A former Loan Officer has taken Community First Co-Operative Credit Union to the Industrial Court, alleging that she was unfairly and oppressively dismissed after suffering a medical emergency while overseas on approved vacation leave.
According to the employee, she travelled overseas with management’s knowledge and approval to attend to an urgent family matter. However, while abroad, she reportedly became seriously ill and was forced to seek emergency medical treatment.
The employee missed her scheduled 8:00 a.m. return flight to Antigua after being discharged from medical care early Thursday morning. The employee further states that she informed management that she was sick on Friday, the day she was scheduled to return to work.
The employee reportedly returned to Antigua on Sunday and went to work on Monday, where she carried out her duties throughout the day without issue. However, according to the employee’s claim, only minutes before the end of the workday, she was suddenly called into a disciplinary hearing without proper notice, written allegations, or adequate time to prepare a defence or secure representation.
The employee further contends that despite providing medical records, updated travel itineraries, airline communications, bank statements, and proof of ticket purchases, the Credit Union proceeded to summarily dismiss her for dishonesty because she did not declare that she had not returned to Antigua.
The claim describes the employer’s conduct as “extremely unreasonable, grossly unfair, harsh and oppressive.” The former employee is now seeking compensation for unfair dismissal, damages for the manner of dismissal, exemplary damages, and legal costs.
Public attention surrounding the matter intensified last week after Mr. Javonson Willock, Industrial and Employment Relations Consultant, made a Facebook post criticising the dismissal. In the post, Willock described the termination as “one of the harshest, most oppressive, and unreasonable terminations within the past year.”
Willock argued that the real issue was whether the employee was genuinely ill, not whether she happened to be overseas at the time. “If you sick, you sick. If you not sick, you not sick. Location is irrelevant,” he wrote.
The post later attracted responses from Ms. Rhonda Grant, the HR Manager connected to the dismissal, who questioned how Willock could speak “with such authority” on a matter involving someone he had never met personally. The HR Manager further suggested that as Willock “grows in Industrial Relations,” he would learn the importance of clarifying facts before publicly commenting on matters affecting individuals’ reputations.
Willock later responded that he had no personal issue with the HR Manager and was not attacking her personally, but rather criticising her decision to dismiss the employee in a manner that he deems harsh and oppressive.
Another social media participant, Mr. Anderson Carty, who claimed to possess first-hand knowledge of the matter, also entered the discussion and publicly described the employer’s actions as “egregious,” while accusing the HR department of lacking humanity in its treatment of workers.
The online exchanges have since fueled wider public debate surrounding fairness in disciplinary proceedings, the treatment of employees during medical emergencies, and whether some employers are becoming excessively punitive in workplace investigations.
The Industrial Court is ultimately expected to determine whether the dismissal was lawful and whether the employee was denied procedural fairness and good industrial relations practice.
Willock, who now serves as an Industrial Relations and Research Officer within the Antigua and Barbuda Trademen & United Workers’ Federation, is expected to appear on behalf of the employee.