (mandamus) to re-employ him in the position he was in at the time of the termination. He also asked for damages to be assessed in his claim.

However Justice Sykes, in throwing out the claim in its entirety in a ruling handed down on May 26, said “the judicial traffic in these circumstances is all one way: Employment by a statutory body, without more, does not transform the employee into a public servant within the meaning of the Constitution of Jamaica and the appointment process set out there”.

Furthermore, Justice Sykes said, “the 4-H Clubs here, while being funded by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, remains an independent statutory body with its own corporate identity. Mr (name redacted) is therefore not a public servant and therefore cannot secure a remedy by judicial review”.

“The fact that the contract referred to the statutes and Public Service Regulations which would govern the contract between Mr (name redacted) and the board did not have the power to make him a public servant in law. The contract cannot override the words, legal effect, and legal consequence of an Act of Parliament. The parties, in this case, cannot, by the private law route, negate the effect of legislation,” the chief justice declared further.

“The evidence is that (he) was offered employment by the board and not the public service. There is no evidence that (he) was ever a member of the civil service and assigned or seconded to the 4-H Clubs. The evidence is that (his) terms of employment were governed solely by those offered by the board. The reference to the public service staff orders did not have the legal power to transform employment by a statutory corporate body into a civil service one,” the head of the judiciary outlined.

“Since (he) is not a public servant then the public law remedies of certiorari and mandamus are not open to him…not a public servant, no public law remedies are available. This is sufficient to dispose of the matter,” Justice Sykes declared.

Going further to address the former employee’s claims that his expectation that he would be appointed once his assessment was positive and other requirements were met was legitimate, Justice Sykes said, “assuming (he) was a public servant, his claim under this head would fail because he has not met the legal standard”.

Justice Sykes said there was no evidence to support the former centre manager’s claims that during his interview he was told that his temporary appointment was a step in filling a clear vacancy.

“There is no other evidence to support this assertion other than [redacted’s] words. It does not necessarily follow that his word is insufficient, but there is no contemporaneous documentation consistent with his assertion. The documentation that exists shows that there was a qualification. There is nothing to suggest that the post to which he was temporarily appointed was vacant,” the chief justice stated.

He said another problem for the claimant was that, “even if the promise was made, it could not possibly have been fulfilled because there was no vacancy for him to which he could be appointed”.

“The board has said that the officer holder would be returning, having been reassigned to carry out duties as the Portland development officer for the period of what was called a national school garden project. There is no credible evidence to suggest that the board’s position is factually untrue,” the judge pointed out.

As to the request for damages, Justice Sykes said, “the affidavit filed in support of the fixed date claim does not allege any damage suffered. The defendant is entitled to know the basis of the claim made against it. This was not provided and therefore the claim cannot be entertained. In any event, there is nothing to suggest that (he) suffered any loss of any kind because there was no evidence that he was dismissed. What he was told in 2011 is that the national school garden project may come to an end in August 2011 and the incumbent would return to the post if that eventuality occurred. He was told this in February which was ample time (six months) for him to find other employment or make other suitable arrangements”.